Argument and Decision

Transcript of Snider Lecture on Perelman's Universal Audience

2011-10-25T08:26:00.001-07:00

Lecture: Universal Audience

Below you are invited to view a video (transcript attached) in which Alfred Snider, Professor of Forensics at the University of Vermont, discusses the idea of “universal audience”.

http://argumentanddecision.blogspot.com/2009/10/lecture-chaim-perelman-universal.html

Transcript

The transcript for this lecture (produced and made available with Professor Snider’s kind permission) is below. All italics, quotation marks, and parenthetical notes have been added by Stella Bastone, the transcriber of this lecture.

(Introduction)

Hello! And here we are again, talking about argumentation, and because I’m out of town, this lecture is presented via electronic communication and I hope you don’t mind. And I hope that it fills you in on this fairly important topic that will be covered on the test. Once again, what we’re doing here toward the end of the semester is examining individual twentieth-century theorists and some of the ways in which they handle argumentation. Now, of course this is in no way a comprehensive examination of twentieth century argumentative theorists, but I’ve taken three that I thought were fairly important, and I want to talk about them.

Today we’re going to talk about one of the rhetorical concepts developed by Chaim Perelman, in his book The New Rhetoric. And it’s a fascinating book which intends to be a comprehensive survey of different kinds of arguments, but there’s one thing I pulled out of it, and that is the concept of the universal audience.

Before I start talking about the concept of the universal audience, I want to talk about a contradiction in a few traditions of approaching argumentation.

(The Neo-Aristotelian Approach: Truth, Conviction)

Of course there is the neo-Aristotelian view that there is truth, that we’re trying to determine truth, that argument is based on logic and it’s based on forms. We have the enthymeme, we have the syllogism, we have “28 Lines of Argument” in rhetoric, and supposedly, if the premises are true, and the form is valid, then we will have truth in the conclusion. Logic is a tool, and the focus, of course, is on yourself, and determining what’s true for yourself, but also, determining what is the truth beyond yourself. What is the truth external to you? What is the truth for “the gods,” as Aristotle might say. When you establish an argument, when you believe in it, then the result is conviction, and you have conviction. And the focus is really on the speaker. The speaker uses argument and logic to try to convince him- or herself, and of course “the gods” as well. If other people are not convinced by what is a sound and valid argument that creates conviction and a view of the truth for you, then that’s their problem; it’s not your obligation. So that is a neo-Aristotelian view of argumentation.

(Toulmin’s Approach: Gaining Acceptance)

A different view of argumentation is that given by Stephen Toulmin, whom we’ve talked about previously. And he’s not so much interested the truth, which Aristotle is, he’s interested in acceptance. He believes that argument is based on communication, which gains acceptance. And the rise of Nazism shows that the focus on “absolute truth” can be naïve. It’s amazing what people can be convinced is the truth. And to the extent they’re convinced that something is the truth, then it might as well be the truth. So argument, through communication, tries to gain acceptance. It’s not necessarily a revelation of the truth, but acceptance. Rhetoric is the tool that one uses to try to gain acceptance. It focuses on the audience in front of you, and the result is acceptance. You walk in, you have a topic, you use rhetoric, you try to shape the message so that it influences the audience, and then when the audience accepts it, you know you have succeeded. And Toulmin developed an argumentative scheme for audiences to use. It’s interesting that when you look at the Toulmin scheme, it’s very much about how the receiver of the argument relates to it, and understands it. There’s the primary triad of data, warrant and claim, and beyond that, we have backing, rebuttal and qualifier. And, of course, anyone listening to the argument, or observing it, will use the last three—backing, rebuttal and qualifier—to decide whether to accept the argument or not. And the role is all about acceptance, and the focus is on the audience, whereas neo-Aristotelianism said that the focus should be on the speaker, and the speaker determined the truth, and if other people like it, fine, but if they don’t, too bad for them. The Toulmin approach talks about acceptance, where the focus is on the audience, that the argument it uses, whatever we think will work on the audience, and when it does succeed and gains acceptance by the audience, then it has succeeded.

(The Conflict)

So in neo-Aristotelianism you’re after conviction. In Toulmin’s approach, you’re after acceptance.

So the conflict is, what do I do, when I walk into a situation, and I’m trying to influence someone? Do I base the arguments that I use on what I know to be true, do I design my arguments based on my own truth? Or, do I base my arguments on what my audience will accept? I have an idea of what they’ll accept, I have an idea of what they approve of, and, supposedly, I know how to manipulate rhetorically the ideas to get them to acceptance. This is a common dilemma of rhetoric. Should I say things I don’t necessarily believe in, in order to get people to believe what I want, in order to get the conviction or the acceptance of the audience—should I use arguments that aren’t true? Or should I just say, listen, here’s what’s true, you can accept it or not. Should I adapt to the audience? Should I cater to them? Should I leave important truths out to try to influence them? Or should I just go straightforward with the truth or what I think to be the truth?

(Resolution: The Universal Audience)

Some resolution of this comes from Chaim Perelman, a Belgian who has written a book called The New Rhetoric. And he says, what do you do, you know, when you have a situation where you have to confront this kind of situation? And he believes that one way to do this is to speak to what he calls the “universal audience.” And if you speak to the universal audience, you can resolve, perhaps, both of these questions: should I go for the truth, or should I go for acceptance?

What is the universal audience? Well, the universal audience is a construct in the mind of the speaker. And it’s a combination of the actual audience—whoever’s there you’re talking with, whoever is listening—and, in addition, all rational beings able to hear and judge the arguments. All rational beings. So let me give you one example, okay. I come into the class, and I’m trying to persuade you of something to the use of arguments. My argument should be framed, in talking to the class, so as to persuade you, the students, right? You are the actual audience. But there’s also others that I should try to persuade: my colleagues that I’m visiting overseas, my mentors in the USA, Professors Parson and Ziegelmueller—I wouldn’t want to embarrass them with my making bad arguments—and also the ghost of Aristotle, and Cicero, and students who are not here, and the entire universe of rational beings. I should speak to a universal audience which contains the actual audience—those who are really listening, as well as all other rational beings. And to me, it sort of helps to think about Professors Parson and Ziegelmueller, to think about my colleagues overseas, to think about students I’ve had years in the past. And so, when I speak to the universal audience, I’m trying to convince the actual audience, as well as everyone else who I think is important. The entire universe of rational beings. And, as we would say, I’m trying to persuade the mere mortals in front of me, and I’m also trying to persuade “the gods,” using my arguments.

Well, what are the guidelines for using this idea of a universal audience? How do we go about strategizing for this? It’s kind of hard. It’s like, “well I don’t have strategy then, I’m just talking to everyone.” No, that’s not true. You are setting a very high goal, and charting for yourself a very difficult task of what you’re trying to do when you talk to a universal audience. So here’s three guidelines you should keep in mind:

1. First, do not use arguments for the actual audience which the universal audience would reject. Sometimes you know that there are some arguments that the actual audience might approve of. Say I’m talking with students, and I know that there are specific interests they have, specific things that they like, specific ways of thinking: I should not use arguments for them that the universal audience would reject. Should I, in trying to persuade an audience of students, use arguments that Professors Parson and Ziegelmueller would think were a poor argumentative choice on my part? Should I use arguments that will work on these students from today, and ignore arguments or ignore people from the past, from another time of history, say my former students from five years ago, from ten years ago? No, I would not use arguments for the actual audience which the universal audience would reject. So, a lot of specific things I can do to argue for this audience, I’m going to throw out, because the universal audience would not accept them.

2. Second, do not use arguments which the universal audience would allow and the actual audience would reject. Now, once again, I’m in the same situation. I’m walking in, and I’m trying to convince some students with some arguments. But I would not want to make some arguments that they would reject, arguments that they would refuse to accept as absolutely true. Even though Professors Ziegelmueller and Parson would like them, even though my colleagues overseas might like them, even though my students from previous years might like them, if it’s not going to work with the actual audience, don’t use it.

Now let’s just review those two guidelines: The first one is, do not use arguments for the actual audience that the universal audience would reject. I can’t cater to this specific audience and give them some bad arguments that others would not approve of. But the second rule is, do not use arguments which the universal audience would accept, and the actual (audience) reject. Just because I have this imaginary group of advisors and important creatures, and former students, and gods and goddesses, or whatever, and I think that my arguments would please them, hey, I’m not going to get anywhere if I use arguments that would please them and they would like (but) that my actual audience—the group of students that I’m coming to convince—would reject. And so, I can’t just speak over the heads of the actual audience. If we think about this room, the room you’re in, and it’s a room in which an argument is taking place, and in front of you is the actual audience, but the universal audience is around the edge. They’re looking down from “heaven,” or “argumentative paradise,” or “the Elysian fields of true logic,” or whatever—but in any case, we have this actual audience and this construct of the universal audience around us. Don’t ignore the universal audience and just look at whoever showed up—“oh, I know, they’re Yankee fans, so they’ll like this argument… blah”—you can’t do that. On the other hand, don’t enter the situation and look over the heads of the actual audience and talk to the “gods” and “goddesses.” It’s not going to work. If you say things that the actual audience would not accept, you may convince your artificial construct (the universal audience), but you will not convince the real people in front of you.

3. The third guideline is that, to be valid, your argument must gain the adherence of both. It must gain the adherence of both actual audience in front of you and the universal audience that you’ve imagined. If you can find arguments and present them rhetorically in such a way that they appeal to both the real people in front of you and to the imaginary construct of those rational beings you think are important, then you’ve probably done a pretty good job. Maybe your choice of arguments and tactics and strategies are highly limited because of this approach, but if you can meet those tests, the arguments that you can use should be satisfactory. And this approach of the universal audience noted by Perelman tends to merge these two traditions. I must make an argument that will be acceptable before the “gods” and “goddesses” but also would make sense to the average men and women that I’m talking to here on planet Earth.

Here are some implications of this particular theoretical approach:

1. The first is about degrees of adherence. We need to understand that total conviction is unrealistic. If I’m showing you some arguments and trying to convince you of something, you know, I may get you to accept it, on a low level, but I probably am not going to get your total conviction; you’re not willing to go to your death to defend this argument, or you wouldn’t stake your life on the truth of this argument, or whatever. So this “total conviction” is kind of unrealistic. Often, we face a situation where there are competing ideas, and we have to act on the best idea—we’re not certain what the best idea is, but we have an idea of what the best idea is, and therefore we should choose that one. I’m sure you’ve been in a situation where you’re deciding, should I leave school, should I join the military, should I go into business, should I get married, should I… and you stack up all of the arguments for all your options, and then you pick one. You’re not absolutely sure that the one you choose is the best. It looks like the best, but it may not be. There is some sense of probability. And so what you’ve done is, you’ve decided, okay, I’m going to go with a given choice, or I’m going to give my adherence to this given choice. You’re convinced that it’s true, and it’s not just some cheap rhetorical trick. If you’re using the universal audience standard, it should try to meet all of those. So, Aristotle is looking for conviction: what’s the truth? Toulmin is looking for acceptance: what are the bombos who are listening to you going to accept? But what Perelman says is that we want to get some degree of adherence, we want people to accept what is the best argument and adhere to it, even though they’re not absolutely sure. And if you use the universal audience standard, you may be able to gain adherence in a situation where we’re not sure what the right answer is. If there may be more than one right answer, Aristotle is striking out. He can’t help us determine the truth. And Stephen Toulmin is just providing a sellout; if all you want to do is sell used cars, whatever works, whatever they’ll accept, that’s fine. But if we have a responsibility to try to find what are the best answers based on the best arguments, we would take Perelman’s approach and try to gain adherence from our audience in a situation of multiple choices.

