Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ evidence incorporates economic data that stop three years ago. A second economist using data that is within three quarters can make a better case, especially if the more recent data disconfirms the first economist’s conclusion.

      •Authority—the authority of a source has to do with its legitimacy to speak to an issue in an argument. An authority can be an institution, a person, a publication, or an organization. The authoritative nature of sources tends to disembody them. Note, however, that we often forget that the conclusions of studies, as well as what is reported in publications, is still primarily the result of an individual’s thinking or research conclusion. We often mistake an authority’s opinion for the hard data in the research.

      •Public Access—it is in the nature of evidence that it be public. Every party to a dispute has the right to see it and find it. Evidence cannot be private, personal, or secret. One of the unfortunate aspects of public policy debate in a democracy is that sometimes the government keeps evidence secret, or classified. Hence the citizens’ ability to participate fully in the debate over the actions of its government is severely impaired.

      •Methodological Scrutiny—it does not make sense to offer evidence unless one knows how it was acquired. If evidence is the result of an empirical study, then one ought to be familiar with how its data was collected as well as how its conclusions were inferred. An advocate cannot simply put forward the conclusions and opinions of experts. Advocates must know something about how experts reach their conclusions—including the underlying assumptions.

      •Full Disclosure/Documentation—argumentation must never rely on trickery. The source for one’s evidence needs to be fully disclosed to all parties to a controversy. Advocates have a responsibility to cite and attribute sources of information, and acknowledge where they acquired their information. Given the fluid nature of electronic sourcing of evidence, it is especially important that all evidence be fully documented, and that it is retrievable in the form in which it is cited during an argument.

      •Ethics—evidence needs to be used ethically, avoiding distortion, ellipsis, omission, or reading out of context. Evidence must never be fabricated, and advocates have a responsibility neither to exaggerate nor misrepresent the implications of a study, expert opinion, or publication. Often advocates, under time pressure, read only sections of published material, not realizing that the conclusions of such material may in fact contradict the general tenor of their positions. It is improper to read balanced research, for example, as one-sided.

      •Relevance/Grounding—a particular misapplication of evidence is to incorporate it when it lacks germaneness to the issue. Advocates must scrutinize their evidence for true relevance to the issues being argued. Further, advocates have a responsibility to ensure that their evidence is “grounded” with respect to the issues at hand. Evidence does not exist in a vacuum, and advocates must place any evidence offered in a real context, detailed enough to evaluate its significance and relevance.

      Responsibility III—Clash

      A simple word, clash, conveys a tremendous amount about what is central in argumentation and advocacy. Clash is the core tension that advocates inculcate in making argument the unique activity that it is. Novice debaters often miss the essential nature of clash in debate. They often feel that their arguments must supersede or surpass one another’s. Debaters often hope to win their arguments by virtue of the opponents’ unpreparedness or non-responsiveness.

      In fact, what characterizes a “real” argument is the very direct way in which arguments line up against one another. The clash—the direct opposition of point to counterpoint—is the very heart of the enterprise. Nothing is quite as tedious as watching an argument in which the “opposing” viewpoints aren’t clashing. This, unfortunately, is the downfall of many political “debates” in which the candidates present nothing more than dueling speeches and press-releases (“talking points). There is rarely a proposition for debate under consideration in a political forum; as a result we do not have a chance to see the candidates as advocates, clashing over issues. Political debates can be most unsatisfying to audiences; the absence of clash leaves issues unresolved and policy differences unclear.

      Responsibility IV—Extension

      Because arguments need to clash, they must also develop. The course of inquiry increases the scope of argumentation, with both sides adding new evidence, additional sub-arguments, nuanced changes in propositions. The claims, evidence, and responses of the arguers must grow, in order to accomplish more detailed justifications of the claims among disputants. An argument that does not advance, that sits on its original claims and evidence, that fails to extend beyond its initial form and support, risks failing in light of an opposing case that is being extended and developed beyond its initial state.

      Responsibility V—Consistency

      The logical and rational characteristics of argumentation oblige arguers to be consistent. The boundaries of argumentation are such that an advocate cannot “have it both ways,” arguing P at one point and NOT P at another. Because of the burden of proof (whether assigned or natural to the situation), one party to an argument has a particular obligation to advance a consistent case.

      One softening of the requirement for consistency benefits advocates opposed to the resolution (the negative, or the side with presumption). Because such advocates needn’t meet a burden of proof, they can, essentially, “have it both ways,” without compromising the integrity (or consistency) of an argument. A defense attorney might argue: “There is little evidence that my client committed this crime, but you can see that if he did commit this, he was totally justified in his actions, and that his actions should not even be construed as a crime by those standards.”

      The prosecution, which has the burden of proof, cannot be this flexible or capricious. The required consistency inherent in the burden of proof would not allow an advocate to advance what are ostensibly incompatible claims. The prosecutor will not argue: “Even though this defendant was justified in his actions, he still needs to be punished.”

      The requirement for consistency, a responsibility for all arguers, extends to the smallest level of argument, where each sub-argument needs to be advanced in the context of such exacting standards as non-contradiction. More broadly, however, one side in an argument (the affirmative) appears to need to adhere to a more rigorous standard of consistency; this suggests a certain imbalance, an inevitable consequence of dividing issues along the lines of those who must prove, and those who must defend against that proof. Advocates with a presumption in favor of their position (the defenders) need not be so consistent in their overall position; they may fend off the position of the affirmative in several ways, with independent lines of reasoning, and not worry as much about the internal consistency of their defense.

      Responsibility VI—Resolution

      Argument is purposive activity. Arguments take place for a reason. Argument is undertaken in anticipation of judgment. How an argumentative situation resolves itself is as important as the entire process. In a courtroom an argument is resolved by presentation of a verdict (or some other outcome). Advocates seek judgment: a deliberative assembly takes a vote; debaters hear the decision of a judge; a community of scholars weighs in on a scientific or interpretive finding. The idea that arguments resolve, that they are judged, drives human beings to continue to make them. Even the most sportive disputes—like games of skill with final scores—adhere to this standard. Every debater seeks a particular outcome—and it is rarely compromise or negotiation.

      Responsibility VII—Behavior

СКАЧАТЬ