Progymnasmata: Refutation & Confirmation

Classical Writing Exercises in Preparation for Rhetoric

This post is part of a series on the “progymnasmata” which is an ancient approach to teaching students the art of written composition. The word itself essentially means “before exercises” because these are the necessary skills one should acquire before entering into the discipline of Rhetoric (persuasion in writing and speech). You can go HERE to access the growing list of resources for learning and teaching the various elements of the progymnasmata. Enjoy!

The purpose of the Refutation and Confirmation exercise is to teach students the means by which claims made within a story, narrative, or account, may be attacked or defended. The ability to successfully undermine one claim while defending another is a critical part of Rhetoric (the art of persuasion). In this exercise you will learn the various angles from which a claim or story can be attacked or undermined. Conversely, you will also be shown how to reinforce and demonstrate the soundness of a given claim or story. 

There are many pools from which one may draw material to practice the arts of refutation and confirmation. From ancient times teachers of these exercises have typically chosen to use the well known Greek myths such as Cupid and Psyche, The Labors of Heracles, or Prometheus Stealing Fire from the gods, etc. Clearly we could draw on other mythologies too (e.g. Egyptian, Norse, Sumerian, etc.). Such stories continue to be useful in our own day for the purpose of learning these ancient skills. It is, however, important to eventually harvest the fruit of these exercises and apply them to the situations for which rhetoric is most often employed, namely Law, Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. 

We start by practicing these skills upon myths for the same reason it is good to use wooden swords when first learning the art of battle. If we make a mistake it may hurt a bit, but no one dies. In the same way, if we attempt to refute an idea in a myth and fail, no harm done. If we try to defend a claim but our defenses are penetrated, we live and learn. Eventually, though, we will need to switch to steel because real foes exist! May we have sufficiently learned how to parry the attack and return the strike when the time comes for it to really count. Whether we are called to give a defense for the hope we have in Christ, or perhaps it is necessary for us to disabuse someone of a dangerous idea, may we have learned to discern and separate truth from folly. This exercise is about bringing falsehoods to their knees begging for mercy while providing a mighty bulwark for what is true, good, and beautiful. Learn these skills now in safety so that you may bear them confidently with you when things get dark and dangerous.

Refuting something which is obviously false is of little benefit. In order to become better rhetorical swordsmen our refutation should attempt to undermine something which it is plausible to think someone might actually believe (or have believed at one time). Keep in mind that the myths which we will be practicing upon were once held dearly by many to be the very truth. Euthyphro, in Plato’s dialogue which bears that same name, very much believed the stories of the gods to be true. As Christians we know that while the Greek myths (and other myths) may contain some truths in them, much of what they claim is factually or historically false. For the purpose of this exercise you may imagine yourself as a first century Christian talking to your Greek neighbor who very much believes the myths. How can you disabuse him of his false ideas so as to be on better ground to present him with the true myth (the Christian faith)?

Here is the traditional process of refutation that has been handed down to us across the centuries.

1. State whether you are attacking the Teller of the story, the Source of the story, or the Subject of the story (or perhaps some combination thereof) and for what reasons.

2. Summarize the Story. Give a brief narration, relating accurately the details of the story as it was presented.

3. Demonstrate the flaws by either attacking the storyteller, attacking the source of the information, or attacking the subject matter itself (or its presentation).

This approach requires us to be careful for at least two reasons. First, as Christians we should take seriously the idea that we ought not to slander another person’s character (c.f. Proverbs 10:18). In other words we should not lower ourselves to the tactics that some unbelievers might use wherein they discredit someone by telling lies about them. We must have a firm commitment to the truth. Second, attacking the teller requires caution because we can very easily commit a logical fallacy in doing so. 

The ad hominem fallacy involves attacking the character of the person making an argument rather than dealing with the argument itself. For instance, if Plato says “There exists a separate world of immaterial objects which I call Forms” and then Aristotle replies, “Only fools believe in the existence of Forms apart from the material world” he is committing the ad hominem fallacy. For one, it is mere name calling. Additionally, even fools are sometimes right. This response simply doesn’t deal with Plato’s claim at all, it is a mere distraction from the argument.

In order to effectively attack the teller, while maintaining Christian piety and logical integrity, we must say only what is true and we must only attack the teller’s character insofar as it is directly relevant to the matter at hand. The attorney who points out that the witness currently on the stand has lied in three prior court cases (committed perjury) is not committing the ad hominem fallacy. He is demonstrating by inductive logic that this person’s testimony is unreliable. Likewise, pointing out the motivations of a person (or company) who stands to gain a great amount of wealth, fame, or honor if a story is believed may serve to undermine the teller’s credibility. This can easily become another fallacy, however, known as the “genetic fallacy.” Explaining the reason why someone says or believes something does not necessarily mean that what they are saying is untrue. In attacking the teller we have to realize that sometimes even bad people tell the truth or make sound arguments. Even people who have something to gain may nevertheless be stating things the way they are.

So, attacking the teller should not be considered as a sufficient defeater of a particular argument or claim being made. To present it as such would rightly be called a logical fallacy. If one wants to defeat a claim or argument this will require counter arguments and contrary evidence. Nevertheless, attacking the teller may demonstrate why the credibility of the teller should be considered suspect and/or why the motives of the storyteller may be less than honorable. 