2. The other implication I want to talk about is rhetorical truth. Well, if rhetorical truth exists, it’s probably never final. I mean, in Toulmin, we don’t really know if we’ve got the truth, the audience is buying it, it’s not necessarily the truth but it’s working, everybody in the audience is saying “sieg heil,” and painting swastikas, so obviously, we’re gaining their acceptance. But for Perelman, some degree of the audience is always also a part of the universal audience. Perelman is saying that it’s not just that group of people who’s front of you that you’re trying to convince to do something; you also have an obligation to try to frame arguments so that they would be acceptable by other rational beings as well. If I’m talking to a group of people who have a very specialized interest, I shouldn’t just play up that specialized interest, because my universal audience would see that I was just trying to get acceptance. I was not trying to show them what I thought was the right path. So with the use of the universal audience, we may approach the rhetorical truth, but, you know, we can’t necessarily be sure that it’s final. We may come up with some more arguments that pass the universal audience test later in a different kind of situation.

3. The next thing I want to say for an implication for this is that, when you enter an argumentative situation, you, as a speaker, must risk your own convictions. You must risk your own convictions. There is no purpose in entering an arguing situation unless you’re willing to risk what you believe. If I believe that US troops should immediately leave Afghanistan, that’s my belief, and I want to try to convince some people of that, I must make a vow: Look, if they have some good arguments, I may need to change my position. I may need to change my ideas, because if they make good arguments, I need to respond to that. I need to hear them, and use them. It’s useless to enter an argumentative situation and you know you’re never going to change your mind. And I’m sure you’ve felt the same about entering argumentative situations where you know the other person is not going to change their mind. What are you doing besides exchanging hot air? You’re not getting anywhere. In the true argumentative situation, you need to put your own convictions at risk.

You must never be one of these two characters. You must never be a fanatic. A fanatic is someone who says, “I know the ultimate truth; my mind can’t be changed; there is one truth, and I know about it.” This is the person who will not learn, cannot be influenced, and is really inappropriately located in a social situation where you have to deal with other people, where you have to deal with disagreements and different perspectives. You must never be the fanatic. On the other hand, you must never be the total skeptic: “we never have enough proof; nothing is true; we don’t really know anything.” Well, that’s very nice to say and very easy to say, but there are some things we probably do know. We may not be a fanatic about them, but we’ve decided not that it’s necessarily the truth, and not that it’s whatever will sell, but we’ve accepted the idea of adherence, that there are several possible answers, that this is the one I believe is the right one based on these arguments, and you can follow that. The absolute skeptic can decide nothing, can determine no policy, except inaction. And, actually, if nothing is true, then everything is allowed. As some people have said, as William S. Burroughs has said, if nothing is true, everything is allowed. Well, we hope that everything will not be allowed, because we have a feeling that some things are at least worthy of our adherence. And so, when you go into an argument situation, you have this idea of adherence; you have made a decision and a choice, but it might change because you are not a fanatic even though you have enough ideas to demonstrate that you are not a total skeptic. Perelman really tries to bridge this gap. And rhetorical man sees his search for the truth as a process, a journey, not a destination. The truth or adherence that Perelman talks about is not an absolute quantity, is not a final destination, is not a goal; it is a constant process of determining which arguments will work before the people I am speaking to, as well as for the universal audience. And you set a very high standard for yourself in terms of trying to please both those audiences. The universal audience concept balances the responsibilities to those in front of you—your actual audience—and to the greater family of knowledge. And when you use the universal audience approach, you are doing that. It’s a tough one, but it keeps you from being more than just a sleazy used car salesperson, and it also keeps you from being a doctrinaire, dogmatic and closed-minded thinker.

I think each of us has to make our own decision about this. And we may want to decide in a specific situation or as a pattern, or whatever, situationally, whatever it takes, any standard—is that what we’re going to do? Or are we going to think about what the eternal sources think? What would the argumentation experts of the past say? What would the gods and the goddesses say? And if both are judging—the real audience, and these gods and goddesses of argumentation—well, you need to do something that’s going to please both. When you gain the adherence of both of them, then you have been a success. You have been a success without compromising your personal integrity, without getting consent-at-any-cost, but without neglecting the real people who are talking to you and ignoring them as you talk over their heads to the gods and goddesses of argument. The universal audience creates a standard by which we can respect all: both the real people we deal with, and those that we would most aspire to meet up to their standards. And when you can do both, you’ve accomplished quite a feat. It’s not easy, and it’s not always practical, but it is the kind of standard which resolves this tension between “who am I trying to please, the universal sense of logic, or the people who come to me to buy a used car?” You have to make your own decision, and I think the universal audience is the kind of standard that you could use in coming to that consensus.

Well, thanks a lot for listening. There’s a lot of thought here in this. Although it’s only thirty minutes long, it nevertheless has a lot of content. I urge you to think about it because you never know—someone may ask you a question on a test about this and related ideas.

Chaim Perelman's Universal Audience

2011-10-25T08:24:00.001-07:00

Lecture - Theory - Chaim Perelman & the Universal Audience - Snider from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.
This is a video lecture for the class "Argument & Decision" taught by Alfred Snider at the University of Vermont. The lecture concerns one of the ideas developed by Chaim Perelman to further his attempt to link philosophy with rhetoric, and in this case argumentation. His concept of the "universal audience" will be discussed.

The main website for the class is at
argumentanddecision.blogspot.com/

Video by Alfred Snider, Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics at the University of Vermont, made in October 2009 before he goes off to Qatar for an eight-day debate workshop.
debate.uvm.edu

Arguments to Toulminize

2011-10-22T16:36:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaI assigned these via email. Let us diagram them in class on Tuesday.

1. Fluoride isan ingredient in rat poison, so we certainly should not put it in our watersystem to reduce tooth decay.

2. Pollutionwhich crosses national borders poses a threat to the climate and the ecology,so international cooperation on these issues must increase.

3. Economic aidto Africa is good money wasted.

4, Prof.Windplenty, learned scholar on acid rain announced that current levels of acidrain pose a severe threat to Vermont forests.

5. Species lossis not really a serious problem, because we have been losing species throughoutevolutionary history and life continues to flourish.

6. Bolstered bythe Iraq war withdrawal, Obama is sure to be re-elected president.

7. If theeconomy continues to falter, the Democrats will have a good chance in November.

8. The essenceof intelligent life is the ability to reason and learn, which is a quality thatvarious highly cerebral animals like dolphins porpoises chimps apes andgorillas possess. We should begin to treat these creatures as intelligent lifeforms.

9. Blessed arethe meek for they shall inherit the Earth.

10. Affirmative action in college admission policies isracial discrimination because it disadvantages white males.

11. If it walkslike a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

12. In ademocracy the majority can still do much evil, so if one is morally opposed toa law it should not be followed.

13. In ademocracy even if one is morally opposed to a law, it should be followed.

Meet Stephen Toulmin's Approach to Arguments

2011-10-19T17:22:00.000-07:00

Fromhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm

Toulmin's argument model

Stephen Toulmin, an English philosopher and logician, identified elements of a persuasive argument. These give useful categories by which an argument may be analyzed.

CLAIM

A claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. This includes information you are asking them to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact.
For example:

You should use a hearing aid.

Many people start with a claim, but then find that it is challenged. If you just ask me to do something, I will not simply agree with what you want. I will ask why I should agree with you. I will ask you to prove your claim. This is where grounds become important.

GROUNDS

The grounds (or data) is the basis of real persuasion and is made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim. It is the 'truth' on which the claim is based. Grounds may also include proof of expertise and the basic premises on which the rest of the argument is built.
The actual truth of the data may be less that 100%, as all data are based on perception and hence there is some element of assumption about it.
It is critical to the argument that the grounds are not challenged because, if they are, they may become a claim, which you will need to prove with even deeper information and further argument.
For example:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Information is usually a very powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical or rational will more likely to be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. It is often a useful test to give something factual to the other person that disproves their argument, and watch how they handle it. Some will accept it without question. Some will dismiss it out of hand. Others will dig deeper, requiring more explanation. This is where the warrant comes into its own.

WARRANT

A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit. It answers the question 'Why does that data mean your claim is true?'
For example:

A hearing aid helps most people to hear better.

The warrant may be simple and it may also be a longer argument, with additional sub-elements including those described below.
Warrants may be based on logos, ethos or pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener.
In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and hence unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

BACKING

The backing (or support) for an argument gives additional support to the warrant by answering different questions.
For example:

Hearing aids are available locally.

QUALIFIER

The qualifier (or modal qualifier) indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. They include words such as 'most', 'usually', 'always' or 'sometimes'. Arguments may thus range from strong assertions to generally quite floppy or largely and often rather uncertain kinds of statement.
For example:

Hearing aids help most people.

Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations are much used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus they slip 'usually', 'virtually', 'unless' and so on into their claims.

REBUTTAL

Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument.
For example:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing and so on. It also, of course can have a rebuttal. Thus if you are presenting an argument, you can seek to understand both possible rebuttals and also rebuttals to the rebuttals.

Deduction

2011-09-27T05:28:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

DEDUCTION - notes by Alfred Snider

Is useful for:

Determining futurepossibilities

Propositions conditioned by“if”

Choice between alternatives

Defined:

Deductive reasoning is thatform of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from premises.

That which is proven isalways the conclusion.

The syllogism:

Humans die (major premise,general truth)

You are a human (middlepremise, specific)

Therefore, you will die(conclusion, general applied to specific)

A=B

C=A

Therefore, C=B

The enthymeme:

One of the three statementsis generally omitted.

This involves the audience,and they are more persuaded when they participate

Plus it avoidscondescension.

Testing an enthymemeinvolves finding the missing part, inserting it, and seeing if the argumentstill works.

