Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ make an argument or it can just mean, colloquially, to be disagreeable. The famous “Monty Python Argument Clinic” sketch focuses on the question of whether just being disagreeable is tantamount to having an argument.

      Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

      Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

      Man: No, it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

      Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

      Taking all these definitions and traditions into consideration, we propose that an argument is the process in which one gives good reasons for a particular judge to accept a disputed claim or proposal. This definition includes all the methods associated traditionally with both models (Lee’s and Bailey’s approaches, respectively). Most important though, under this definition, those traditional approaches are shaped and tempered by a constant mindfulness—awareness and anticipation—of the importance of judgment.

      Studying argument, then, converts an everyday activity into a formalized study. In that sense, it is like any study that transforms what people acquire naturally into the realm of an artistic enterprise. And just as a naturally good musician benefits from music instruction, often more than someone with no musical ability, so does studying argumentation either enhance the effectiveness of those that already have ability, or, alternately, build that ability from scratch in others.

      Not surprisingly, students of argumentation come to their study with vastly different expectations. Some feel that they already argue well and often, so that the study of argumentation should come easily to them. Other students, perhaps because of shyness or introversion, fear the prospect of publicly defending arguments with evidence, organization, and reasoning. Whether or not students feel “comfortable” with argumentation, however, seems to have little to do with their ability to master it. That is, being naturally argumentative or comfortable in public debates seems to have little effect on the student’s success in studying or mastering the subject.

      About the only student who cannot learn to argue is the one we call the “opinion monger”; this student is given to asserting that everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion, that one opinion is as “valid” as another, and so forth. Of course, such students are indeed entitled to that opinion, but, so long as they hold it, they are not likely to learn much or have much influence in their communities. (And if they cannot argue their point, they’ll never convince us.)

      What is important is that nearly every student, regardless of temperament, can succeed at, and learn from, this subject matter. And, what is even more important, the skills acquired in the study of argumentation will serve the student well in nearly every academic course —and in most professions as well.

      How We Argue: The Principles of Argumentation

      Nearly everyone argues. In fact, some people argue so much that we have an adjective that describes them—argumentative. The connotation of this adjective is nearly universally negative. One Communication Theory student, when asked to describe a person she didn't like, provided this description: “He's disagreeable. He challenges me on everything. He's one argumentative son of a gun.”

      From the time we are young we are admonished against arguing. “Don't argue with your sister.” “Don't talk back to me.” “I really don't want to argue about this.” Our language and behavior are full of restrictions against arguing. In many situations, arguing is construed as downright rude and offensive. Moreover, arguing with those in authority, including those who have real power over the circumstances in our lives, is profoundly discouraged. Many individuals are hesitant to confront teachers, police officers, and clergy. Many are conditioned to “bite their tongues” when the social conditions for argumentation put them at a perceived disadvantage.

      Yet the discouragement of argumentativeness—as well as the social pressure to refrain from arguing—is ironic, when one considers that our society values the ability to argue perhaps above all other abilities. Nearly every important profession and activity is dependent upon success in argumentation. Jurisprudence, politics, religion, and education are highly regarded and widespread vocations that rely on sound argumentative practice. Less obviously, science, the arts, and medicine reward persons with a facility in arguing. And some professions—sales, advertising, and investing, for examples—make such obvious use of argumentation as to become “paradigm cases” of what it means to argue for a living.

      The degree to which argumentative ability is rewarded and valued in our culture is not surprising. We exist in an environment where good jobs, good educations, healthful choices, and informed decisions all purport to promote the quality of our lives. Being able to argue well, and effectively, is perceived as closely connected to personal and societal success. Moreover, the ability to discriminate good arguments from specious ones, sound plans from half-baked schemes, helps all of us recognize the best courses of action, pursue the best kinds of living.

      So why the contradiction? Why on the one hand is arguing so frowned upon, and on the other so lauded? We know that if we were ever in legal trouble, we would want to hire an attorney with good skills of advocacy. But, in ordinary social circumstances, would we find that tenacious and effective attorney to be abrasive or disagreeable?

      The apparent contradiction, the opposite values attached to the powers of argumentation and the traits of argumentativeness, derives from several myths and misconceptions. Let us address the confusion with some principles that clarify what arguing really is:

      Principle #1—Arguing is primarily a rational activity.

      When one disputes with a family member, a friend, or a stranger (in a confrontation), what characterizes the communication event is its psychology. The motive (as well as expected outcomes) is what drives the contentious situation. No matter how right or justified one feels in “arguing,” the primary aim is to self-satisfy, to have the feeling of interpersonal power. While such a disagreement might entail an attempt to provide good reasons, it is generally not judged for its appropriateness, logic, organization, clarity, or language.

      In contrast, argumentation, as we present it in this book, is an idea surrounded by rules and norms that go beyond the emotions and psychological needs of the arguers. Argumentation is rational, meaning that it proceeds according to regularities and traditions over which the participants have little control, but to which they must acquiesce. In the same way that scientists need to adhere to methods and rules of inference, arguers must accept some “rules” for rational discourse.

      This is not to say that arguers should lack emotion or that argument must proceed in an emotional vacuum, without regard for the feelings of the advocates. Rather, what we are suggesting is that one should not mistake the passions of the arguers for the arguments they are making. The way we formulate, craft, present, and judge argument is distinct from the circumstances that bring about disagreement. Saying something loudly does not make the statement any truer or more credible.

      Further, in interpersonal conflict, the source of the dispute is sometimes purely relational, that is, a contest of wills or a battle for affection or control. In contrast, the controversy in a rational dispute, what this text calls an argument, might rely wholly on the positions arguers are assigned arbitrarily in a controversy. College debaters, for example, are told the positions (affirmative or negative) they are to argue without deference to their feelings or emotions on an issue. So, a student who is committedly anti-drug, but also a skillful advocate, can make a compelling case to legalize all drugs. His or her personal commitment is simply irrelevant to the СКАЧАТЬ