Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of jurors outside of the rational domain of the educated experts, lawyers and witnesses (including the judge) who populate the courtroom. She feels she must appeal to the jury directly, and sees the process of “winning” an argument as that of perhaps simplifying or “dumbing down” the argument, reducing it to a short list of simple talking points, understandable to the least sophisticated person in the audience, possibly triggering reactions that engage their feelings or prejudices.

      Making Arguments: Reason in Context

      Is there a standard for evaluating arguments broad enough to apply to both models? Is there a set of criteria that both Lee and Bailey might use?

      The process of simultaneously designing a rational case and delivering it to a real audience can be appraised within this single standard: We argue with a judge in mind. How does this standard differ from the standards invoked by Lee and Bailey, those historically used in the study of argumentation?

      In the traditional approach, judgment is only important insofar as it entails the persuading of a particular audience that is qualified to evaluate a claim. If jurors were scientists, like those that present the evidence in court cases, then Lee would have no frustration about their listening to his rationally constructed evidence. Similarly, Bailey’s “adaptation” of her case to the jury would involve designing it for a predictable audience, with known attitudes and limitations, and with predictable rules for evaluating evidence. In other words, her particular audience would not be much different in kind from the nearly abstract (rational) audience that Lee has in mind: both would follow predictable rules of reasoning and inference.

      In contrast, our goal here is to merge whatever standards we have for success in argumentation with the notion of those who will judge the argument itself. In our approach, how one argues and whom one argues for are not separate dimensions of argument, but, rather, can be viewed as one and the same thing.

      The implication is straightforward. When Lee became upset by the jury’s abandoning him over a “petty” question, he missed an essential component in argument. He shouldn’t have made any distinction between the rationality of his points and the quality of the decision makers. He should have, moreover, anticipated how his jury would have responded to a question like the one the defense asked. Ironically, it is Bailey’s viewpoint (what the audience needs) that should have been paramount in Lee’s proceeding with his case. More important, however, Lee need not have replaced his way of arguing with Bailey’s; rather he should have added Bailey’s technique of argument to his own and included it in the rationale for arguing his case. Likewise, Bailey could have taken advantage of every possible rational inclination of her audience by absorbing some of Lee’s way of arguing.

      Lee and Bailey represent respective extremes, archetypes, of the application of reason-based and context-based standards for argumentation. The viewpoint of this book is that, insofar as argumentation is concerned, reason and context occupy the same argumentative space. They are neither opposite, nor even alternative ways to argue. They are fused into a single notion: Who judges your argument, and how you construct your argument, are often indistinguishable.

      Why study argument?

      For some, arguing is as natural as breathing. In fact, there is a type of person labeled “argumentative.” Often, the association with this label is negative, connoting a disagreeable person, a curmudgeon. Why would someone want to learn to be this type of person?

      Although argumentativeness is a trait, and although having an argument can be psychologically uncomfortable, the values of arguing, and of being able to argue effectively, are well established. Success in argumentation translates into success in many aspects of life. Good arguers tend to have the following traits:

      •Leadership

      •Effectiveness in Writing and Speaking

      •Ability to Think Critically

      •Confidence

      •Decisiveness

      Learning to argue can lead to specific goals and special types of success. It is tied obviously to careers in law, politics, and journalism. Less obviously, arguing is associated with success in such fields as advertising, public relations, and religion. Virtually every scholarly and scientific profession has an argumentative community that serves as the judge for claims advanced in those fields—including the humanities, social science, and physical science. The professional guilds and organizations to which virtually everyone belongs have business meetings characterized by spirited debate and deliberation.

      Teachers who argue well have a powerful pedagogical tool for working with their students. They also possess a skill that they can carry over into their instruction of students in speech, language arts, debate, and activities like model U.N.

      Because argument is a communication skill, knowing how to use it has a synergistic benefit for other skills of communication as well. Good arguers tend to be good public speakers, debaters, writers, and proofreaders. Those who study argumentation learn to read critically and to make good policy analyses; they also acquire the ability to do sound research. Many debaters go on to law school, where their research skills are often valued as much as their skills of advocacy and public speaking.

      Arguing can be enjoyable, an intellectual sport, akin to chess, or any other contest that involves strategy. Often though, the stakes in argument are more than a game, involving real issues in one’s community. Argument can help someone fight a parking ticket and has been known even to get a teacher to change a grade.

      How do we study argument?

      Like many other fields, argument is studied by attention to its principles, which have developed since the time when the ancient Greek Sophists began teaching clients how to win cases in court. Argument is one of the oldest of all intellectual disciplines and involves a number of related skills, including logic, linguistics, grammar, composition, critical thinking, and public speaking. For at least 2500 years, those skilled in argument have been sought after as leaders and professionals.

      Because the field of argumentation has such a long history, it has a tremendously rich tradition, including a vocabulary of terms, concepts, and definitions that comprehensively describe its scope. To study it not only means mastery of these concepts, and how they operate, but also their application in debates, discussion, and argumentative writing.

      The word argument shows up in many forms, both colloquial and formal. Here are some examples:

      •In logic, formal deductive reasoning, where premises lead to a conclusion.

      •The universe of discourse characterized by reason-giving (the notion explored in this book)

      •The social communicative act entered into by parties in dispute; their dispute may be political, legal, or otherwise. More particularly, their dispute can be of an interpersonal nature, as in “having an argument.”

      •An extended and justified case for some belief or action; it develops a thesis and may provide a comprehensive set of sub-arguments and sub-claims. If a historian offers a book-length argument about the causes of WWII, he or she provides many sub-arguments along the path to the conclusion.

      •The study of argumentation. In Britain, the words argumentation and argument are synonymous in describing the arguments an advocate makes.

      To СКАЧАТЬ