Types of deduction

Categorical deduction:

Assertion about a categoryof persons, places or things

Specific case is in thatcategory

Therefore, the assertion istrue of that specific case

Faculty members at UVM haveadvanced degrees

Ms. Windplenty is a UVMfaculty member

Therefore, Ms Windplentyhas an advanced degree

Major premise may be untrue or unproven: some people at UVM teach based on their life experience, not with advanced degrees.
Minor premise may be untrue or unproven: Ms. Windplenty is not a UVM faculty member
Conclusion is untrue: not all members of that category have that characteristic. Utah is conservative state, Mary is from Utah, Mary is conservative.
Conclusion is untrue: characteristic is not confined to just that category. Terrorists believe in destruction of property for their cause, ALF believe in destruction of property for their cause, therefore they are terrorists. Use the word only to reveal this flaw. Avoid overstatement.
Wrong use of major term. Cats are animals, dogs are not cats, and therefore dogs are not animals. If “only” cats are animals, then it would be true.
Wrong use of minor term. All judges are trained in law, all judges are citizens, and therefore all citizens are trained in law. Conclusion should be “some” citizens re trained in law.
Middle term must be used universally to have a universally. Democrats believe in national health care coverage, Mary believes in national health care coverage, therefore Mary is a democrat; you need to say “only” democrats.
Fallacy of four terms. Stripped down, a deductive categorical argument should have only three terms. People of India are Asians, Chinese are Orientals, and therefore Indians are Orientals.
Two negative premises: no sound conclusion from two negatives. Americans are not Asians, Europeans are not Americans, and therefore Europeans are Asians.

Disjunctive deduction: Twopossible outcomes are outlined, one is negated, and the other is proven. Identified by the terms “either” or“or.”

For you to pass the courseyou must either study harder or the professor must become more lenient; theprofessor will not become more lenient, therefore in order to pass you muststudy harder.

Tactics for analyzingdisjunctive deduction:

False or unproven major premise.
Other alternatives not mentioned.
Do both.
Deny alternative that is affirmed.
Affirm alternative that is denied.

Hypothetical deduction:different from cause

Differing conditions caninfluence the outcome of something. Expression of a hypothetical or conditionalrelationship. “If” is the key wordto look for.

If our captain cannot playtonight we will lose the game, our captain cannot play tonight, we will losethe game.

If it had rained, theground would be wet; the ground is not wet; therefore it did not rain.

Tactics:

Major premise affirms the conditional clause, conclusion must affirm the result. Captain argument
If the minor premise denies the result, the conclusion must deny the conditional clause. Rain argument
Other forces may be at work. If we increase spending for education it will improve, we will not increase spending, therefore it will not improve.
Apply lines of reasoning about causation.

Sorites: more than three.Break them up into separate arguments to analyze.

All lawyers are humans

All humans are vertebrates

All vertebrates are animals

All animals are mortal

Therefore, all lawyers aremortal.

Induction

2011-09-21T06:38:00.000-07:00

INDUCTION

Definition: studying a sufficient number of analogousfactual examples, finding a common characteristic, and naming it as a generallaw or truth.

Looking at examples to construct a generalization. From the specific to the general.

Useful in proving propositions of past or present fact orvalue.

Historical trends.

Public opinion polls.

Social science research.

Whether a current or past policy is working.

We accept many generalizations even though they may notalways be true.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUCTION

1. Examplesmust be factual.

2. Examplesmust be analogous – same type, species or category.

3. Sufficientnumber of factual examples.

4. Conclusionis a generalization

5. Featuresan “inductive leap.”

6. May usefact or statistical terms and methods.

USE OF INDUCTION

1. Inductionand the sampling process, not a complete counting.

2. Publicopinion polls – controlled, uncontrolled, range of error.

3. Case studymethod – lot of knowledge from one example, can add to it.

4. Experimentalstudy – number of examples can be reduced by using a control group. Criticalthinking example.

5. Empiricalmethod – objective, trained observer-reporting observations.

6. Inductionand universal laws – many things do not need to be proven separately but areaccepted – rain makes you wet, all humans die, falling objects can hurt us,etc.

7. Inductionis the way in which we learn most things early in life.

LINES OF ARGUMENT ON INDUCTION

1. Are thefacts true?

2. Are theexamples isolated or universal – New Orleans vs. many cities on organizedcrime.

3. Do examplescover a proper period of time – many times, now, long period of time.

4. Are theexamples typical or atypical?

5. Are theresignificant negative instances?

6. Is theconclusion properly stated?

7. So what?Truth of an argument does not make it significant.

Topics to Consider for Argument Drills

2011-09-21T06:33:00.000-07:00

TOPICS TO THINK ABOUT…

THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER

PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE LEGALIZED

STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SHOULD WEAR SCHOOL UNIFORMS

NON-VIOLENT PROTEST IS THE SOLUTION FOR DICTATORSHIP

PUBLIC MONEY SHOULD NOT BE USED TO FINANCE ART

RACIST PARTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR OFFICE

BIG GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED

STRONG DICTATORSHIP IS BETTER THAN WEAK DEMOCRACY

DISTANCE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION SHOULD BE REJECTED

NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED

PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED STUDENTS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED INSCHOOLS

EUTHANASIA IS EVERY CITIZEN’S RIGHT

CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC NUDITY

LIBERAL WESTERN DEMOCRACIES WITH BUDGET DEFICITS SHOULDINCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH

WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS

ALL POLITICIANS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO TERMS IN OFFICE

NATIONALISM IS A VIRTUE

PENALTIES FOR ATTEMPTED AND ACTUAL MURDER SHOULD BE THE SAME

CONVICTED RAPISTS SHOULD BE CHEMICALLY CASTRATED.

WE SHOULD TREAT ROYALTY AS IRRELEVANT

TESTING PRODUCTS FOR HUMANS ON ANIMALS IS IMMORAL

AFTER COHABITATING FOR SIX MONTHS, COUPLES SHOULD BECONSIDERED AS MARRIED

MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO WEARCOSMETICS TO SCHOOL

PARENTS SHOULD LOSE CUSTODY OF MORBIDLY OBESE CHILDREN.

CHILD ABUSERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN

SUPPORT NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTORS AND THEIRSTUDENTS SHOULD BE PUNISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY

THESTATE SHOULD PROHIBIT ALL ITEMS OF CLOTHING WHICH COVER THE FACE.

THISHOUSE BELIEVES IN THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

BAN ALLRELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLS

ALLOWCOMPANIES TO REFUSE TO HIRE SMOKERS

PEOPLESENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE THE DEATH PENALTYINSTEAD

BANCOSMETIC SURGERY

CRIMINALISETHE PAYMENT OF RANSOM

POLITICIANSHAVE A RIGHT TO A PRIVATE LIFE

PERMITLEGISLATING BY CITIZEN INITIATED REFERENDA

STATESSHOULD ADOPT E-ELECTIONS

EUROPEANGOVERNMENTS SHOULD PAY PARENTS TO HAVE CHILDREN.

SUPPORTSINDIGENOUS PERSONS CONVICTED OF A CRIME BEING SENTENCED BY THEIR COMMUNITY ANDNOT THE COURTS

BAN BOXING

WOMEN AND MEN SHOULDGET AN EQUAL POSITION IN WAR

TO PRESERVE PEACEWE SHOULD PREPARE FOR WAR

ATTENDANCE ATSCHOOL SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY

ZOOS SHOULD BECLOSED

PARENTS SHOULD NOTBE ALLOWED TO HIT CHILDREN

ALLCITIZENS OUGHT TO PERFORM A PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE

HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS' RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY IS OF GREATER VALUE THAN THEIR PARENTS'RIGHT TO KNOW.

BAN THE SERVING OF JUNK FOOD IN THE SCHOOLS.

BROADCAST EXECUTIONS.

HAVEHARSHER SENTENCES FOR CELEBRITY CRIMINALS

MARRIAGEIS AN OUTDATED CONCEPT

APOLOGIZE FOR COLONIALISM

MAKE REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY

E-ELECTIONS WOULD INCREASE THE DEMOCRATICPARTICIPATION OF YOUTH.

UNDERAGE VOTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IFTHEY PASS A TEST ON CIVICS.

Evidence and Its Problems

2011-09-15T06:06:00.000-07:00

EVIDENCE

Definition: any matter of fact used in gaining the belief orchanging attitudes of others.

We make inferences from evidence, and this process is alsoargument.

Types of evidence:

1. Factualexamples: it happened, it was witnessed, there is a story

2. Statistics:compilation of factual examples, total numbers, percentage of cases, ratio ofcases (1 out of 4).

3. Opinionsof authorities: Experts of people with special experience like psychiatrists incourt cases.

4. Testimonyof lay witnesses: untrained, normal people who were there, such aseyewitnesses. Also public opinion polls.

5. Documents,legal papers, etc.: birth certificate, passport, land deed, bill of sale, etc.

Tests of Evidence

Evidence from authorities:

Arguments to validate:

1. Theauthority has made a study: time, investigation, data, and findings.

2. Theauthority was trained in research: experience, special training, tries to beimpartial.

3. Theauthority is free from prejudice: impartial, has a strong agenda, supports aspecific cause.

4. Theauthority is free from exaggeration: does not name the extreme as an averagecase, does not fiddle with statistics, etc.

5. Theauthority is consistent: dependable, reliable, does not drastically changeposition without facts, etc.

Arguments to invalidate:

1. Did notmake a study – just an opinion.

2. Nottrained in research

3. Biased orprejudiced

4. Guilty ofexaggeration

5. Inconsistency

Evidence from statistics:

Arguments

1. Unit ofstatistics carefully defined? What does success, full recovery from cancer,what are you counting?

2. Are thestatistical units an accurate index of what we want to know? Is average wageincrease a better measure of prosperity than amount earned per year?

3. Are thestatistical units comparable? EPA has cleaned up 175 toxic waste sites and nowclaims that they are safe. Were they small or large, dangerous or relativelybenign? What do you mean by safe?

4. Do otherstudies confirm or disagree? Which study is better? Preponderance of evidence?

Evidence from lay witnesses:

Arguments

1. Was theoccurrence actually observed?

2. Physicallycapable of observing?

3. Capable ofaccurate reporting? Memory issues, translating into words, etc.

4. Free fromtendencies to exaggerate?

5. Free frompersonal involvement?

6. Does itconstitute an admission, goes against their personal interest?

7. Hearsaytest? Can it be relayed reliably and are the channels reliable?

Aristotle's 28 Lines of Common Argument

2011-09-08T05:13:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks to WIlliam FitzGerald, Rutgers University

Aristotle's Common Topics

28 Lines (Strategies) of Argument Useful in Treating Diverse Subjects

Below is my effort to paraphrase Aristotle and to offer examples additional to his

1. From opposites: look to see if the opposite claim is true of the opposite subject, confirming it if it is true, refuting the argument if it is not.

Aristotle's Example: Moderation is good because excess (immoderation) is bad.

My Example: Since being stupid is unfortunate, being intelligent is a blessing.

2. From different grammatical forms of the same word: look to see if the same claim is true of the related word; if so, claim is true, if not, then not.

Aristotle's Example: to say that the just is not entirely good because then what is done justly would also be a good, something which is not entirely the case. Justice is not always a desirable good, as when the just punishment is a death sentence.

