STUDENT NAMECOURSE CODE AND PERIODPage 1
EUCLID Response Paper
Student Name:
Student Country:
Program Code:
Course Code or Name:
Period:
Professor / Assigned Instructor:
This page uses ☐US or ☐ UK English (for spelling, punctuation rules and formatting of references).
The Rule of Style is: ☐Turabian | ☐ APA | ☐ WHO | ☐ EC | ☐ Harvard | ☐ Oxford
Note: This document is in US letter (“8.5”x11”” format)
THE PRACTICE OF ARGUMENTATION
1)Introduction
In Response Paper 1, I began the study of this very important subject of argumentation. The study which was essentially on the argumentation process, was drawn from Lectures 1-12 of Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning by David Zarefsky. As a study of effective reasoning, argumentation is said to be both a product (the message) and a process (the interaction). The message is expressible in both explicit and implicit languages which could be analysed, and appraised. This response paper will thus continue with the study of Zarefsky’s work by examining Lectures 13-24. The study will basically focus on inferences and warrants, appraisal of arguments, and the spheres of argumentation.
2)Inferences and Warrants
Inference and warrant determine the nature and character of an argument. Inferences are more of probability than certainty, and constitute the most complex part of an argument. The six different inferential patterns and their warrants are example, analogy, sign, cause, commonplaces, and form (Zarefsky 2005, 57). Inferences from example relate parts to wholes, analogy deals with comparisons, sign establishes correlations, cause traces influence, while form covers structure of an argument. Inferences from example infer that “what is true of the part is probably true of the whole”, and the warrant is that examples are representative of the whole. This generalization could be in the form of statistical or anecdotal generalization (Zarefsky 2005, 58). Statistical generalization uses a sample to draw conclusion about the whole population, while anecdotal generalization uses several examples to draw conclusion about the whole. These generalizations are testable for fallacy of composition. Conversely, classification uses inference from a general principle to conclude that what is true of the whole is probably true of the part (Zarefsky 2005, 58). Classifications are thus tested for fallacy of division.
Inference from analogy treats like things alike through comparisons and resemblances. Literal analogy involves direct comparison of things in the same sphere of reality. On the other hand, figurative analogy compares relationships between items in different spheres, and is used to justify new ideas by comparing them with established ones (Zarefsky 2005, 60). The warrant is that the relationship between items in an established sphere will also characterize the relationship between the items being compared. For example, a red cloth is to a bull as fuel is to fire. For literal analogy, the two special types are the judicial analogy (citing something as a precedent to justify a claim), and a fortiori. A fortiori argues that what is true of the lesser is even more true of the greater, or what is false for the greater is even more false for the lesser (Zarefsky 2005, 61). The warrant is that things that are basically alike will be similar in respect of the issue being discussed.
Sign inference is used to predict the unknown from the known by correlating patterns in relation to each other. Sign inferences are essentially based on probability because signs are hardly infallible (Zarefsky 2005, 63). For example, a man’s personality could be inferred from his actions. Sign inferences are also used to predict outcomes where it is not necessary to explain the reasons for the outcomes (Zarefsky 2005, 64). An example is when establishing a correlation between time spent in practice and scores in a soccer match. Unlike sign inferences, causal inferences predict and explain a relationship between the variables. These influences are often inferred since they cannot be observed directly (Zarefsky 2005, 66). Consequently, the reasoning process could either proceed from cause to effect when making predictions, or from effect to cause when explaining an occurrence or paradox. The warrant is that one phenomenon influences another. Tests for causal influences include looking out for multiple causes or effects, intervening or counteracting causes, or temporality.
Commonplaces and form are also basic patterns of inferences. Commonplaces are beliefs or judgments that an audience generally accepts as truth, though some may be contestable, and the warrant is that particular belief or value being promoted (Zarefsky 2005, 69). They are sometimes in pairs of seemingly opposing terms such as quantity and quality, or pragmatism and principle with one being preferred to the other in different circumstances. This structure of argument is similar to syllogism, except that at least one of the premises is drawn from the beliefs or values of a particular audience, rather than from independently proven statements (Zarefsky 2005, 69).
