Sources: www.wikipedia.com, www.nizkor.org, www.fallacyfiles.com
What is a FALLACY?
Ø A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. It differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. It is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
Ø It may convince others but is not logically sound. Though it should not be persuasive, it often is.
Ø It can be created unintentionally, or it may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people.
Ø A vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning.
Ø It is a term used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief.
Ø It should be noted that the truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is incorrect.
Fallacies can be categorized in a number of ways including:
Ø Formal (or Logical) fallacy versus Informal fallacy
A formal fallacy relies on a logical step in a proof or argument which is incorrect allowing a conclusion to be reached. It is one which involves an error in the form, arrangement or technical structure of an argument. It is therefore an invalid argument — argument where the concluding statement does not necessarily follow from the statements preceding it. The concluding statement may actually be objectively true, but it's truth does not depend on or follow from the other statements.
While a formal fallacy is invalid in form, an informal fallacy is a matter of unclear expression. A formal fallacy deals with the logic of the technical structure, while an informal fallacy deals with the logic of the meaning of language. The word "informal" does not here mean it is inferior, casual or improper. It only means that our focus is not on the form of the argument, but on the meaning of the argument. An informal fallacy involves such things as: the misuse of language — words or grammar, misstatements of fact or opinion, misconceptions due to underlying presuppositions, or just plain illogical sequences of thought.
Unlike a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy cannot be reduced to symbolic formulas. It however has characteristic profiles which can be arranged into the following general categories:
Ø Verbal fallacy
Verbal Fallacy uses some property of language, such as its ambiguity or length to mislead. It is one which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. It is generally classified as follows.
Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms ("All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.")
Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.
Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure, e.g. of the position of the adverb "only" in careless writers ("He only said that," in which sentence, the adverb has been intended to qualify any one of the other three words).
Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property e.g. "all the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled". This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage"
Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part e.g. "the university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".
Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress, or an expert's deprecation of a popular hero, or it may imply that the person in question is a deplorable pianist.
Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.
Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discourse.
Ø Material fallacy
The taxonomy of material fallacies widely adopted by modern logicians is as follows:
Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)--makes a generalization that disregards exceptions (e.g., Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.)
Converse Fallacy of Accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)--argues from a special case to a general rule (e.g., Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.)
· Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi)--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. This is sometimes referred to as a "red herring". Subsets include:
purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
fear (argumentum ad baculum),
conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)
Affirming the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If a person runs barefoot, then his feet hurt. Socrates' feet hurt. Therefore, Socrates ran barefoot. Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.)
Denying the antecedent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu. Therefore, I do not have a sore throat. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)
Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion (e.g., Paul must be telling the truth, because I have heard him say the same thing many times before. Paul may be consistent in what he says, but he may have been lying the whole time.)
Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow")--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great.)
A special case of this fallacy also goes by the Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc--the fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
Another special case is given by the Latin term cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of believing that happenstance implies causal relation (aka as fallacy of causation versus correlation: assumes that correlation implies causation).
Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)--groups more than one question in the form of a single question (e.g., Is it true that you no longer beat your wife? A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to wife-beating.)
Ø Deductive fallacy
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy : a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. It is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies. – valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation – .
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
3rd US Presidential Debate 2008
Did the 3rd US Presidential Debate for 2008 meet the Academic Standards for Argumentation?
Most elections, like those of the US are won through popularity and what better way there is to become popular than being a master in the art of influencing the public to believe in one’s cause and convictions. –This for me is one of the major reasons why debates for the US Presidentiables are done prior the polls. More than being an opportunity to present their platforms of government, their proposed programs and projects, these debates provide a glimpse of these hopefuls' charisma, political will and determination to lead the nation.
Having accomplished this end in a 90 minute session of no-holds barred but conversational argumentation, the third Presidential Debate between Obama and McCain met the academic standards for argumentation. Though it was unlike the typical university or college debates where the audience plays an important role in the generation of questions and where there really are timers that prompt the beginning of the speeches and of the segments, the said debate is closely related to the Lincoln-Douglas Type which presumably is its archetype. The debate, having only Obama and McCain as opposing parties resembled the LD debate which is a one on one type with the each person presenting his stand and then rebutting each other in the alternate.