My examples: Justice is not always just.Nobles (the nobility) do not always behave nobly.

3. From correlatives [logically related things]: see if something that is true of one element of a pair is also true of the other element.

Aristotle's Examples: If it is right to order (an action), it is right to obey it. If it is (not) shameful to sell something, it should (not) be shameful to buy it.

Aristotle's Counter argument: just some action or result is just, doesn't mean anyone can perform it.

My examples: If it is immoral to perform an abortion, it is immoral to seek it, and vice versa. If it is illegal to steal, it should be illegal to buy those stolen goods. Just because I deserved a good whuppin', doesn't give anyone the right to give that whuppin'.

Motto: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

4. From more and less; if something is not the fact where it should be more expected, it is not the fact where it should be less expected; if the lesser thing is true, the greater is also

Aristotle's Examples: If not even the gods know everything, human beings can hardly be expected to do so; A person who would beat his father, he would also beat his neighbors.

My examples: (from the Bible) Who, when his child asked for an egg, would hand him a scorpion or a snake? If human beings give good things to their child, how miuch more does God the Father give to his children? If a man would rob a young healthy person, he wouldn't hesitate to rob an old sickly person, this latter being an even easier target.

Furthermore: Neither more nor less: if something is the case for a lesser event, person or thing, it is no less the case for a greater event person or thing.

Aristotle's example: If Hector did no wrong in killing Patroclus (best friend of Achilles), Alexander (brother of Hector) did no wrong in killing Achilles (who killed Hector). That is, it is no worse a thing to kill your brother's killer than it is to kill your best friend's killer, a brother being at least as great a loss as a best friend.

My example: If athletes are respectable, so are academics. Ifeven [insert category of bad people here] are kind of animals, then so too should you.

5. From past to current or future time: look to see if something that was true/likely/just in the past is even more true/likely/just in the present or future; this line of reasoning is sometimescalleda fortiori argument, from the lesser case"to the stronger"case.

Aristotle's example: If you would have erected a statue in my honor even before I accomplished a great task, how much more should you be willing to do so now?

My example: if a politician deserved to be voted out of office even before this latest scandal, how much more so now?

6. Turning an accuser's words against oneself back against the accuser

Aristotle's example: If you [with your track record or reputation] wouldn't do such a thing,what makes anyone think that I would?

My example: how can you fault me for not giving to charities when you yourself have hardly given anything? Your one to talk! When was the last time you picked up the phone to call me. How can you sit there and complain that I never call?

7. From definition: focusing on the meaning of a word to support a claim.

Aristotle's example: What is the divine? What is noble?

Myexample: arguing that the so-called 'morning after' pill is not a contraceptive (but rather an abortifacent) because it does not (necessarily) prevent conception. Objecting to the use of the term "hysterical" because it means, literally, "of the womb," so saying that someone is being hysterical is, knowingly or not, maligning their behavior in anti-female terms.

8. From varied meanings of a word

Aristotle's example: from his work "On theTopics," he references a discussion of the various meanings of the work oxus, meaning sharp; in music the opposite of flat, of a knife the opposite of dull.

My example: the concept ofenthymeme, "of the thymos," reminds us that much of our reasoning comes 'from the gut,' not through formal analysis, but from what seems to us, at first impression, correct. We can seek to restrict or to broaden the reference to term.

9. From division: breaking a larger category into smaller parts [and narrowing to one of a few parts by eliminating certain possibilities]

Aristotle's example: All people do wrong for one of three reasons: from this, or this, or this; now two of these are impossible [in this case], but even the accusers do not assert the third.

My example: Why did she ever marry him? She had to be either crazy or desperate. [You can extend that example in various ways Division does not necessarily involve a secondary process of elimination, though it often does.]

10. From induction: to generalize from particular cases.

Aristotle's example: all mothers recognize their own child. Everyone honors the wise.

My example: All New Jersey politicians are corrupt. All librarians are social misfits.

11. From a previous judgment about the same or similar or opposite matter: see if all always make this judgment or if most do, or the wise, or the good. Also called the argument from authority.

Aristotle's example: If the (wise) judges have decided, then it must be accepted.

My example: The great and powerful Oz has spoken. If the Bible says it, it must be so.

The people have spoken. Who am I to question my betters? Science has proven it. It is God's will.

12. From the parts; look to see which individual elements of some larger thing are at issue.

Aristotle's example: What kind of motion is the soul, this or that? Which gods that the city recognizes does he not believe in?

My examples: What particular statute did the accused violate? Exactly what kind of academic dishonesty is he being accused of?

13. From consequences: look to see whether to exhort or dissaude, accuse or defend, praise or blame on the basis of consequences, since similar effects spring from similar causes. Note: this is an argument of generality

Aristotle's Example: Because envy (by others) follows from being educated, it is good not be educated. Because wisdom comes from education, and wisdom is a good thing, it follows that it is good to be educated.

My Example: Every time he shows up, trouble follows. Therefore, I say let's not invite him. It's a bad idea to marry one's high school sweetheart, since most such marriages end unhappily or end up being unhappy ones.

14. From alternatives: look to see [how to resolve] a dilemma, a choice between two alternatives, where each choice has negative consequences.

Aristotle's Examples: If you rule justly, the people will hate you. If you rule unjustly, the gods will punish you. When you buy the salt, you also buy the marsh.

Myexample: If you tell the truth, your boss will fire you. But if you lie, you will likely end up being prosecuted. [Better unemployment than prison.] You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Motto: sometimes one has to take the good with the bad.

15. From inward vs. outward contradictions; look to see if one thing is said in one (public) place and a different thing is said in another (private) place. [Challenges an opponents motives and honesty.]

Aristotle's Example: What people say praise in public is not necessarily what they say in private; the reasons people offer to others are not necessarily their private motives.

My Example: "That oughta hold the little bastards" said one children's TV host in the 1950s, not realizaing he was still on air, in his unexpectedly last broadcast.

16. From consequencesby analogy: look to see how an opposing case challenges an act and itsconsequences.

Aristotle's Example: If tall boys are now to be counted as men, then short men will soon be counted as boys.

17. From identical results: look to see (or argue) if the antecedents are the same where the results are the same.

Aristotle's Example:It is equally impious to say that the gods were born as to say that they die, since either statement means that the gods, at one time, did not exist.

My Example: Erroneous calculations of some outcome are equally bad when they lead to bad results, regardless of their differences. Failing to vote is a lapse in one's patriotic duty whatever the reason. Consequences matter, not motives or intentions. To pay taxes is to submit to tyranny.

18. From differences in position or action before and after

Aristotle's Example: It would be terrible if we fought to come home, but when, having come home, we choose exile over fighting.

My Example: If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have chosen a course of action. If I knew that the Iraq war would be so mismanaged, I would not have voted to authorize the use of force.

19. From attributed motive or from a result to an attributed motive: assert that a particular outcome is, in fact, the intended purpose.

Aristotle's Example: If something results in inury, argue that the purpose was to cause injury. God gives great forture to many not out of good will but so that misfortunes may be more obvious.

MyExample: God gave us memory so that we could have roses in December. My parents treated me harshly as a child so that I would learn to be self-sufficient. [That might be true, or they might simply have been jerks, yet I turned out okay.]

20. From perceived incentives and deterrents: reason about a motive on the basis of perceived benefits or disadvantages that would accrue.

Aristotle's Example: If someone had motive and opportunity, then he did the action.

My Example: No one does something without a reason, and people generally act in their own best interest.

21. From improbability: something implausible, but thought to be a fact, is true.

Aristotle's Example: Laws need a law to correct them; Fish need salt and olives oil to preserve them.

My Example: It's so unlikely, it has to be true.

22. From contradictions in circumstances; look to see if there are discrepancies in dates, actions or words.

Aristotle's Example: He says I am litigious, but he cannot show that I have ever brought a lawsuit.

My Example: I say there are many, many examples, but I fail to produce a single one of my own.

23. From false impression: state why something is erroneously perceived.

Aristotle's Example: Despite an affectionate embrace, someone is not a woman's lover, but her son.

MyExample: Corrupt people think that virtuous people have a base motive when they appear to do something altruistic, but here is a case where the person really is selfless.

24. From the necessity of a cause to effect relationship: for without cause there is nothing.

Aristotle's Example: There was no reason to cover up a crime, because no crime was committed.

My Example: Where there's smoke, there's fire.

25. From alternatives::look to see if there is a better plan

Aristotle's Example: none

My example: There's got to be a better way; the current course is not acceptable.

26. From comparison of possible actions: look for a different course of action

Aristotle's Example: When the people of Elia asked Xenophanes whether they should sacrifice and sing dirges to Leucothea, he said they should not sing dirges if they regarded her as a god, and if as a human being then not to sacrifice.

My example: If something isn't working, then change it.

27. From mistakes that have been made in the past: accuse or defend on the basis of mistakes

Aristotle's Example: Some accuse Medea of killing her own children, but if she didn't kill Jason, why would she kill her own children.

My example: Someone would not be so careless as to leave the murder weapon in plain sight. She must be innocent.

28. From the meaning of a name

Aristotle's Example: When your mother named you Sidero she clearly meant it.

My example: Boy [to Thomas], you really are a doubting Thomas.

FROM http://crab.rutgers.edu/~wfitz/28%20lines%20of%20argument.html

Origins of the Study of Argumentation: Greece, India and China

2011-09-05T13:55:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaSure, it started in Greece, but India and China were right behind them and made important contributions.

ARGUMENT AND GREECE

THE WORLD BEFORE:

· Action throughcoercion

· State asautocracy

· Religion asunexplainable, primal powers, unreasoning

CLASSICAL GREECE CHANGESMUCH OF THAT 400 BCE

THE GODS:

· In human image,acting like humans do, comprehendable

· A number ofgodly equals, at tuimes deciding without coercion

· Argue amongstthemselves (judgment of Paris)

· Could be arguedwith by mortals, although could be tricked (live forevert example)

THE GREEK STATE (tyranny andparticipation alternate)

· The polis(enclosed)

· Run by citizens,but not all citizens

· Decisions madein the open, argument forums

· Emphasis onoratory and persuasion

· Still usearguments under authoritarianism

· Must answerarguments of opponents

· High status torhetors

· Dramatic policysettings (war, transition to authoritarianism, etc.)

THE BIRTH OF SCIENCE

· Outgrowth ofreligion change - can apply logic to nature

· Experiment withnature and share the results

· Sharingknowledge shows difference with magic, unshared

· Scientificdisputations take on an argumentative mode

· Whendisagreements predominate, the opposition is wrong

· Competing camps:essential elements, earth, air, fire, water

From: Robert Branham, DEBATEAND CRITICAL ANALYSIS, 1991

300 BCE – INDIA

Argumentation was common ina religious ceremony accompanying animal sacrifice, called brahmodya.

Riddles and questionsdesigned to offer an entertaining demonstration of intellectual prowess.