Types of commonplaces include maxims, adages, and beliefs which convey shared beliefs. The inferences are not strictly deductive but are expressed in a form that resembles deduction. Though expressed in certainty, they are however probabilistic. Inferences from form include dilemmas, hypothesis, and probabilities (Zarefsky 2005, 69). Dilemma is similar to disjunctive syllogism in which each of the alternatives will lead to unattractive outcomes. On the other hand, hypothesis is similar to conditional syllogism which predicts an outcome (Zarefsky 2005, 71).
In addition to the six basic patterns, ‘reasoning from rules’ is one of several hybrid patterns containing both antecedent and consequent clauses (Zarefsky 2005, 73). For example: “if X happens, then Y would occur”. Reasoning from the rule to the case is an example of classification which is reasoning from the whole to the part. Another hybrid pattern is argument about values which is difficult because values can be highly personal and sensitive (Zarefsky 2005, 74). Dissociation is also another hybrid pattern. It is an argument in which a concept with a previously accepted single meaning is assigned two meanings with one being valued more positively than the other. The more valued concept is assigned to oneself while the other is associated with the other party.
3)Appraisal of Arguments
In formal reasoning, validity is determined by the structure and not the content of the argument, while in informal reasoning, it is dependent on following the established patterns designed to stave off fallacies (Zarefsky 2005, 78). In formal reasoning, fallacy is a deficiency that is not immediately apparent in the structure of the argument, which causes invalidity. However, the application of validity to informal logic is somewhat tricky as validity is attained by focusing on established rules rather than structure. For example, in inferences from example, validity is achieved by avoiding key pitfalls such as hasty generalizations, unrepresentative samples, fallacy of composition, and fallacy of division (Zarefsky 2005, 79). In inferential analogy, an argument is valid when the essential similarities are greater than the differences.
For sign inferences to be valid, the sign must not be confused with cause, or lead to opposite occurrences. (Zarefsky 2005, 80). Regarding inferences from cause, the argument must identify a common cause, and must not ignore multiple causes/effects, or intervening/counteracting causes (Zarefsky 2005, 80). In commonplace inferences, validity is achieved if the argument applies more to the situation at hand than any other. Validity of inferences from form is likewise enhanced if the argument recognizes the difference between its apparent deductive form and its probabilistic nature. Lastly, some fallacies are caused by deficiencies in clarity resulting from equivocation, ambiguity, amphiboly, vagueness, or heaps and slippery slopes. Other sources of fallacies include vacuity (loopholes resulting from insufficient proof), circular reasoning (evidence restating the claim), and begging the question (argument based on assumed but un-established claims). Others include ignoring the question (digression or a focussing on ‘red herring’), and non sequitur (no connection between claim and evidence). Another type of fallacy is attacking a “straw man” which means responding to an unstated claim rather than to the one in focus (Zarefsky 2005, 81).
Some fallacies result from lack of relationship between evidence and claim. For example, ‘ad hominem’ argument focuses on attacking a person instead of responding to the claim. Some other sources of fallacies include deference to authority and tradition, bandwagon effect, ignorance, misplaced emotions, and coercion (Zarefsky 2005, 83-84). However, depending on the context, these patterns that are normally regarded as fallacies may be considered as perfectly reasonable arguments (Zarefsky 2005, 84). For instance, a person known to be biased is not expected to make an impartial claim, neither can a bad character be a trustworthy source; ad hominem may thus be permissible. Similarly, leaders are expected to take decisions deemed to be in the interest of the common good at all times even in the face of uncertainty; appeal to ignorance may thus stand.
4)Spheres of Argumentation
In a pluralistic society, the different settings under which argumentation takes place influence its content and practice. The different spheres of argument are personal, technical, and public spheres. These spheres have different expectations, and thus shape the argument differently. Arguments in the personal sphere concerns only the people involved, and are normally resolved through dialogue whereby the parties evaluate one another’s argument. In the technical sphere, an argument is hinged on the background and expertise of the parties in a particular field such as law, medical or engineering profession. And in the public sphere, an argument is open to all as the issue involved is of interest to the people as citizens (Zarefsky 2005, 88). Nonetheless, in the course of an argument, it could shift from one sphere to another. For instance, a personal issue such as sexual harassment could easily shift to a matter of public concern.
