Making Arguments: Reason in Context

Оглавление

Edmond H. Weiss. Making Arguments: Reason in Context

Preface

Chapter 1: Modes and Principles of Argumentation

Argument as Presented in this Book

Making Arguments: Reason in Context

Why study argument?

How do we study argument?

How We Argue: The Principles of Argumentation

Principle #1—Arguing is primarily a rational activity

Principle #2—Arguing is not just expressing opinions

Principle #3—Argumentation is always “grounded.”

Principle #4—Arguing not only involves making claims, but also supporting and defending them

Principle #5—Argument is prepared and presented in anticipation of judgment

Principle #6—Argument differs from persuasion

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

Principle #8—We argue all the time

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 2: Terms, Roles, and Responsibilities

The Starting Point for Argument

Responsibilities of Arguers

Responsibility I—Going Forward

Responsibility II—Evidence

Responsibility III—Clash

Responsibility IV—Extension

Responsibility V—Consistency

Responsibility VI—Resolution

Responsibility VII—Behavior

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 3: Judging Arguments. Types of Judges

How Judging Philosophies Work

Modalities of Judgment

Field-Dependent and Judge-Dependent Modalities of Decision-Making

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 4: The Arguer’s Toolkit. What We Already Know About Arguing

What We Need to Know about Arguing

The Role of Logic in Argumentation

The Role of the Opponent in Argumentation

Logic in the Arguer’s Toolkit

Master Arguments in the Rational Paradigm

Causality

Probabilities in Causality

Induction and Deduction

Logical Operators

Analogy

Fallacies—Formal and Informal

Some Fallacies Everyone Should Know

The Arguer’s Toolkit—Some Final Thoughts

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 5: Basics of Debate

Types of Debate

The Rules of Competitive Debate

Judging and Debate Strategy

Impasse, Stasis, and Argumentative Stopping Points

Conjecture/Fact

Definitions

Quality

Policy/ Standing

Parliamentary Debate

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 6: Argument Strategy. From Deliberation to Strategy

What Are The Targets of Argumentation?

The Nested Architecture of Arguments

Vulnerabilities: Weak Points in the Structure

Component 1. Unresolved Situation, Need

Component 2 Problem/Expert Question

Component 3 Question of fact

Component 4 Data Gathering Method

Component 5 Data, Evidence

Component 6 Conclusion, Judgment, Finding

Component 7 Recommendation, Proposal, Action

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 7: Arguing versus Proving

Aristotle’s Enthymeme

Toulmin’s Uses of Argument

Modal Arguments

Perelman’s New Rhetoric

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 8 Arguing about Justice and Law. Institutionalized Argument

Arguments about Justice

Due Process (“procedural justice”)

Economic Justice (“distributive justice”)

Retributive Justice ( “just desserts”)

Restorative Justice (also known as “reparation”)

John Rawls: Justice as Fairness

Justice as Power

Legal Arguments

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 9: Arguing about Science. Scientific Arguments

Arguing with a Scientist

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 10: Arguing about the Existence of God. What’s God Got to Do With It?

The Burden of Proof in Religious Arguments

Why Bother? Faith versus Proof

Traditional Proofs of God. Cosmological Proof

Ontological Proof: If X Doesn’t Exist, then what is X?

Argument from Desire

Argument from Design: What a Wonderful World

Pascal’s Wager: It Wouldn’t Hurt

Proving God Does Not Exist

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 11: Deliberation and Conflict Management. The Level of Debate

Deliberative Arguments

Problem Solving and Interpersonal Conflict

Manipulation versus Persuasion

Problem Solving: Context and Method

Recognizing manipulation in problems solving meetings

Solutions—artificially limiting discourse

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 12: Documentation: Writing your Case. Writing an Argument

Types of Argumentative Writing

Style in Argumentative Writing

Readability and Adaptation to the Reader’s Limitations

Paragraphs & Page Layout

Argumentative Sentences

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 13: Presentation, the Dress of Argument

Personality, Character, Logic

The Seductive Charm of Computer-Based Presentations

How Slide Shows Reduce Credibility

Arguing before a Skeptical Audience

Arguing before a Powerful Audience

Other Perils in Slide Presentations

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 14: Argumentation and Culture

The Notion of Perception

The Notion of Culture

Is Aristotle just Western and Male?

Argumentation in High- and Low-Context Cultures

Rival Concepts: Debate v. Negotiation

Projects and Thought Experiments

Chapter 15: Afterword-- A Life full of Arguments

Appendix A: Paradoxes. Contradiction, Absurdity, Paradox

Contradiction versus Paradox

Zeno’s Paradox

Backward Induction Paradoxes

Other paradoxes

Dealing with Paradoxes

Appendix B: Resources. Web Sites

Basic Shelf on Argumentation

Authors

Отрывок из книги

First things first. Yes, we are related. We’re brothers separated by a decade, but with a common love for rhetoric, argument, and jazz. And we both have advanced degrees in speech (rhetorical theory and argumentation). Between us we represent well over half a century of teaching people to make arguments—in speeches, debates, essays, proposals, and deliberative assemblies. From boardroom to classroom, we have experienced argument not only in a variety of settings, but also in a variety of forms. And based on this long and varied experience, we thought it was time to share what we have learned about arguments—designing them, strengthening them, making them, evaluating them, and, yes, winning them.

We entered this project knowing that there is already a library of books about argument. After all, argument was codified as a formal study in ancient Greece. It is even possible that the study of making arguments is the oldest formalized educational subject in Western Civilization. Originally simply called rhetoric, this branch of learning is now covered within many academic disciplines, including (informal) logic, critical thinking, philosophy, English composition and writing, public speaking, journalism, law, business communication, debate, and argumentation. Almost every discipline or profession includes the ability to argue convincingly within its repertoire of skills.

.....

The apparent contradiction, the opposite values attached to the powers of argumentation and the traits of argumentativeness, derives from several myths and misconceptions. Let us address the confusion with some principles that clarify what arguing really is:

When one disputes with a family member, a friend, or a stranger (in a confrontation), what characterizes the communication event is its psychology. The motive (as well as expected outcomes) is what drives the contentious situation. No matter how right or justified one feels in “arguing,” the primary aim is to self-satisfy, to have the feeling of interpersonal power. While such a disagreement might entail an attempt to provide good reasons, it is generally not judged for its appropriateness, logic, organization, clarity, or language.

.....