Originally it was allmemorized.

Later it becameextemporaneous and rivals sought to outperform the other.

It became popularentertainment no longer a minor diversion during sacrifices.

These argument/debates werefeatured in public assemblies at royal courts and major prizes would beoffered.

Those who devoted themselvesto these contests were known as the “Brahmins addicted to debate.”

They developed systematic instructionin logic, reasoning and argument strategy.

These contests played avital role in the development of Indian philosophical, scientific and politicalthought.

Jayatilleke: The firstawareness of the validity and invalidity of reasoning seems to have arisen outof debate in India as much as in Greece.

After the rise of Buddhismdebating became a forum where rival philosophical schools conducted doctrinaldisputes.

Debates were public eventsgovernment by procedures and chaired by an umpire. Topics were generally drawnfrom theological rifts.

The theses on which theBuddha refused to express an opinion:

The world is eternal, noteternal

The world is finite, infinite

The soul is identical withthe body, not identical

The said exists after death,does not exist.

Particular attention waspaid to evidence: reference to sensory data, acquired experience, examples,analogies, and authoritative testimony.

Elaborate tests for eachtype of evidence were prescribed.

Debate had its critics, andaround 200 CE, one manual said debate was “necessary to protect the truth.”

Contests were thus viewed asa way of seeking spiritual truth.

200 BCE – CHINA

Had been important inreligious training, theological disputation and the development of logical andphilosophical reasoning.

Argumentation and debatewere emphasized during the collapse of the Han Dynasty (220 CE) because of theneed to call Confucian reasoning into question.

There were manyintellectuals who became doubters concerning Confucianism, which had been theideological engine of Chinese civilization.

Taoism and Buddhism oftentaught non-conformity and challenged tradition. Contest between competing worldviewscreated new interest in debate.

Pure Talk Movement:

Conducted by educatedpeople, competitive debates conducted before audiences, often lasting a day andperhaps a night.

KuanCh’en: There rang out a chorus of great debate. They threaded their way throughyin and yang, with literary embellishments sprouting in every direction. Ratherthan quote from the sages and ancient record, they concentrated on bringing tolight the natural order of things. Tzu-ch’un and all the assembled scholarsjoined the attack. The points and retorts thrusted back and forth like spears.But Lu answered each and every assault with a reply that was more thanadequate. They continued the entire day, until dusk fell, without even pausingfor food and drink.

Topics for pure talk variedfrom metaphysical themes to questions of how a literary text should be judgedor interpreted.

One person would bedesignated as the host and would defend a thesis; the other (guest) wouldrefute it. Members of the audience would sometimes join to clarify the argumentfor one side or another, but the main focus would be the encounter between thetwo.

Strong evidence was demandedand these were held to standards of logical rigor and consistency.

Good performance could leadto career advancement.

Still, the ostensiblepurpose was to “honor the heart of truth.”

Loser was expected to concedeand adopt the position of the winner.

If one member of the duo didnot perform effectively, the host might call on someone else to fill in orhelp.

Class Schedule for Fall 2011

2011-08-16T07:17:00.000-07:00

ARGUMENT & DECISION(FALL 2011)

DATE-ACTIVITY	READING	DUE
August 30 Introduction
1 Definitions	ITA1
6 Origins
8 Aristotle 28	ArisRhet
13 Aristotle 28
15 Evidence 1	ITA 5
20 Evidence 2; Drill Instruction	DRILL
22 Induction 1	ITA6
27 Induction 2
29 Deduction 1	ITA7, ITA3
October 4 Deduction 2	ITA4
6 Drill 1; Causality	ITA8, ITA10
11 Drill 1; Causality		DRILL
13 Drill 1: Causality		DRILL
18 Drill 1: Causality		DRILL
20 Toulmin 1	TOULMIN
25 Toulmin 2
27 Perelman
November 1 Johnstone
3 Fallacies
8 Examination		EXAMINATION
10 Decision 1
15 Decision 2
17 Drill 2*		DRILL
November 29 Drill 2*		DRILL PAPER
December 1 Drill 2*		DRILL
6 Drill 2		DRILL
8 Make up day

NO WORK CAN BE ACCEPTEDAFTER 8 DECEMBER 2011 AS I AM LEAVING THE COUNTRY.

* INDICATES DAYS WHERE THEDRILLS MAY BE VIDEOTAPED BECAUSE I AM OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

Argumentation Syllabus for Fall 2011

2011-08-16T07:13:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

ARGUMENT & DECISION

SPEECH 31

Alfred C.“Tuna” Snider, Instructor

475 MainStreet -- 656-0097 -- 238-8345 – alfred.snider@uvm.edu

10-11:15AM Tues-Thurs

<== Plato & Aristotle

SCOPE OF THE COURSE

This courseattempts to acquaint the student with the various approaches to the structure,utilization, evaluation, and critique of arguments. A very basic treatment willbe given to major theoretical approaches to argumentation (Aristotle, Toulmin,Perelman, etc.). The applicability and usefulness of different argumentativeforms in different fields will be examined. Criteria and methods for evaluatingarguments within a decision process will be examined. Throughout, students willbe encouraged to apply class concepts to real arguments found in everydayexperience, arguments offered as part of worksheets, and arguments found inactual instances of disagreement with the ideas of other students and theinstructor.

READING MATERIALS

Readingsare available at https://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/argreadings/

You willneed your UVM netid to access the readings. They will be disseminated tostudents based on procedures that are harmonious with current copyright regulations.

TEACHING METHODS

This coursewill use three primary teaching methods.

First, theinstructor will offer reasonably brief lectures. These will highlight bothreading material and present new material. Careful listening and good noteswill be a must.

Second,there will be on-going class discussions which students will be responsible forengaging in.

Third,there will be a series of exercises involving sample arguments as well asformal argument situations matching students against another. These will beanalyzed individually and/or jointly.

Educationis incorrectly seen as a process through which the all-knowing"teacher" imparts the unquestioned "knowledge" commodity tothe ignorant and passive "students." To be truly meaningful, theclass must involve student and teacher together pursuing answers to questionsneither may be truly able to answer conclusively. Disagreement is bound toarise, both about the concepts of argumentation and about the sample argumentswe examine. It is essential that each student take part in these disagreementsas a critical and active participant in order to learn about argument throughdirect experience. Learning by "doing" must substantially supplementlearning by being "told to" in order for this course to be successful.

The conceptof "indirect non—essentialism" (to be explained) will pervade themethods of this course.

REQUIREMENTS

PARTICIPATE:This implies that you come to class, are familiar with the material beingdiscussed, and volunteer opinions and perceptions actively. 15%

TAKEEXAMINATION: There will be one, format will vary. 20%

ARGUMENTDRILLS: Students will engage in two argument drills, where you will be matchedagainst other students. #1 15%, #2 25%. YOU MUST BE PRESENT IN CLASS READY FORYOUR ARGUMENT DRILL ON THE DAY IT IS SCHEDULED OR FACE SEVERE PUNISHMENT.

WRITE APAPER: You will write a 10-12 page paper analyzing arguments found in an areaof controversy selected by the student and approved by the instructor. Thiswritten document assumes basic literacy. A paper that fails to meet basicstandards for college level work will be rejected. The paper must be submittedelectronically. 25%

EVALUATION

Studentswill be evaluated on the basis of earned points only. There will be no extracredit work available. Each assignment has a basic point value (adding up to100) of which students will be awarded a portion based on the quality of theirwork. Final grades will be awarded with an eye towards natural breaks in thedistribution of scores.

Pointvalues are: paper 25, examination 20, class participation 15, argument drill #115, and argument drill #2 25.

Studentsshould be aware of the University policies on academic honesty.

OUTSIDE OF CLASS

Studentsshould feel free to meet with the instructor during office hours or at timesthat can be mutually agreed on. Feel free to ask for explanations ofassignments, class material, grading, or anything else that might be ofinterest. The instructor's goal is to develop a friendly working relationshipwith each student in this class.

CONCLUSION

This is atentative syllabus and may be revised. A day-to-day schedule of events andassignments will be provided.

Fall 2011 Course Details Soon

2011-08-07T03:51:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone!

I am retooling the argument course to make it more relevant to students as well as more fun.

I plan on replacing the one-on-one argument drills with team + team vs. team + team in using the WUDC debate format. Students have loved it in other courses.

I am also reconfiguring the test as well as changing a number of the lectures and exercises.

I will have the syllabus and schedule here soon. Stay tuned!

The class is full, so I look forward to a great semester.

Alfred Snider
alfred.snider@uvm.edu

Thanks for a Great Semester

2009-12-20T09:32:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

I want to thank all the students in the Argument & Decision course at the University of Vermont during the Fall 2009 semester.

You all did a great job and I thoroughly enjoyed working with you. I also learned a lot from you.

Best wishes, and hope to see you again in another classroom!

Making Your Arguments More Important

2009-11-19T10:31:00.000-08:00

Lecture - WUDC - Making Your Arguments More Important - Snider from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

This lecture is from the Serbia Summer Debate Camp held in Divcibare, Serbia in July 2009. This lecture examines ways to compare arguments and show that yours is more important. The speaker is Alfred Snider of the University of Vermont.

Serbia Summer Debate Camp
Milan Vignevic matuljak@gmail.com

Video by Alfred Snider
debate.uvm.edu

Hand Signals for Argument Analysis

2009-11-13T04:27:00.001-08:00

Friend Rich Lewis sent me this as his wife, a philosophy professor, uses it.

These signals can be used at our next argument drill session.

Fun with Fallacies

2009-11-12T10:58:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

List compiled by A.C. Snider

1. Hasty Generalization

2. Transfer fallacies:

‑A. fallacy of composition: true of part is true of whole

‑B‑ fallacy of division: true of whole is true of part

‑C. fallacy of refutation: straw person

3. Irrelevant arguments ‑ non-sequiturs does not follow.

4. Circular reasoning: conclusion is restatement of claim.

5. Avoiding the issue

-A. evasion

-B. attack the person

-C. shifts in ground

-D. seizing a trivial point ‑ red herring

6. False dichotomy ‑ bring lunch OR walk to school.

7. Appeal to ignorance ‑ failure to disprove is not proof. UFOs.

8. Appeal to the crowd ‑ bandwagon effect

9. Appeal to emotions ‑ no substitute for reasoning

10. Appeal to authority ‑ no substitute for reasoning

11. Appeal to tradition - no substitute for reasoning

12. Appeal to humor ‑ no substitute for reasoning

13. Ambiguity & equivocation - different use of words, change meaning.

14. Technical jargon.

15. Post hoc fallacy.

16. Damning the origin

17. Wishful thinking

18. Lip service

19. Personification

20. Cultural bias

21. Pointing to another wrong

22. Nothing but objections

23. Demand for perfection.

POLITICAL FALLACY

Compiled by A.C. Snider

Identify the fallacy (or fallacies) found in the following political arguments.