In the personal sphere where the goal is cooperative problem-solving, the argument goes through some certain stages. First, identify the disagreement, then agree on the means of resolving it, examine the merits of the competing positions, and finally resolve the disagreement or recognise that no agreement is feasible (Zarefsky 2005, 88). The resolution of arguments is guided by a set of principles (Zarefsky 2005, 89). It indicates that a party who advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it, while attack on a standpoint must relate to the one advanced by the other party. Also, a party is not to present a false premise or refuse the use of a premise as an accepted starting point. Lastly, when the defence of a standpoint fails, it must be retracted, while any doubt in respect of a successfully defended standpoint must also be retracted.
Coalescent argumentation is used where the parties to a dispute care deeply about one another. It recognizes that all the parties have goals, and tries to meet them by using techniques that enhance commonality, truth, and agreement. It is done in three steps as follows: identify the positions of the parties, identify areas of commonality and isolate them from further dispute, and then seek means of maximally satisfying goals that are not in conflict and optimally satisfying those that are in conflict (Zarefsky 2005, 90). However, the practice of argumentation in the personal sphere often falls short of this ideal standard for various reasons which include devoting attention to ending rather than resolving disputes, treating certain beliefs as sacrosanct, influence of extraneous factors, and vested interests of players. Others are inequalities in skill, social power, and resources available to the disputants (Zarefsky 2005, 90).
In the technical sphere, specialised knowledge is required for argumentation. Legal argument for instancesimply involves determining the facts of a case, applying the relevant rule to the facts, and objectively deducing a conclusion. In scientific argument, the goal is to describe, predict, and explain certain occurrences in order to account for individual phenomena, predict outcomes, and develop theory (Zarefsky 2005, 93).In the public sphere, arguments have two key characteristics. First, they are conducted on behalf of the general public, and second, they affect the general public and not just the actors (Zarefsky 2005, 96). Public arguments are carried out in a variety of forums such as assemblies, legislative bodies, and town hall meetings where people exchange ideas on issues that affect them collectively and individually. The warrants in such argument usually come from the audience’s social and political beliefs (Zarefsky 2005, 97). Examples of warrants include naïve theories of attribution (attributing favourable outcomes to one’s own efforts, and unfavourable outcomes to extraneous factors), and the naïve theories of motivation, such as conspiracy theories used to explain events and predict occurrences (Zarefsky 2005, 97).
Argumentation helps to ensure that collective decisions stand the test of time and serve the common good. However, arguments do not always end same way. Sometimes, the parties mutually adopt a common position, or a neutral party helps to resolve the issue on terms acceptable to the parties, or the controversy is overtaken by events that either render it moot or point the way to resolution. It could also lead to a conceptual breakthrough wherein the issue is viewed from a different perspective, or the controversy could remain unresolved (Zarefsky 2005, 100).
Argumentation is also a means gaining knowledge. Charles Peirce had identified four ways of acquiring knowledge. These are tenacity (sticking to first beliefs), authority (uncritical acceptance of a prominent person’s beliefs), ‘priori’ (beliefs inferred from self-evident premises), and verification which is scientific (Zarefsky 2005, 101). Verification is preferred to the other three sources because it is the only one open to public scrutiny. However, without the other sources, knowledge about values, probabilities, predictions, or recommendations for action would have been impossible. This made it imperative to look for an analogue alternative that as much as possible combines the qualities of all the identified means of knowledge. Argumentation fits very well into this class. In this regard, argumentation has two important corollaries; the truth is relative to the argument advanced, and that what we know is dependent on interaction with others (Zarefsky 2005, 102).
5)Conclusion
The study material aptly stated that argumentation is erroneously seen as a negative phenomenon working against human harmonious coexistence. It argued that argumentation actually needs to be encouraged in any human community where important decisions that could stand the test of time must be taken. The study revealed that most human interactions are shrouded in uncertainty, yet man is required to take informed decisions to effectively run his affairs. The study has however exposed me to the fact that with proper argumentation men can justify their decisions even under conditions of uncertainty. I have also learnt that argumentation is a veritable means of collective reasoning and decision-making, and hence an important tool of governance and peaceful coexistence.
6)Works Cited - Bibliography
Zarefsky, David. Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning. 2nd ed. Virginia: The Great Courses, 2005.