Contrary however to the LD which has abstract principles for a topic, has definite format and time prescriptions and concerns itself with less real world pieces of evidence to support the speaker’s contentions, the 3rd Presidential debate was expectedly different in the following: the topic was on economic and domestic policy (one which necessitated empirical evidence such as statistics, surveys, etc); the 90 minutes session (unlike the LD’s 45), was ideally divided into 9 minute segments but which because of time constraints only covered 6 major subtopics: a. Economic Plans which touched on taxes, spending, budget and bucking parties, b. Leadership in campaign, 3. Running Mates 4.Energy and Climate Control, 5. Health Care, and 6. Education; there were no literal timers which prompted the speakers as the control was completely with the moderator, Bob Schieffer who courteously extended time limits to give in to both speakers in certain times as they were in the height of their arguments; there was equal opportunity for both to speak up as they were required to address each question on alternate; the questions posed by the moderator provided by the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates were specific and clearly well researched from the proposals of both the republican’s and democrats’ sides; the moderator played the most important role of facilitating the exchange of ideas of both speakers by asking provocative, direct, straight to the point questions in response to what has just been mentioned by Obama n McCain; the audience, unlike in a town hall type of debate which was followed in the previous debate, was not allowed to cheer, applaud, nor ask their own questions; the speakers directly addressed each other and answered follow-up questions from each other; and lastly, the speakers, in the end of the debate, were both allowed to wrap up and address the public in their parting speeches with McCain speaking first by way of a toss coin.
All in all, the debate went well as Obama and McCain proved to be fluent speakers able to deliver sensible and cohesive arguments for each subtopic which subtly comprised of their own introductions, discussions and conclusions reiterating that their programs were better. Even with the dose of both aggression and sentimentality that McCain showed and the oblivious objectivity of Obama, the issue on who has a better economic and domestic policy if elected president (being (interesting and thought provoking in itself) was tackled well to its core to the benefit of the undecided American people who did cast their votes in the November 2008 elections.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Charter Change
On Charter Change...
Though it may be true that Change is the only permanent thing in life, and that to keep up with these modern times, we have to bid goodbye to the old and the traditional, it is a personal belief that the need for change is not applicable to our Constitution at present.
Being the fundamental law of the land, it is not a wonder why the 1987 Constitution is at the forefront of every controversy, whether it be between the administration and the opposition, the middle class versus the economy’s bigwigs, the faithful versus the government, the conservative versus the liberals, the human rights activists versus the loyalists. It is at the core of every issue that countless are the attempts to amend it, from FVR’s PIRMA, Erap’s CONCORD to PGMA’s Consultative Commission. But time and time again, the Supreme Court, has always proven itself to be the last bastion of democracy by curbing them to the benefit of our status as a state and nation.
Do we really need a charter change and do we need it now? These questions I strongly answer in the negative. First, the constitution is comprised mostly of principles that adhere to what is universally right, just and equitable. Being such, it is not bound by time nor era to be inutile to meet the contingencies of the here and now. The economic, social and political problems that beset us are not due to its inadequacy but are rather rooted from its misapplication, wrong implementation and even abuse of its provisions. Second, if the last statement were absolutely true, the problem lies with man and in his will to fight for what is true and just regardless of the propensity to be self-serving. Moral Reform therefore and not Charter Change is needed. Third, the constitution embodies the country’s sovereignty that we cannot just throw and adopt another impulsively. If it must be determinative of our actions and of our relations with other countries, we must preserve its supreme authority regardless of the pressures of the world outside. And last, the Philippines is presently economically, politically and socially unstable that it would be unwise to change the status quo. Pushing for amendments despite the majority’s dissentions would only put the country in turmoil and further jeopardy.
Do we really need a charter change and do we need it now? These questions I strongly answer in the negative. First, the constitution is comprised mostly of principles that adhere to what is universally right, just and equitable. Being such, it is not bound by time nor era to be inutile to meet the contingencies of the here and now. The economic, social and political problems that beset us are not due to its inadequacy but are rather rooted from its misapplication, wrong implementation and even abuse of its provisions. Second, if the last statement were absolutely true, the problem lies with man and in his will to fight for what is true and just regardless of the propensity to be self-serving. Moral Reform therefore and not Charter Change is needed. Third, the constitution embodies the country’s sovereignty that we cannot just throw and adopt another impulsively. If it must be determinative of our actions and of our relations with other countries, we must preserve its supreme authority regardless of the pressures of the world outside. And last, the Philippines is presently economically, politically and socially unstable that it would be unwise to change the status quo. Pushing for amendments despite the majority’s dissentions would only put the country in turmoil and further jeopardy.