1. BUSH claimed he would fight budget deficits both in 2000 and 2004. He never changed that position, and deserves credit for that.

2. After Dean was elected governor the Vermont economy improved, and we should remember that in the next election.

3. We are changing so fast that we are losing our true American roots. America needs to retain its traditional ways of doing things.

4. Bush [the elder]: the man (Mike Dukakis) who pardoned Willie Horton will NOT be an effective crime fighter.

5. Democrats are the more liberal party in America. Therefore, their candidate will be a liberal.

6. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson link up with WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Democrats lead us into wars!

7. Because the Republicans have not solved America's problems, it is time for a change, time to vote Democrat.

8. If violence leads to more violence, Why did WW2 end? Violence does not lead to more violence.

9. America needs to move more cautiously. Uncle Sam is old and tired and needs a rest.

10. The US is the world's foremost democracy. Other nations who want to be democratic need to copy our constitution.

11. Dukakis appointed an official "Witch" for Massachusetts, so how can we trust him to appoint Supreme Court justices?

12. Canadians who voted Conservative want a trade agreement with the US. Conservatives won the election. Canada has spoken with one voice!

13. Bush [the elder]: I'm not running against Dukakis, I'm running against the Liberal ideology. Liberalism means big government and high taxes. That's why you should elect Dan Quayle and I in 1988!

14. Dukakis had a mental breakdown. If I told you how I found out you would all know my sources.

15. Bush is a rich, Texas oilman, so he won't make decisions in the interests of the common person.

16.If Democrats want to spend more on social programs, they will have to raise taxes.

17. Reagan met with space aliens in 1987, and it cannot be disproved.

18. Since Obama is going to win, voting for Nader is throwing your vote away.

19.George Bush [the elder] loves the flag more than Mike Dukakis. We know what that means.

20.If you want Democracy, vote for the Democratic party!

Transcript of Perelman Universal Audience Video

2009-10-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

Lecture: Universal Audience

Below you are invited to view a video (transcript attached) in which Alfred Snider, Professor of Forensics at the University of Vermont, discusses the idea of “universal audience”.

http://argumentanddecision.blogspot.com/2009/10/lecture-chaim-perelman-universal.html

Transcript

(Introduction)

Before I start talking about the concept of the universal audience, I want to talk about a contradiction in a few traditions of approaching argumentation.

(The Neo-Aristotelian Approach: Truth, Conviction)

(Toulmin’s Approach: Gaining Acceptance)

(The Conflict)

So in neo-Aristotelianism you’re after conviction. In Toulmin’s approach, you’re after acceptance.

(Resolution: The Universal Audience)

Here are some implications of this particular theoretical approach:

Lecture - Chaim Perelman & the Universal Audience - Snider

2009-10-26T10:15:00.000-07:00

Henry Johnstone & "Ad Hominem" Argumentation

2009-10-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

Lecture - Theory - Henry Johnstone and Ad Hominem Argument - Snider from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

This is a video lecture for the class "Argument & Decision" taught by Alfred Snider at the University of Vermont. The lecture concerns one of the ideas developed by the late Henry Johnstone to further his attempt to link philosophy with rhetoric, and in this case argumentation.

The main website for the class is at
argumentanddecision.blogspot.com/

Video by Alfred Snider, Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics at the University of Vermont, made in October 2009 before he goes off to Qatar for an eight-day debate workshop. Because he will miss class, he has videotaped a few lectures, including this one.
debate.uvm.edu

Toulmin Diagrams for Sample Arguments

2009-10-25T07:57:00.000-07:00

Diagram these arguments according to the Stephen Toulmin system. Be prepared to put them on the board.

1. Draft evaders should be called up first in time of war.

2. The existence of many citizens willing to join the armed forces will make it easier for the government to go ahead with military intervention. PAXTON

3. The Iranians have broken agreements with the UN before, so we cannot trust them now. HAGAN

4. We need to increase military spending so that we will be in a better bargaining position for future arms control talks. JENNIE

5. Military spending is good for the economy because it stimulates manufacturing. JAMES

6. The USA is assisting a freely elected government is Israel, and therefore is supporting democracy. ANDREW

7. There will never be another Vietnam. KAREN

8. If so many intelligent creatures exist in the universe we should have met them already. EMMA

9. Students who protest the lack of cultural diversity in the UVM curriculum should be the first students to be forced to take new expanded Race and Culture classes. CHRISTOPHER

10. The existence of a pool of wealthy white students wanting to enter college will make it easier for better schools to avoid recruiting minorities. IAN

11. Democrats are traditionally the big spenders and high taxers, so the right vote in the next election is clear.

12. Lowering interest rates stimulates the economy because it stimulates the housing market. ZACHARY

13. Most smart people are rich.

Meeting the Toulmin Diagram

2009-10-22T08:54:00.000-07:00

Image by Jinho.Jung via Flickr

From http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm

Toulmin's argument model

Stephen Toulmin, an English philosopher and logician, identified elements of a persuasive argument. These give useful categories by which an argument may be analyzed.

Claim

A claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. This includes information you are asking them to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact.
For example:

You should use a hearing aid.

Grounds

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Warrant

A hearing aid helps most people to hear better.

Backing

The backing (or support) for an argument gives additional support to the warrant by answering different questions.
For example:

Hearing aids are available locally.

Qualifier

Hearing aids help most people.

Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations are much used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus they slip 'usually', 'virtually', 'unless' and so on into their claims.

Rebuttal

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Argument Drills Now Going On

2009-10-15T06:22:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

ARGUMENT DRILLS

The purpose of this assignment is to give students some practical experience in utilizing arguments in a real situation. This is an informal exercise, not calling for a huge amount of previous research and study. The topics are everyday topics one might encounter in informal discussions.

Two people will engage in a relaxed, informal argument over an agreed on topic. The affirmative speaker will be in favor of the resolution being discussed and the negative speaker will be opposed to it. The topic will be mutually agreed upon.

The procedure will be as follows:

Affirmative 4 min Arguments in favor of the resolution

Negative 5 min Statements against the resolution and refutation of affirmative arguments

Affirmative 4 min Rebuttal of negative speech and summary of affirmative position

Negative 3 min Summary of affirmative and negative arguments

Prep Time 3 min For negative

2 min For affirmative

Decision Each student will decide on a winner and write a short reason for decision.

Grading for this assignment will be based on argumentative content and clash, and not on speaking style...although clear presentation of your ideas will help your cause.

It is hoped that participants will be cooperative and polite.

This assignment cannot be made up if you miss your day. Being ready and on time is essential. Pick an opponent you believe you can count on.

If there is an odd number of students, students may volunteer to do a drill twice, with the best of the two grades being recorded.

FIND POTENTIAL TOPICS AT

http://debate.uvm.edu/parlitopics.html

http://flynn.debating.net/motions2.htm

Causal Argument

2009-10-08T06:41:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

ARGUMENTATION – CAUSAL REASONING

Propositions for causal reasoning:

Control in society

Policy suggestions

Physical causes of effects

Causal reasoning defined:

An event that happens first has the means, power, facilities and/or desire to produce a second event.

You got the measles. You were playing cards with Simon the day before he got measles. You just have gotten the measles from Simon.

Event 1 ==> Event 2

You give a theoretical explanation, you support that theory, and you claim the result.

You may have to use induction to support the theory.

Studies of flossing reducing tooth decay, all agree, therefore flossing causes a reduction in tooth decay.

Types of causal reasoning:

Cause to effect:

Known cause => Effect to be proven

Effect to cause:

Known or observed effect => Cause to be proven

You came in from outside all wet, therefore it must be raining.

Which is known, the effect or the cause?

Which is being used to prove the other?

Effect to effect reasoning:

Known effect => discovered cause => New effect

I read a book by Truman Capote and liked it, so I decided to try another.

Argument from sign

The sign is an indication of an event, not the cause.

Sign observed => sign associated with event => event is true

Schools flying flags mean school is in session.

Birds flying south means winter is coming

Rooster crowing means dawn is coming

Lines of argument about causal arguments

1. Does the alleged cause have the means, power and or desire to produce the effect?

2. Is this the sole cause or are there other causes?

3. Is this a significant cause?

4. Is this the original or the contributing cause?

5. Are there counteracting causes?

6. Has coincidence been mistaken for causality?

Deductive Reasoning - Part 1

2009-10-01T05:14:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

DEDUCTION

Is useful for:

Determining future possibilities

Propositions conditioned by “if”

Choice between alternatives

Defined:

Deductive reasoning is that form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from premises.

That which is proven is always the conclusion.

The syllogism:

Humans die (major premise, general truth)

You are a human (middle premise, specific)

Therefore, you will die (conclusion, general applied to specific)

A=B

C=A

Therefore, C=B

The enthymeme:

One of the three statements is generally omitted.

This involves the audience, and they are more persuaded when they participate

Plus it avoids condescension.

Testing an enthymeme involves finding the missing part, inserting it, and seeing if the argument still works.

Types of deduction

Categorical deduction:

Assertion about a category of persons, places or things

Specific case is in that category

Therefore, the assertion is true of that specific case

Faculty members at UVM have advanced degrees

Ms. Windplenty is a UVM faculty member

Therefore, Ms Windplenty has an advanced degree

Major premise may be untrue or unproven: some people at UVM teach based on their life experience, not with advanced degrees.
Minor premise may be untrue or unproven: Ms. Windplenty is not a UVM faculty member
Conclusion is untrue: not all members of that category have that characteristic. Utah is conservative state, Mary is from Utah, Mary is conservative.
Conclusion is untrue: characteristic is not confined to just that category. Terrorists believe in destruction of property for their cause, ALF believe in destruction of property for their cause, therefore they are terrorists. Use the word only to reveal this flaw. Avoid overstatement.
Wrong use of major term. Cats are animals, dogs are not cats, and therefore dogs are not animals. If “only” cats are animals, then it would be true.
Wrong use of minor term. All judges are trained in law, all judges are citizens, and therefore all citizens are trained in law. Conclusion should be “some” citizens re trained in law.
Middle term must be used universally to have a universally. Democrats believe in national health care coverage, Mary believes in national health care coverage, therefore Mary is a democrat; you need to say “only” democrats.
Fallacy of four terms. Stripped down, a deductive categorical argument should have only three terms. People of India are Asians, Chinese are Orientals, and therefore Indians are Orientals.
Two negative premises: no sound conclusion from two negatives. Americans are not Asians, Europeans are not Americans, and therefore Europeans are Asians.

Disjunctive deduction: Two possible outcomes are outlined, one is negated, and the other is proven. Identified by the terms “either” or “or.”

For you to pass the course you must either study harder or the professor must become more lenient; the professor will not become more lenient, therefore in order to pass you must study harder.

Tactics for analyzing disjunctive deduction:

False or unproven major premise.
Other alternatives not mentioned.
Do both.
Deny alternative that is affirmed.
Affirm alternative that is denied.

