Join the seminar

Praxis · tutorials & discussion for people who think in public

Learn the shape of thought.

Most platforms teach you facts. Praxis teaches you structures — the load-bearing shapes inside arguments, proofs, and explanations — with lessons built like instruments and a seminar room attached to every one.

Start Lesson 01 ↓
31lessons
9,412seminar members
0ads, forever
Lesson 01 · Rhetoric & Reasoning

The Anatomy of an Argument

Portrait of Dr. Mira Osei
Dr. Mira Osei
Rhetoric, formerly Groningen
9 min read
diagram assembles as you go

§1The claim is a promise

Every argument begins by promising the world will look different once you accept it. "Remote work makes teams more honest." "This mushroom is edible." "You should learn statistics before calculus." A claim is not information — it is a debt, and the rest of the argument exists to pay it.

Watch the diagram: the claim sits alone at the top, unsupported. That vertical gap under it is exactly what the next two sections must fill.

Margin noteLogicians call this the conclusion, but putting it first is not cheating — most working arguments state their destination before the route. Papers, pitches and verdicts all do it.

§2Evidence is imported, not invented

Evidence is the only part of an argument you cannot make at your desk. It has to be carried in from outside — a measurement, a document, a witness, a precedent. In the diagram it arrives as two crates docking underneath the claim.

The classic failure here isn't lying; it's weight-rating. An anecdote can support "this can happen" but buckles under "this usually happens." Most public arguments collapse because someone stacked a universal claim on a single crate.

Try itTake a claim you tweeted recently. What is the heaviest version of it your actual evidence can hold? That version is your honest claim.

§3The warrant is the invisible beam

Between evidence and claim there is a connecting principle almost nobody says out loud: the warrant. "Numbers from a good lab generalize." "What happened to eleven teams will happen to yours." The warrant is the beam the whole span hangs from — and it is usually invisible until it fails.

Most disagreements that feel like fights about facts are actually fights about warrants — two people staring at the same crate, disagreeing about what it can carry.

When the diagram draws the beam, notice it is the only piece connecting the two halves. Attack an argument here and everything above falls at once.

§4A rebuttal is load-testing, not vandalism

A serious argument invites its own inspection. The rebuttal node bolts on from the side and pushes: unless the sample was tiny; unless the incentive ran backward; unless it only holds in winter. An argument that has never met a rebuttal is not strong — it is untested.

In the seminar we call this load-testing a claim, and it is a courtesy, the way an engineer stamping a bridge is a courtesy to the people who drive over it.

§5The verdict is rented, never owned

When the structure holds — claim, crates, beam, tested — you earn the bottom node: a verdict. But verdicts in live minds carry a qualifier: "probably," "in most cases," "until better crates arrive." The diagram stamps this one with its qualifier attached, because an unqualified verdict is just a claim wearing a costume.

That is the whole anatomy. Five parts, one shape — and once you can see it, you can see where any argument in the wild is thin. Next lesson, we break it on purpose: the four prettiest ways an argument can be wrong.

The seminar room

142 people discussing Lesson 01 · moderated like a dinner table, not a feed

Avatar of seminar member Tomas V.
Tomas V. civil engineer · 2h ago

The load-testing metaphor finally made rebuttals feel like a favor. I spent years reading peer review as hostility. It's the stamp on the bridge.

↑ 96replyquote in your notes
Avatar of seminar member Dr. Osei
Dr. Mira Osei instructor · 1h ago

And like bridge inspection, it has to be scheduled — a rebuttal you only accept after the collapse is called an excuse.

↑ 54reply
Avatar of seminar member Anaïs
Anaïs L. litigator · 44m ago

Filed under things I wish juries were taught: most cross-examination is warrant work. You rarely get to remove a crate; you argue about what it can carry.

↑ 71replyquote in your notes

Continue the practice

new lessons monthly
Cover for Lesson 02: Beautiful ways to be wrong
Lesson 02

Beautiful Ways to Be Wrong

The four prettiest failures of reasoning · 11 min

Cover for Lesson 03: Proof as choreography
Lesson 03

Proof as Choreography

Why mathematical induction is a dance move · 14 min

Cover for Lesson 04: The honest chart
Lesson 04

The Honest Chart

Data graphics that respect the reader · 12 min

Cover for Lesson 05: Steelmanning
Lesson 05

Steelmanning

Building the version of their view worth fighting · 10 min

Thinking is a practice. Praxis is the gym.

One lesson and one seminar a month, free while we are small. Bring an argument you are not sure of; that is the membership fee.

Join the seminar