Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ fairness.

      So important is the concept of judgment in argumentation that we will spend an entire chapter on it.

      Principle #6—Argument differs from persuasion.

      Most college communication curricula have separate courses in argumentation and persuasion. It is rare to see both taught in the same course. Knowing that advocates present their arguments in hopes of achieving expected outcomes, one might think that arguments are designed to achieve persuasion, and that the two subjects ought to be taught together. Most separate the subject matters, however, because the process of arguing and the process of persuading can be entirely independent.

      Here’s a real example of how this works. A jury has heard a medical malpractice case argued against a doctor whose patient died in the delivery of her baby. There is overwhelming evidence that the doctor made several avoidable errors during the delivery, and as soon as the jury begins deliberating, they agree, unanimously, that the doctor was at fault. The jury, however, immediately moves to a discussion of whether a finding against the doctor would damage the doctor’s career. “Why punish a good man for one mistake?” asks one of the jurors. The jury finds in favor of the doctor.

      One could say that the jury was persuaded (influenced to do one thing) while recognizing the rationality of doing another thing, and yet choosing not to do it. This is the nature of the relationship between argument and persuasion. It also explains why people so often believe a thing and do its opposite. We want to persuade with our arguments, but we must recognize that argument and persuasion do not necessarily lead to the same ends, that conclusion and action are often at odds. (Most smokers know it’s a bad idea!)

      It is not remarkable when a prosecutor presents a compelling case but the jury votes against him because they don’t like the way he dresses (another real example). An advocate gives a comprehensive policy analysis; his audience goes along on the basis of one trivial argument that seems almost inconsequential.

      Principle #7—The conditions under which one argues are at least as important as the arguments one makes.

      When we argue, we are bound by convention—either the social conventions of everyday discourse or the conventions of formal argumentative settings, which are much more rigorous. Deliberative assemblies have rules of procedure, lawyers are bound by rules of evidence, and debaters must adhere to time limits and rules of decorum.

      No matter how casual (or how rigid) the conditions, we must recognize the inescapable limits. One can be disadvantaged in argument as much by the “rules” of argument as by the arguments themselves. Conversely, facility in navigating the shoals of argumentation might be one’s strongest ally in advancing arguments. An advocate’s mastery of parliamentary procedure, for example, facilitates the inclusion of salient argumentation. It may also help to exclude an opponent’s argument, where that opponent lacks mastery of the procedural moves.

      Principle #8—We argue all the time.

      It may sound strange to suggest that we argue all the time. That conjures an image of everyone disagreeing with everyone else, without cessation. “Nice day,” someone says. “You think so, prove it,” comes the response.

      When we say we argue all the time, we mean that the disposition to assess claims rationally (with evidence and justification) is always with us during our waking hours (and perhaps even while we are dreaming). Thinking, speaking, and writing are part of a continuum of intellectual activity that goes on in us all the time. We are always working out what is the rational response to the situation, whether or not we choose to act in accordance with that response. The smoker knows every good reason not to smoke (he’s worked it out argumentatively). The student knows the night before an exam may not be the best time to drink (but might do so anyway). Before going into a meeting with her boss, a young executive is rehearsing in her mind all the arguments she will use in asking for a raise.

      To the extent that we are nearly always considering the reasons to do this or that, choosing among alternative paths and building a case to support the choice… to that extent our lives are filled with rational arguments.

      Projects and Thought Experiments

      1.Are you more like Lee or Bailey when it comes to how you view argument? Have you ever lost a dispute where your logic and evidence were superior? Why? Could you have won by anticipating the other factors?

      2.What is your conception of rationality? What kind of thing is logic? Is it learned and culture specific? Or is it natural to the human nervous system?

      3.Think of a movie you have seen in which argument played a vital role in resolving the story. Explain how.

      4.Will argument be more or less valued in the future? Why?

      5.Does the Internet provide a good forum for argumentation? How does it suffer in comparison with traditional forms of argument?

      Chapter 2: Terms, Roles, and Responsibilities

      Like any formalized academic discipline, argumentation has a distinctive vocabulary. Much of its language is shared with other disciplines in which making arguments--and defending claims--is central. Philosophy, and in particular its subspecialty Logic, uses much of the terminology; law, as a both a profession and a subject, is loaded with terms that debaters and advocates use outside of the courtroom.

      Rhetoric, a subject that examines the rationale for all sorts of persuasive discourse, dovetails significantly with the field of argumentation. English composition, in both its argumentative and expository dimensions, is a sister study to argumentation, in that writers must incorporate aspects of argumentation theory in the development of formal, written arguments. Almost all of the humanities and social sciences incorporate, respectively, linguistic and logical strategies that are the hallmark of argumentative studies. Even scientific disciplines are argumentative communities; the way in which scientists argue will occupy a significant portion of a later chapter.

      Our goal in this chapter is to discuss how the field of argumentation describes itself. In the process, we clear up some misconceptions about argument.

      The Starting Point for Argument

      Amy has been offered a new job. The job has a higher salary than her current position. Amy is in debt, and welcomes the opportunity to earn more money. As she contemplates the move, a number of questions begin to trouble her:

      •Does the new job involve more hours?

      •Is the new job more stressful?

      •Will her commute be longer?

      •Are the benefits as good?

      •Is there opportunity for advancement?

      •Will the salary increase really make a dent in conquering her debt?

      •Will the job be interesting, perhaps even enjoyable?

      •Would the job put a strain on her personal life?

      By posing these questions, Amy has СКАЧАТЬ