Hypothetical deduction: different from cause

Differing conditions can influence the outcome of something. Expression of a hypothetical or conditional relationship. “If” is the key word to look for.

If our captain cannot play tonight we will lose the game, our captain cannot play tonight, we will lose the game.

If it had rained, the ground would be wet; the ground is not wet; therefore it did not rain.

Tactics:

Major premise affirms the conditional clause, conclusion must affirm the result. Captain argument
If the minor premise denies the result, the conclusion must deny the conditional clause. Rain argument
Other forces may be at work. If we increase spending for education it will improve, we will not increase spending, therefore it will not improve.
Apply lines of reasoning about causation.

Sorites: more than three. Break them up into separate arguments to analyze.

All lawyers are humans

All humans are vertebrates

All vertebrates are animals

All animals are mortal

Therefore, all lawyers are mortal.

Induction - Part 2 - Samples

2009-09-29T06:19:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

From http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/induc.html

Introduction to Induction
As covered in the section on Inductive and Deductive Reasoning, inductive arguments are usually based on experience or observation. In effect, then, inductive arguments are all comparisons between two sets of events, ideas, or things; as a result, inductive arguments are sometimes called analogical arguments. The point of those comparisons, or analogies, is to establish whether the two sets under consideration, similar in a number of other ways, are also similar in the way of interest to the argument. Consider this example:
Mariko says, "Every time I've seen a red-tinted sunset, the next day's weather has been beautiful. Today had a red-tinted sunset, so tomorrow will be beautiful."

Essentially, Mariko is comparing one set of events (observed red-tinted sunsets and each following day's weather) with another (today's observed sunset and tomorrow's predicted weather). These sets are similar in an important way (red-tinted sunsets), and the inductive argument is that they will also be similar in another way (nice weather on the following day). In this case, Mariko is arguing from particular cases in the past to a particular case in the present and future, but she could also argue inductively from those particular cases to a general one, such as "It's always beautiful the day after a red-tinted sunset."
The strength of such an argument depends in large part on three of its elements:
how accurate and comprehensive the previous observations are;
how strong the causal link seems to be;
how similar the two cases are.

In Mariko's argument, to satisfy the first element, we would want to be sure that she's seen many such sunsets, and that "redness" and "beauty" have been judged consistently. To satisfy the second, we would want to feel confident that there is a strong correlation between weather patterns on successive days. To satisfy the third, we would want to know whether there are any significant differences between the observation of today's sunset and of the previous ones. A difference in season, a difference in geographical or topographical location, a difference in climate, or any other significant variation might affect the comparability of the two sets of observations.
In fact, we should always understand the second premise of an inductive argument to contain a claim like "there is otherwise no significant difference." The second premise of Mariko's argument, then, might read, "Today's sunset was red-tinted (and there were no significant differences between this and previous red-tinted sunsets)." Keeping such a disclaimer in mind is important, because this is where many inductive arguments are weakest.
Because we argue inductively from the particular to the general, such arguments are often called generalizations, or inductive generalizations. Other kinds of arguments with a similar format include causal arguments.

Exercises on Induction
1. Every time Jorge has seen a baseball game between the Giants and the Dodgers at Candlestick Park, the Giants have won. Tomorrow, the Giants play the Dodgers at Candlestick. Which of the following is least significant when arguing that the Giants will win tomorrow?
Jorge has only seen the Giants play the Dodgers twice.
Both teams have many new players.
Jorge won't be going to the game tomorrow.
The field at Candlestick will be unusually muddy tomorrow.

2. Which of the following would be the strongest argument for the claim, "The weather for tomorrow will be beautiful"?
Josue says, "Tomorrow is my birthday, and the weather on my birthday is always beautiful."
Bharati says, "The weather forecast in the newspaper is always wrong, and tomorrow's forecast is for rain, so it will probably be beautiful."
Ivy says, "The weather forecast in the newspaper is always right, and tomorrow's forecast is for a beautiful day, so that's what it will be."
Kwong says, "The barometric pressure has been rising for three days, and whenever that happens we have beautiful weather for the next week, so tomorrow is sure to be beautiful."

3. Salman's inductive argument began, "All five of the other guys in my fraternity." Which of the following phrases is the strongest completion of that claim?
who took Critical Thinking passed it, so I should pass it, too.
who tried out for the tennis team made it, so I should make it, too.
who met the new member liked him, so I should like him, too.
who ate the potato salad got sick, so I should get sick, too.

Induction - Part 1

2009-09-24T06:24:00.000-07:00

Image by Major Clanger via Flickr

INDUCTION

Definition: studying a sufficient number of analogous factual examples, finding a common characteristic, and naming it as a general law or truth.

Looking at examples to construct a generalization. From the specific to the general.

Useful in proving propositions of past or present fact or value.

Historical trends.

Public opinion polls.

Social science research.

Whether a current or past policy is working.

We accept many generalizations even though they may not always be true.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUCTION

1. Examples must be factual.

2. Examples must be analogous – same type, species or category.

3. Sufficient number of factual examples.

4. Conclusion is a generalization

5. Features an “inductive leap.”

6. May use fact or statistical terms and methods.

USE OF INDUCTION

1. Induction and the sampling process, not a complete counting.

2. Public opinion polls – controlled, uncontrolled, range of error.

3. Case study method – lot of knowledge from one example, can add to it.

4. Experimental study – number of examples can be reduced by using a control group. Critical thinking example.

5. Empirical method – objective, trained observer-reporting observations.

6. Induction and universal laws – many things do not need to be proven separately but are accepted – rain makes you wet, all humans die, falling objects can hurt us, etc.

7. Induction is the way in which we learn most things early in life.

LINES OF ARGUMENT ON INDUCTION

1. Are the facts true?

2. Are the examples isolated or universal – New Orleans vs. many cities on organized crime.

3. Do examples cover a proper period of time – many times, now, long period of time.

4. Are the examples typical or atypical?

5. Are there significant negative instances?

6. Is the conclusion properly stated?

7. So what? Truth of an argument does not make it significant.

Test of Authoritative Evidence - Evidence part 2

2009-09-22T05:19:00.000-07:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

What is wrong with what is below? Do the quotations support the argument being made? By the way, these are all made-up quotations.

Need suspicion for drug testing

Benjamin Lee, 2000 (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, P. 78).

"There must be suspicion to conduct a routine search and campus drug testing is often suspicionless. The Supreme Court, in Vernonica School District 47J v. Acton, 515 US 646 (1995), allowed suspicionless searches of student athletes in public schools. The method of the search was a drug test. Other courts at the state and federal level have also ruled on this issue, some expanding and other limiting the effect of the Court's ruling in somewhat related cases."

Drug testing will not work

Paul Smith, November 31,1998 (professor botany, "Drug Testing: A Positive Step in the Drug War," online 11‑2‑98)

"In the most recent Supreme Court case, the Court upheld a decision to approve school‑wide drug testing. This is a momentous decision, one that, in due time, will fail to balance the needs of society and the individual. Although drug use and related crime is an enormous national social problem, I do not think that this is a wise solution, particularly as it does not limit drug importation or harvesting."

Drug testing is the best solution

Joanna Malducci, NYT, 1‑999 (prof, Uconn, editorial, "A Solution to A Social Crisis," p. 1).

"Public schools need more leeway in disciplining students. This would be an outstanding idea and an effective program to help school administrators to end this crisis."

Testing reduces drug use

Hagried Van Hils, 2000

(professor of neuropharmacology and criminal justice, University of Rotterdam, "Drug

Testing and Drug Use: A National Comparison," International Journal of Pharmacology,

September, 1999, P. 37).

"Tested students are far less likely to use drugs or to use them habitually. Our

research confirms that there is a statistically significant relationship between the

public secondary schools that tested youths and the control group. More than

twice as many students in the control continued habitual drug use and casual use

was higher. This information is of special consideration to international drug

control efforts."

Evidence Part 1

2009-09-17T06:15:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

EVIDENCE

Definition: any matter of fact used in gaining the belief or changing attitudes of others.

We make inferences from evidence, and this process is also argument.

Types of evidence:

1. Factual examples: it happened, it was witnessed, there is a story

2. Statistics: compilation of factual examples, total numbers, percentage of cases, ratio of cases (1 out of 4).

3. Opinions of authorities: Experts of people with special experience like psychiatrists in court cases.

4. Testimony of lay witnesses: untrained, normal people who were there, such as eyewitnesses. Also public opinion polls.

5. Documents, legal papers, etc.: birth certificate, passport, land deed, bill of sale, etc.

Tests of Evidence

Evidence from authorities:

Arguments to validate:

1. The authority has made a study: time, investigation, data, and findings.

2. The authority was trained in research: experience, special training, tries to be impartial.

3. The authority is free from prejudice: impartial, has a strong agenda, supports a specific cause.

4. The authority is free from exaggeration: does not name the extreme as an average case, does not fiddle with statistics, etc.

5. The authority is consistent: dependable, reliable, does not drastically change position without facts, etc.

Arguments to invalidate:

1. Did not make a study – just an opinion.

2. Not trained in research

3. Biased or prejudiced

4. Guilty of exaggeration

5. Inconsistency

Evidence from statistics:

Arguments

1. Unit of statistics carefully defined? What does success, full recovery from cancer, what are you counting?

2. Are the statistical units an accurate index of what we want to know? Is average wage increase a better measure of prosperity than amount earned per year?

3. Are the statistical units comparable? EPA has cleaned up 175 toxic waste sites and now claims that they are safe. Were they small or large, dangerous or relatively benign? What do you mean by safe?

4. Do other studies confirm or disagree? Which study is better? Preponderance of evidence?

Evidence from lay witnesses:

Arguments

1. Was the occurrence actually observed?

2. Physically capable of observing?

3. Capable of accurate reporting? Memory issues, translating into words, etc.

4. Free from tendencies to exaggerate?

5. Free from personal involvement?

6. Does it constitute an admission, goes against their personal interest?

7. Hearsay test? Can it be relayed reliably and are the channels reliable?

Aristotle's 28 Lines of Argument

2009-09-10T09:07:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Our goal in examining these is to get used to criticizing and accepting arguments. Which one of these do you or would you be willing to use? Can you think of additional examples of these kinds of arguments? Are some of these a bit out of date now?

From http://crab.rutgers.edu/~wfitz/28%20lines%20of%20argument.html

William FitzGerald Fall 2006
English 393 - Argument and Advocacy

Aristotle's Common Topics
28 Lines (Strategies) of Argument Useful in Treating Diverse Subjects

Below is my effort to paraphrase Aristotle and to offer examples additional to his

1. From opposites: look to see if the opposite claim is true of the opposite subject, confirming it if it is true, refuting the argument if it is not.

Aristotle's Example: Moderation is good because excess (immoderation) is bad.

My Example: Since being stupid is unfortunate, being intelligent is a blessing.

2. From different grammatical forms of the same word: look to see if the same claim is true of the related word; if so, claim is true, if not, then not.

