Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ asking questions that--if they are answered thoroughly and accurately—will inform and guide her decision-making. Amy would probably make a list in which she compared the pros and cons of changing jobs versus maintaining her current situation. This process—forming a claim or proposition and assessing its merits and demerits-- is the starting point for argumentation, the entry into a rational decision-making scheme.

      Before we proceed, though, two observations:

      First, we realize that not all decisions are made analytically or logically. Amy might decide to switch jobs simply because she can’t stand her boss—only to find out later that her new boss is even more distasteful to her.

      Second, not all arguments are about alternative courses of action. Some arguments—such as esthetic arguments about the value of a work of art--are about intellectual preferences, opinions, beliefs.

      Nevertheless, the activity that Amy is likely to enter into is the essential argumentative stance: The attempt to formulate in language, and with reasons, the justification for an action. In this rational, argumentative stance, the thorough formulation of answers to Amy’s questions (among others) should be the basis of her decision-making. Even more important, the process could be undertaken by someone other than Amy, because of the inherently public nature of argument. The reasons that would underlie her decision could be assessed by anyone. Although the decision affects her personally, Amy has no special qualifications to judge the decision.

      This is not to suggest that every reasonable person would reach the same conclusion as Amy. But it does mean that everyone with ordinary intelligence has the ability to judge the worth of a rationally adduced claim. To say that arguers are rational doesn’t mean that they all see a situation or act on it the same way. Rather it means that we possess the intellectual apparatus to go down the path of an informed and deliberate decision-maker.

      The import of this discussion is straightforward: Argument assumes--as a standpoint—rationality. The assumption of rationality demands standards of reasonableness--and the presentation of reasons—to establish adherence to a claim. And establishing adherence to a claim requires positing those who judge the argument as central to its formulation. We create arguments to be judged, and we are all capable of judging arguments.

      Again, in this text, argument is defined as the rational process of advancing claims, with both logical and evidentiary support, in anticipation of judgment. In addition, since arguments are “made” (that is, created, analyzed, organized, stylized, presented), we will further define argumentation as designing and launching arguments to be judged in a public setting. The setting can be the most general of sorts, or it can be specialized, such as a law court or a scientific journal, for example.

      This conception of argument and argumentation is illustrated in the two cases below:

      John has been accused of a crime. He hires a respected defense attorney. The trial begins, and the prosecutor presents the case against John. The case includes evidence and testimony, of experts and witnesses, all alleging John’s guilt. Upon the conclusion of the presentation of the case, the prosecutor proclaims: “the prosecution rests.” This is tantamount to saying: “the prosecution believes it has proved its case.” The defense attorney stands up and says: “The defense rests.” John’s jaw drops. “Have I hired the right attorney,” he wonders. “Is my attorney not going to present a defense? Am I going to jail?”

      While it might not be good strategy to offer no defense (or at least offer witnesses and evidence independent of what the prosecutor has presented), a defense attorney can indeed choose not to say a word in defense of his/her client. The reason for this is not just legal; it resides rather in the theory of argumentation. In argumentation one side, and only one side, has the assigned responsibility of making a strong (and in the case of a trial, a compelling) case. In a criminal trial, the responsibility is assigned to the prosecution; if the prosecution fails to make its case, the defendant is acquitted.

      This central concept, the first rule of rational discourse, is called the burden of proof, and it underpins the argumentative ground. If argumentation is to proceed meaningfully, then, in every disputed claim or proposition, there must be a determinable burden of proof. This is not just an arbitrary rule or position about who must begin the argument (like a coin flip before a football game), but rather a principle derived from the most fundamental notions about how rational people should behave.

      To illustrate, consider:

      Harry takes a medicine for hypertension and the medicine has the desired effect of lowering his blood pressure. But it also makes him tired, and he doesn’t like feeling tired all the time. He has tried other medications, each either less effective at lowering his blood pressure, or with significant side effects of their own. He has actually considered ceasing all medication, but understands that not taking medication would significantly increase his risk of stroke, heart attack, or kidney failure. Harry is otherwise healthy—he eats sensibly, exercises, and maintains a good body weight. He does not smoke. He has worked it out, rationally, that being tired is preferable to a significant increase in the risk of premature death.

      For Harry to cease his medication, it would have to be in response to a compelling case to change what he is doing, while not significantly increasing his risk of dire consequences. Harry’s physician proposes that he stay on his medication while undergoing a radical transformation in his lifestyle. He wants Harry to stop consuming sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, and refined carbohydrates. He has Harry do 45 minutes of aerobic exercise daily, and reduce the fat in his diet to the lowest possible levels. He has him eat the smallest amounts of animal protein possible, and consume mass quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables. Harry must get a good night’s sleep every night, and take measures to control whatever stress he experiences in his life.

      After 30 days on this regimen, Harry is able to go off his blood pressure medicine and maintain a healthy blood pressure. His cholesterol has dropped, and he is leaving his chronic fatigue behind him. So invigorated is he by his new regimen that he actually begins to exercise more, magnifying the positive effects of the transformation.

      What we left out of this story is what the doctor told Harry. He showed Harry the results of over three decades worth of clinical studies, hundreds of reports. He was even able to show Harry subsets of participants in the studies who were virtually matches for Harry—sex, age, weight, height, even on the same blood pressure medication. They had been able to get off their medications following the plan. Harry listened to the doctor present the case and, even though he himself was not a physician, was able to discern the degree to which a strong case had been made. The only question (not an issue in argumentation theory per se) was whether he had the motivation, willpower, and discipline to stick the program. Harry was persuaded to try it. But that did not change the compelling nature of the argumentative data. As we learned in chapter 1, there is often a disconnection between persuasion (getting people to believe something) and argumentation (presenting a sound case, upon which one may or may not act). Harry’s acceptance of the conclusion did not entail his acting on it. He could have just stuck with the medication.

      Implicit in the doctor’s interaction with Harry was an expected threshold for proof. “If I’m going to do this, which would take a Herculean effort, I want to see a powerful case in support of changing my whole life.” Harry is asking the physician to meet a burden of proof, to overcome human psychological inertia, which resists change and movement.

      Again, it is the theory of argument that tells us why we would be unlikely to change without someone meeting a burden of proof, one that guarantees our assent, and then perhaps (but not necessarily) moves us to action. The theory of argument tells us that we need a case for change because СКАЧАТЬ