Granting however that there are provisions which need amendment, those who spearhead the cha-cha attempts are amiss in contending that the following will address our present situation:
· Changing the Legislature to Unicameral to stop overspending and redundancy.
On the contrary, if the bicameral becomes unicameral, there will be a monopoly of wealth by the chosen few. The positions will be highly coveted, being lucrative rather than being of public service. Also, here in our setting, there is really no redundancy which the unicameral system seeks to correct, as while one district representative would eats his heart out to pass good resolutions to benefit his constituents, another one in congress spends most of his time conducting investigations and inquiries on administrative offenses.
On the contrary, if the bicameral becomes unicameral, there will be a monopoly of wealth by the chosen few. The positions will be highly coveted, being lucrative rather than being of public service. Also, here in our setting, there is really no redundancy which the unicameral system seeks to correct, as while one district representative would eats his heart out to pass good resolutions to benefit his constituents, another one in congress spends most of his time conducting investigations and inquiries on administrative offenses.
· Adopting a Parliamentary form of Govt.
In a Parliamentary form of government, there will be no proper differentiation of the branches and thus there will be no checks and balances which is needed considering the high incidence of corruption. The Prime Minister and the Members will be easily polarized to do what serves them well and the Prime Minister, owing his position to the parliament and not directly to the people will be at the Parliament’s whims. Sovereignty will not reside on us but on those who have gained a seat in power. This is absolutely incongruous to our clamor for a government that is of, by and for the people.
In a Parliamentary form of government, there will be no proper differentiation of the branches and thus there will be no checks and balances which is needed considering the high incidence of corruption. The Prime Minister and the Members will be easily polarized to do what serves them well and the Prime Minister, owing his position to the parliament and not directly to the people will be at the Parliament’s whims. Sovereignty will not reside on us but on those who have gained a seat in power. This is absolutely incongruous to our clamor for a government that is of, by and for the people.
· Practicing Economic Liberalization.
Removing restrictions on the exploitation of the country and allowing 100% foreign owned corporations to own land, public utilities, educational institutions will attract investors but it will degrade our country’s sovereignty, destroy our environment, leave many landless, and will once again instill in us a colonial mindset. Though we have to compete with the rest in the quest for development, we cannot just jump into the bandwagon of economic liberalization at the expense of the death of our local businesses. Though we have to keep abreast of modernities, we cannot afford to lose our identity in the guise of trade freedom. Though we cannot totally close our doors in isolation, we cannot also lay all our cards in a game we are sure to lose. With the Philippines being blessed with natural resources, it is best that we look within and improve and make use of what is ours for ourselves primarily. The agriculture industry, for example has to be empowered, first to ensure our survival and then the growth of small time businesses.
Removing restrictions on the exploitation of the country and allowing 100% foreign owned corporations to own land, public utilities, educational institutions will attract investors but it will degrade our country’s sovereignty, destroy our environment, leave many landless, and will once again instill in us a colonial mindset. Though we have to compete with the rest in the quest for development, we cannot just jump into the bandwagon of economic liberalization at the expense of the death of our local businesses. Though we have to keep abreast of modernities, we cannot afford to lose our identity in the guise of trade freedom. Though we cannot totally close our doors in isolation, we cannot also lay all our cards in a game we are sure to lose. With the Philippines being blessed with natural resources, it is best that we look within and improve and make use of what is ours for ourselves primarily. The agriculture industry, for example has to be empowered, first to ensure our survival and then the growth of small time businesses.
· Having further decentralization leading to a federal system
The creation of a cohesive Philippines is now a difficulty considering that he Philippines is a confluence of diverse cultures and is an archipelago. If there will be further decentralization, uniting the different island groups would almost be an impossibility. Worse, the Philippines as a single international person would cease to exist.
