Never wrong.

[doppelgänger]

In the movie "Thank You For Smoking" Aaron Eckhart plays a professional PR spokesman for the tobacco industry named "Nick Naylor". In talking to his son about what he does for a living Nick says:

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

What does Nick mean by that statement? Is he right? What do you think of that idea?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

In the movie "Thank You For Smoking" Aaron Eckhart plays a professional PR spokesman for the tobacco industry named "Nick Naylor". In talking to his son about what he does for a living Nick says:

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

What does Nick mean by that statement? Is he right? What do you think of that idea?

Maybe what he means is that if you assemble your argument using logic, no matter how unreasonable the conclusion, you can still claim to be "right".

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

In the movie "Thank You For Smoking" Aaron Eckhart plays a professional PR spokesman for the tobacco industry named "Nick Naylor". In talking to his son about what he does for a living Nick says:

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

What does Nick mean by that statement? Is he right? What do you think of that idea?

I think he means that you can spin an argument in such a way that you fool that group of people Lincoln refered to when he said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

[Random]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

In the movie "Thank You For Smoking" Aaron Eckhart plays a professional PR spokesman for the tobacco industry named "Nick Naylor". In talking to his son about what he does for a living Nick says:

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

What does Nick mean by that statement? Is he right? What do you think of that idea?

I think it is definitely possible to construct an argument which utilises crystal clear logic and is devoid of fallacies and claim to be completely right, yet be essentially defending an erroneous conclusion.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Godlike

I think it is definitely possible to construct an argument which utilises crystal clear logic and is devoid of fallacies and claim to be completely right, yet be essentially defending an erroneous conclusion.

I reckon if an argument uses crystal clear logic and has an erroneous conclusion, either the logic contains hidden assumptions that are erroneous, or our conclusion is not in fact erroneous.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

In the movie "Thank You For Smoking" Aaron Eckhart plays a professional PR spokesman for the tobacco industry named "Nick Naylor". In talking to his son about what he does for a living Nick says:

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

What does Nick mean by that statement? Is he right? What do you think of that idea?

I think that he's right, assuming that the data used in the argument is correct. In order to argue correctly, all of your presuppositions, assumptions, and data must be correct, and the reasoning must be logical. Above all, the premises must connect logically and the conclusions must match the evidence presented.

Even if the data is incorrect, if the argument is correct, many times it will still withstand criticism, because incorrect data is often harder to detect than incorrect use of logic.

[KingNothing]

Is this the ice cream scene? If I remember correctly he was showing how to change the debate slightly so that he is right in the new debate. If you can do it smoothly the dumb audience doesn't realize you've changed the debate and they think you've won the original debate, when in fact you've won a completely different debate. Does that make sense?