Aristotle's Example: to say that the just is not entirely good because then what is done justly would also be a good, something which is not entirely the case. Justice is not always a desirable good, as when the just punishment is a death sentence.

My examples: Justice is not always just.Nobles (the nobility) do not always behave nobly.

3. From correlatives [logically related things]: see if something that is true of one element of a pair is also true of the other element.

Aristotle's Examples: If it is right to order (an action), it is right to obey it. If it is (not) shameful to sell something, it should (not) be shameful to buy it.

Aristotle's Counter argument: just some action or result is just, doesn't mean anyone can perform it.

My examples: If it is immoral to perform an abortion, it is immoral to seek it, and vice versa. If it is illegal to steal, it should be illegal to buy those stolen goods. Just because I deserved a good whuppin', doesn't give anyone the right to give that whuppin'.

Motto: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

4. From more and less; if something is not the fact where it should be more expected, it is not the fact where it should be less expected; if the lesser thing is true, the greater is also

Aristotle's Examples: If not even the gods know everything, human beings can hardly be expected to do so; A person who would beat his father, he would also beat his neighbors.

My examples: (from the Bible) Who, when his child asked for an egg, would hand him a scorpion or a snake? If human beings give good things to their child, how miuch more does God the Father give to his children? If a man would rob a young healthy person, he wouldn't hesitate to rob an old sickly person, this latter being an even easier target.

Furthermore: Neither more nor less: if something is the case for a lesser event, person or thing, it is no less the case for a greater event person or thing.

Aristotle's example: If Hector did no wrong in killing Patroclus (best friend of Achilles), Alexander (brother of Hector) did no wrong in killing Achilles (who killed Hector). That is, it is no worse a thing to kill your brother's killer than it is to kill your best friend's killer, a brother being at least as great a loss as a best friend.

My example: If athletes are respectable, so are academics. Ifeven [insert category of bad people here] are kind of animals, then so too should you.

5. From past to current or future time: look to see if something that was true/likely/just in the past is even more true/likely/just in the present or future; this line of reasoning is sometimescalled a fortiori argument, from the lesser case"to the stronger"case.

Aristotle's example: If you would have erected a statue in my honor even before I accomplished a great task, how much more should you be willing to do so now?

My example: if a politician deserved to be voted out of office even before this latest scandal, how much more so now?

6. Turning an accuser's words against oneself back against the accuser

Aristotle's example: If you [with your track record or reputation] wouldn't do such a thing,what makes anyone think that I would?

My example: how can you fault me for not giving to charities when you yourself have hardly given anything? Your one to talk! When was the last time you picked up the phone to call me. How can you sit there and complain that I never call?

7. From definition: focusing on the meaning of a word to support a claim.

Aristotle's example: What is the divine? What is noble?

Myexample: arguing that the so-called 'morning after' pill is not a contraceptive (but rather an abortifacent) because it does not (necessarily) prevent conception. Objecting to the use of the term "hysterical" because it means, literally, "of the womb," so saying that someone is being hysterical is, knowingly or not, maligning their behavior in anti-female terms.

8. From varied meanings of a word

Aristotle's example: from his work "On theTopics," he references a discussion of the various meanings of the work oxus, meaning sharp; in music the opposite of flat, of a knife the opposite of dull.

My example: the concept ofenthymeme, "of the thymos," reminds us that much of our reasoning comes 'from the gut,' not through formal analysis, but from what seems to us, at first impression, correct. We can seek to restrict or to broaden the reference to term.

9. From division: breaking a larger category into smaller parts [and narrowing to one of a few parts by eliminating certain possibilities]

Aristotle's example: All people do wrong for one of three reasons: from this, or this, or this; now two of these are impossible [in this case], but even the accusers do not assert the third.

My example: Why did she ever marry him? She had to be either crazy or desperate. [You can extend that example in various ways Division does not necessarily involve a secondary process of elimination, though it often does.]

10. From induction: to generalize from particular cases.

Aristotle's example: all mothers recognize their own child. Everyone honors the wise.

My example: All New Jersey politicians are corrupt. All librarians are social misfits.

11. From a previous judgment about the same or similar or opposite matter: see if all always make this judgment or if most do, or the wise, or the good. Also called the argument from authority.

Aristotle's example: If the (wise) judges have decided, then it must be accepted.

My example: The great and powerful Oz has spoken. If the Bible says it, it must be so.
The people have spoken. Who am I to question my betters? Science has proven it. It is God's will.

12. From the parts; look to see which individual elements of some larger thing are at issue.

Aristotle's example: What kind of motion is the soul, this or that? Which gods that the city recognizes does he not believe in?

My examples: What particular statute did the accused violate? Exactly what kind of academic dishonesty is he being accused of?

13. From consequences: look to see whether to exhort or dissaude, accuse or defend, praise or blame on the basis of consequences, since similar effects spring from similar causes. Note: this is an argument of generality

Aristotle's Example: Because envy (by others) follows from being educated, it is good not be educated. Because wisdom comes from education, and wisdom is a good thing, it follows that it is good to be educated.

My Example: Every time he shows up, trouble follows. Therefore, I say let's not invite him. It's a bad idea to marry one's high school sweetheart, since most such marriages end unhappily or end up being unhappy ones.

14. From alternatives: look to see [how to resolve] a dilemma, a choice between two alternatives, where each choice has negative consequences.

Aristotle's Examples: If you rule justly, the people will hate you. If you rule unjustly, the gods will punish you. When you buy the salt, you also buy the marsh.

Myexample: If you tell the truth, your boss will fire you. But if you lie, you will likely end up being prosecuted. [Better unemployment than prison.] You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Motto: sometimes one has to take the good with the bad.

15. From inward vs. outward contradictions; look to see if one thing is said in one (public) place and a different thing is said in another (private) place. [Challenges an opponents motives and honesty.]

Aristotle's Example: What people say praise in public is not necessarily what they say in private; the reasons people offer to others are not necessarily their private motives.

My Example: "That oughta hold the little bastards" said one children's TV host in the 1950s, not realizaing he was still on air, in his unexpectedly last broadcast.

16. From consequencesby analogy: look to see how an opposing case challenges an act and itsconsequences.

Aristotle's Example: If tall boys are now to be counted as men, then short men will soon be counted as boys.

My Example:

17. From identical results: look to see (or argue) if the antecedents are the same where the results are the same.

Aristotle's Example:It is equally impious to say that the gods were born as to say that they die, since either statement means that the gods, at one time, did not exist.

My Example: Erroneous calculations of some outcome are equally bad when they lead to bad results, regardless of their differences. Failing to vote is a lapse in one's patriotic duty whatever the reason. Consequences matter, not motives or intentions. To pay taxes is to submit to tyranny.

18. From differences in position or action before and after

Aristotle's Example: It would be terrible if we fought to come home, but when, having come home, we choose exile over fighting.

My Example: If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have chosen a course of action. If I knew that the Iraq war would be so mismanaged, I would not have voted to authorize the use of force.

19. From attributed motive or from a result to an attributed motive: assert that a particular outcome is, in fact, the intended purpose.

Aristotle's Example: If something results in inury, argue that the purpose was to cause injury. God gives great forture to many not out of good will but so that misfortunes may be more obvious.

MyExample: God gave us memory so that we could have roses in December. My parents treated me harshly as a child so that I would learn to be self-sufficient. [That might be true, or they might simply have been jerks, yet I turned out okay.]

20. From perceived incentives and deterrents: reason about a motive on the basis of perceived benefits or disadvantages that would accrue.

Aristotle's Example: If someone had motive and opportunity, then he did the action.

My Example: No one does something without a reason, and people generally act in their own best interest.

21. From improbability: something implausible, but thought to be a fact, is true.

Aristotle's Example: Laws need a law to correct them; Fish need salt and olives oil to preserve them.

My Example: It's so unlikely, it has to be true.

22. From contradictions in circumstances; look to see if there are discrepancies in dates, actions or words.

Aristotle's Example: He says I am litigious, but he cannot show that I have ever brought a lawsuit.

My Example: I say there are many, many examples, but I fail to produce a single one of my own.

23. From false impression: state why something is erroneously perceived.

Aristotle's Example: Despite an affectionate embrace, someone is not a woman's lover, but her son.

MyExample: Corrupt people think that virtuous people have a base motive when they appear to do something altruistic, but here is a case where the person really is selfless.

24. From the necessity of a cause to effect relationship: for without cause there is nothing.

Aristotle's Example: There was no reason to cover up a crime, because no crime was committed.

My Example: Where there's smoke, there's fire.

25. From alternatives::look to see if there is a better plan

Aristotle's Example: none

My example: There's got to be a better way; the current course is not acceptable.

26. From comparison of possible actions: look for a different course of action

Aristotle's Example: When the people of Elia asked Xenophanes whether they should sacrifice and sing dirges to Leucothea, he said they should not sing dirges if they regarded her as a god, and if as a human being then not to sacrifice.

My example: If something isn't working, then change it.

27. From mistakes that have been made in the past: accuse or defend on the basis of mistakes

Aristotle's Example: Some accuse Medea of killing her own children, but if she didn't kill Jason, why would she kill her own children.

My example: Someone would not be so careless as to leave the murder weapon in plain sight. She must be innocent.

28. From the meaning of a name

Aristotle's Example: When your mother named you Sidero she clearly meant it.

My example: Boy [to Thomas], you really are a doubting Thomas.

Argument and Decision

Transcript of Snider Lecture on Perelman's Universal Audience

Chaim Perelman's Universal Audience

Arguments to Toulminize

Meet Stephen Toulmin's Approach to Arguments

Fromhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm

Toulmin's argument model

CLAIM

GROUNDS

WARRANT

BACKING

QUALIFIER

REBUTTAL

SEE ALSO

Deduction

Related articles

Induction

Topics to Consider for Argument Drills

Evidence and Its Problems

Aristotle's 28 Lines of Common Argument

Origins of the Study of Argumentation: Greece, India and China

Class Schedule for Fall 2011

Argumentation Syllabus for Fall 2011

Related articles

Fall 2011 Course Details Soon

Related articles

Thanks for a Great Semester

Making Your Arguments More Important

Hand Signals for Argument Analysis

Fun with Fallacies

Transcript of Perelman Universal Audience Video

Lecture - Chaim Perelman & the Universal Audience - Snider

Henry Johnstone & "Ad Hominem" Argumentation

Toulmin Diagrams for Sample Arguments

Meeting the Toulmin Diagram

From http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm

Toulmin's argument model

Claim

Grounds

Warrant

Backing

Qualifier

Rebuttal

See also

Argument Drills Now Going On

Causal Argument

Deductive Reasoning - Part 1

Induction - Part 2 - Samples

From http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/induc.html

Introduction to Induction

Exercises on Induction

Induction - Part 1

Test of Authoritative Evidence - Evidence part 2

Evidence Part 1

Aristotle's 28 Lines of Argument