The creation of a cohesive Philippines is now a difficulty considering that he Philippines is a confluence of diverse cultures and is an archipelago. If there will be further decentralization, uniting the different island groups would almost be an impossibility. Worse, the Philippines as a single international person would cease to exist.
· Adding a Bill of Duties and Obligations
We have more than enough good laws that prescribe the Filipino’s duties that some of these laws have even been left in obscurity. What we really lack is their stringent implementation to be able to assess their efficacy.
We have more than enough good laws that prescribe the Filipino’s duties that some of these laws have even been left in obscurity. What we really lack is their stringent implementation to be able to assess their efficacy.
Considering all the points, it would be of no reason for us to advocate the need for change. Though much political will is now being used to assert it, as long as we prize democracy high and as long as we Filipinos are socially aware, the proposals will only come to naught as more than the fact of their inapplicability and impracticability, the spirit of greed for power that motivates their proponents is clearly evident. This motivation is one which we Filipinos surely detest and thus, the Cha-Cha is one which we surely deter to happen.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Argumentation
Argumentation theory, or argumentation
- embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.
- is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises.
- Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal.
- This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.
- Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence.
Key components of argumentation
Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.
Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge
Argumentation theory was once based upon foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. As argument scholars gradually rejected the idealism in Plato and Kant, and jettisoned with it the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems, the field broadened.. This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge.[4]. Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn."
In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge.
Argument fields
Stephen E. Toulmin and Charles Arthur Willard have championed the idea of argument fields, the former drawing upon Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion of language games, the latter drawing from communication and argumentation theory, sociology, political science, and social epistemology. For Toulmin, the term "field" designates discourses within which arguments and factual claims are grounded. [5] For Willard, the term "field" is interchangeable with "community," "audience," or "readership." [6]. Along similar lines, G. Thomas Goodnight has studied "spheres" of argument and sparked a large literature created by younger scholars responding to or using his ideas. [7] The general tenor of these field theories is that the premises of arguments take their meaning from social communities [8]
Field studies might focus on social movements, issue-centered publics (for instance, pro-life versus pro-choice in the abortion dispute), small activist groups, corporate public relations campaigns and issue management, scientific communities and disputes, political campaigns, and intellectual traditions. [9] In the manner of a sociologist, ethnographer, anthropologist, participant-observer, and journalist, the field theorist gathers and reports on real-world human discourses, gathering case studies that might eventually be combined to produce high-order explanations of argumentation processes. This is not a quest for some master language or master theory covering all specifics of human activity. Field theorists are agnostic about the possibility of a single grand theory and skeptical about the usefulness of such a theory. Theirs' is a more modest quest for "mid-range" theories that might permit generalizations about families of discourses.
Stephen E. Toulmin's Contributions
An Alternative to Absolutism and Relativism
Toulmin has argued that absolutism (represented by theoretical or analytic arguments) has limited practical value. Absolutism is derived from Plato’s idealized formal logic, which advocates universal truth; thus absolutists believe that moral issues can be resolved by adhering to a standard set of moral principles, regardless of context. By contrast, Toulmin asserts that many of these so-called standard principles are irrelevant to real situations encountered by human beings in daily life.
To describe his vision of daily life, Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields; in The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin states that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called “field-dependent,” while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called “field-invariant.” The flaw of absolutism, Toulmin believes, lies in its unawareness of the field-dependent aspect of argument; absolutism assumes that all aspects of argument are field invariant.
Toulmin’s theories resolve to avoid the defects of absolutism without resorting to relativism: relativism, Toulmin asserted, provides no basis for distinguishing between a moral or immoral argument. In Human Understanding (1972), Toulmin suggests that anthropologists have been tempted to side with relativists because they have noticed the influence of cultural variations on rational arguments; in other words, the anthropologist or relativist overemphasizes the importance of the “field-dependent” aspect of arguments, and becomes unaware of the “field-invariant” elements. In an attempt to provide solutions to the problems of absolutism and relativism, Toulmin attempts throughout his work to develop standards that are neither absolutist nor relativist for assessing the worth of ideas.
Toulmin believes that a good argument can succeed in providing good justification to a claim, which will stand up to criticism and earn a favourable verdict.
Components of Argument
In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:
1. Claim
Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)
2. Data
The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)
3. Warrant
The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.” (3)
4. Backing
Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”
5. Rebuttal
Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”
6. Qualifier
Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”
The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.