This approach comes with many of the same exhortations and warnings as above. Keeping virtue in mind, this approach attempts to demonstrate that the source of a story, claim, or piece of information is somehow flawed or unreliable. The ways this may be argued often mirror “attacking the storyteller” but with the important difference than one could spare the storyteller’s personal character by attacking their sources rather than the one telling the story. Here are some way the sources may be attacked:

1. The quality and value of a source might be challenged if it is anonymous. An example of this is the fact that the inclusion of the New Testament book of Hebrews in the canon of Scripture was a matter of debate for a while. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Christians recognized the text as Scripture from the start, a few church fathers in the 2nd-3rd centuries questioned its authenticity due to the fact that the text claims no author.

2. Possibly the story depends on second or third hand information and therefore lacks eye-witness (1st person) testimony. The term for this is “hearsay.” Hearsay refers to when a witness reports someone else's words or claims which they cannot verify themselves. If Johnny is telling you what Billy’s sister Sarah said to him, it is hearsay. Johny can neither directly affirm or deny what Sarah said, he is reporting someone else’s words or experience. In a court of law this is typically not allowed. That being said, much of investigative reporting is a process of reporting what other people have said. That information is not first hand does not mean it is bad information, it's just typically less preferable to firsthand information because it leaves more room for the possibility of misinformation to creep in.

3. Again the story may come from a source which had a vicious motive to eschew the facts. Remember that sources are just “tellers” from a different time (whether recent or ancient). Their motives may sometimes be questioned. If a person gives information about the founding of Rome based upon Virgil’s Aeneid, one might be able to question whether Virgil as the court historian of Rome might have had reason to embellish his account to make Rome look good. 

Other reasons may also be given to question the quality of a source. Use your imagination.

The subject matter or content of a story may be attacked if…

1. The story lacks relevance. Depending on the context in which information is shared, a claim is made, or a story is told, it may be possible to refute it by claiming it to be irrelevant to current issues being discussed. If a lawyer is examining a witness on the stand about a murder and begins to ask the witness about the details of their dietary habits the opposing counsel may well object and ask what relevance that information has? If the subject of a story claims to be one thing but seems to contain information irrelevant to its central thesis then this may be called into question.

2. The story is needlessly offensive. A story which praises the virtue of the guard at Auschwitz for overseeing the death of Jews may be blamed for its vicious character because the story praises as virtue what should be blamed as vice.

3. The story makes claims which are vague, obscure, or uncertain. If a story lacks clarity (in part or in whole) so as to make its message unintelligible then this is sufficient grounds for refuting the story. This can come as a result of various things. Sometimes expert witnesses may use technical jargon (words and terms specific to their field of study) which are hard for common people to follow. On the other hand, an uneducated fellow might use terms incorrectly and say things which simply don’t make sense or fail to structure sentences in a way that clearly convey his intended meaning. Anytime you can demonstrate a lack of clarity in someone’s story you have a means of offering a refutation. 

4. The story makes claims which lack plausibility or credibility. If claims within a story or account of something strain one’s ability to believe it could really have happened as told then this is a place where the story can be attacked. A story lacks plausibility and credibility when it reports something that doesn’t seem to cohere with the common (or typical) human experience of reality.

5. The story makes claims which are illogical, impossible, or inconsistent. If statements in the story contradict each other, or if claims are made that oppose already established facts and information, or if conclusions are drawn which are not supported by the premises, then the story may be refuted on these grounds.

6. The claims of the story lack expediency and are unprofitable. In other words, should the story be believed, or its claims accepted, it would lead to unhelpful, harmful, or even disastrous results for the hearer or society that adopts its claims. In logic the reductio ad absurdum tactic may be used at times to demonstrate the dangers of taking an idea to its logical conclusion. Stories which are inexpedient and unprofitable can usually be demonstrated to have absurd consequences if we take them to be true or if we follow their advice.

In writing a refutation one has to practice prudence to know when the job is thoroughly done. In many cases one could refute a bad story ad nauseam. The goal is to offer a refutation like a professional and this means being succinct, efficient, and graceful. Strike your opponent quickly, hit them where it hurts, but don’t continue to beat them when they’re down.

The process of confirming a story, claim, or account is exactly the mirror opposite of writing (or orally delivering) a refutation. The purpose and goal of writing a confirmation is to establish the soundness of a story, claim, or account on all the same fronts that a refutation attempts to undermine it. There is no need to rehash the same material that is above so we will treat this section with greater brevity. For this rhetorical exercise we will use the very same myth we have just refuted to now build a defense which confirms the storyteller, the source, and/or the claims made by the story.

In your confirmation you should:

1. Praise the teller, source, and/or subject of the story.

2. Summarize the Story. Give a brief narration, relating accurately the details of the story as it was presented.

3. Confirm the teller, the source, and/or the story itself.

Confirm The Storyteller

The storyteller may be defended on various grounds such as:

1. The storyteller has been demonstrated to tell us the truth about other things.

2. The storyteller writes about a matter from a position in which he is in a good position to know the truth.

3. The storyteller hold a position worthy of respect and honor.

4. The storyteller has no reason to lie.

Many other approaches may be acceptable. Use your imagination.

Confirm the Source

Confirming the source of the information may be done by:

1. Demonstrating that the information comes from a credible and well known storyteller.

2. Arguing that the story was written close to the time of the events it relates and thereby should be considered more reliable.

3. Showing that the original source of the information did not stand to personally gain by giving this information (no-bad motives).

Again, many other such arguments can be made.

Confirm the Story Itself

Way in which one may confirm a given story include:

1. Demonstrating that the story is relevant to the audience.

2. Showing how the story is morally praiseworthy because it encourages some virtue or virtues.

3. Arguing that the story is clear, manifest, and obvious.

4. Showing why the story is probable and believable.

5. Offering proof that the story is logical, consistent, and coherent.

6. Demonstrating that believing the story would lead to something profitable, beneficial, and/or expedient.