Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ benign. In other words, most of the time and in most situations, we can pretty much continue to do things the way we have traditionally done them, without deleterious effect. People tend to take the same route to work, eat the same foods, buy the same brand of toothpaste, drink the same beverage, and buy the same brand of automobile. We make the same suppositions day after day, based upon the regularity and predictability of the systems we operate in. It’s OK to cross on green, it’s safe to fly, you can’t put metal in a microwave, and so on.

      Staying with the status quo, insisting that any new plan must exceed a high threshold of proof, is so common and ordinary a way of thinking that we often overlook the powerful logic it represents. Although we all try new foods, take alternate routes, or change brands of pop (another brand might be cheaper, and that’s enough justification when money is short), we still tend to stick with what we have and do because we hold the current version of our world basically harmless, or benign. If the world isn’t a danger to us, we can proceed on the notion that today, except for the novelty that keeps us interested, will be a lot like yesterday. When we turn on our computer in the morning, our programs and files—we hope—are still there. When returning home at night, the key still opens the door. Tomorrow morning our alarm clock will awaken us, we presume.

      The predictability, safeness, and continuity in our lives, the safeness of presumption, are complementary to the burden of proof. Presumption is the notion that things ought to be perceived as alright so long as no compelling reasons are offered to change that perception. In an earlier example, we talked about John being accused of a crime, and that his attorney was not in any way required to respond to the prosecution’s case. Why? Presumption says that John should be viewed as alright (not a criminal) until such a time as the prosecutor has made a compelling case against him. John’s attorney’s position is that the prosecution has not made the compelling case, and that the trial should not proceed. In other words, the attorney wants the case dismissed (or his client found not guilty) for lack of a compelling case that met the prosecutor’s burden of proof. In doing so the prosecutor would have had to overcome the defense’s presumption (in this case a presumption of innocence), and gain the adherence of the judge and/or jury.

      We pointed out before how dangerous it would be for a defense attorney not to present a defense, no matter how weak the prosecution’s case. But we did this to point out that the argumentative burden stays with the prosecutor throughout the entire course of the trial. This notion carries through to all forms of argument. The advocate whose assigned position is to argue against an existing presumption about anything takes on the burden of proving that position, and does so until the argument has been adjudicated.

      The presumption attached to the other side of an argument, and which goes well beyond just a presumption of innocence, resides in all existing institutions and states of affairs. Debaters call this the status quo (the way things are), which, with its all-inclusive presumption, is set in opposition to the stance of the advocate carrying the burden of proof. In debate, this stance, the position with the burden, is called the affirmative side of an issue, the side that is attempting to overcome presumption with a compelling case against the status quo. The side in an argument that defends the status quo is called the negative.

      In a criminal trial, the prosecutor is in fact the advocate for the affirmative. She is arguing that John, presumed innocent by the status quo, is guilty, by virtue of a compelling case she offers in support of his guilt, a case that, if successful, will overcome the presumption of innocence that our justice system guarantees. Conversely, the defense is the negative, carrying presumption, and will usually argue that the prosecution has not overcome this presumption (calling for a dismissal). In effect, every criminal trial is a living illustration of the principle of burden and presumption, a rule so important that it affects questions of life and liberty.

      Every argument has discernible sides. But the sides are not like those at a football game. The playing field is not level. Advocates with the burden of proof have more argumentative work to do; they will be judged by more exacting standards. Although some responsibilities in argument are shared equally by both sides, the burden of proof means more work for the Affirmative, whether it is a prosecutor seeking a conviction, a politician opposing an incumbent, or even a scientist challenging an existing theory.

      Responsibilities of Arguers

      Argumentation is much broader than proving guilt or matters of fact. Advocates dispute not only facts, but also values, policies, even the definition of key terms. Further, it is typical for complex arguments to involve questions about several or all types of propositions, often in interaction with one another. Advocates in a debate often contest propositions of policy, going well beyond the sorts of issues raised in legal (forensic) settings. Indeed, arguing the implications of a policy sometimes leads advocates into the realm of the purely speculative, a place lawyers are loathe to go.

      The behavior of every advocate is shaped by the responsibilities inherent in the argument. Even with the differences among different types of argumentation, despite the varying degrees of formality in the setting, advocates advancing, defending, or attacking claims must fulfill a universal set of requirements:

      Responsibility I—Going Forward

      Previously we used the example of a defense attorney who chose not to answer an opponent’s case. In nearly every situation, this is a counterproductive argumentative stance. Only the weakest and least legitimate affirmative cases allow the possibility of a non-response. Obviously, though, even when the negative perceives the affirmative’s argument this way, there is no guarantee that it will look that way to the judges and audiences of argument. Thus, it would be argumentatively self-destructive to fail to answer an opponent’s claims. (What if those judging the argument see the issues altogether differently?)

      Advocates must answer their opponents' arguments. This is called “the burden of going forward” with the argument, the responsibility that both sides in a controversy continue to advance their respective sides, as well as respond their opponent’s arguments (the sub-responsibility of rebuttal). The key feature of this responsibility is the “taking up” of the argument. When an advocate launches a set of claims in support of a proposition, he or she is inviting response. The responsibility of going forward indicates that “the ball is in your court,” and that it is the time for counter-advocacy.

      It is most important to recognize that the responsibility for going forward with an argument in no way changes the burden of proof. The burden of proof always stays with the proposition, and the side that supports the proposition (in debate, the affirmative; in law, the prosecution or plaintiff; in a deliberative assembly, the maker of a motion). It is the responsibility, or burden, of going forward that alternates, back and forth, between the sides in a controversy as each presents its material.

      Responsibility II—Evidence

      Arguing demands more than just expressing one’s own opinions. The best arguments are well supported with evidence. Evidence, anything that is produced to support a claim, can run the gamut from the very strong to the very weak. Evidence shows up in facts, expert testimony, illustrations, examples, analogies, statistics, and studies. In courtrooms there is even physical evidence, actual objects or artifacts that lead one toward an argument’s claim. (“This is the murder weapon. It belongs to the defendant. Hence the defendant is the murderer.”)

      There are well-understood and widely accepted criteria for evaluating evidence, for separating the strong from the weak:

      •Recency--evidence offered should be the most up to date available. The most recent evidence is not necessarily the best, but the more recent the evidence the less likely it is to be minimized or refuted in СКАЧАТЬ