Internal structure of arguments
Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following
a set of assumptions or premises
a method of reasoning or deduction and
a conclusion or point.
An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.
Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.
In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.
Kinds of argumentation
Conversational argumentation
Main articles: Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis
The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.
Mathematical argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of mathematics
The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
Scientific argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of Science
Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.
Legal argumentation
Main articles: Oral argument and Closing argument
Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.
Political argumentation
Main article: Political argument
Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events. [14]. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.
Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.
- is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises.
- Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal.
- This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.
- Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence.
Key components of argumentation
Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.
Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge
Argumentation theory was once based upon foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. As argument scholars gradually rejected the idealism in Plato and Kant, and jettisoned with it the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems, the field broadened.. This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge.[4]. Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn."
In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge.
Argument fields
Stephen E. Toulmin and Charles Arthur Willard have championed the idea of argument fields, the former drawing upon Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion of language games, the latter drawing from communication and argumentation theory, sociology, political science, and social epistemology. For Toulmin, the term "field" designates discourses within which arguments and factual claims are grounded. [5] For Willard, the term "field" is interchangeable with "community," "audience," or "readership." [6]. Along similar lines, G. Thomas Goodnight has studied "spheres" of argument and sparked a large literature created by younger scholars responding to or using his ideas. [7] The general tenor of these field theories is that the premises of arguments take their meaning from social communities [8]
Field studies might focus on social movements, issue-centered publics (for instance, pro-life versus pro-choice in the abortion dispute), small activist groups, corporate public relations campaigns and issue management, scientific communities and disputes, political campaigns, and intellectual traditions. [9] In the manner of a sociologist, ethnographer, anthropologist, participant-observer, and journalist, the field theorist gathers and reports on real-world human discourses, gathering case studies that might eventually be combined to produce high-order explanations of argumentation processes. This is not a quest for some master language or master theory covering all specifics of human activity. Field theorists are agnostic about the possibility of a single grand theory and skeptical about the usefulness of such a theory. Theirs' is a more modest quest for "mid-range" theories that might permit generalizations about families of discourses.
Stephen E. Toulmin's Contributions
An Alternative to Absolutism and Relativism
Toulmin has argued that absolutism (represented by theoretical or analytic arguments) has limited practical value. Absolutism is derived from Plato’s idealized formal logic, which advocates universal truth; thus absolutists believe that moral issues can be resolved by adhering to a standard set of moral principles, regardless of context. By contrast, Toulmin asserts that many of these so-called standard principles are irrelevant to real situations encountered by human beings in daily life.
To describe his vision of daily life, Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields; in The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin states that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called “field-dependent,” while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called “field-invariant.” The flaw of absolutism, Toulmin believes, lies in its unawareness of the field-dependent aspect of argument; absolutism assumes that all aspects of argument are field invariant.
Toulmin’s theories resolve to avoid the defects of absolutism without resorting to relativism: relativism, Toulmin asserted, provides no basis for distinguishing between a moral or immoral argument. In Human Understanding (1972), Toulmin suggests that anthropologists have been tempted to side with relativists because they have noticed the influence of cultural variations on rational arguments; in other words, the anthropologist or relativist overemphasizes the importance of the “field-dependent” aspect of arguments, and becomes unaware of the “field-invariant” elements. In an attempt to provide solutions to the problems of absolutism and relativism, Toulmin attempts throughout his work to develop standards that are neither absolutist nor relativist for assessing the worth of ideas.
Toulmin believes that a good argument can succeed in providing good justification to a claim, which will stand up to criticism and earn a favourable verdict.
Components of Argument
In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:
1. Claim
Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)
2. Data
The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)
3. Warrant
The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.” (3)
4. Backing
Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”
5. Rebuttal
Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”
6. Qualifier
Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”
The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.
Internal structure of arguments
Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following
a set of assumptions or premises
a method of reasoning or deduction and
a conclusion or point.
An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.
Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.
In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.
Kinds of argumentation
Conversational argumentation
Main articles: Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis
The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.
Mathematical argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of mathematics
The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
Scientific argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of Science
Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.
Legal argumentation
Main articles: Oral argument and Closing argument
Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.
Political argumentation
Main article: Political argument
Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events. [14]. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.
Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
