1 / 18

NATURE OF ARGUMENT

NATURE OF ARGUMENT. What is argument?. Monty Python sketch: “I’d like to have an argument”. definition.

akasma
Télécharger la présentation

NATURE OF ARGUMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NATURE OF ARGUMENT

  2. What is argument? • Monty Python sketch: “I’d like to have an argument”

  3. definition • “Argumentation is a form of instrumental communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behavior through the use of spoken or written messages” (Rybacki & Rybacki, 2008, p. 3).

  4. “…a form of instrumental communication…” • arguing is usually a means to an end, not the end itself • other types of interactions have terminal value, e.g., the conversation is the goal.

  5. “…relying on reasoning and proof…” • the essence of argument is reason-giving • an arguer can’t simply make an assertion; she or he must offer a reason or proof

  6. “…to influence belief or behavior…” • arguing is a form of influence or persuasion • emphasis is on rational rather than emotional appeals • emphasis is on central rather than peripheral processing

  7. Central processing: actively thinking about ideas and processing available information reflective, analytical decision making reading product reviews looking up consumer ratings seeking out objective, expert opinions Peripheral processing: using mental shortcuts, “heuristic” cues. habitual, reflexive decision making relying on celebrity endorsements giving in to brand loyalty basing a decision on “bells and whistels” central versus peripheral processing

  8. focus is on disagreement • Arguing focuses on disagreement, controversy • people usually only argue if one of them is uncertain of the outcome • if a conclusion is certain, inescapable, there is no need to argue

  9. argument is audience-centered • arguing is audience-centered • we fashion arguments with specific listeners in mind • effective arguments are geared to the receiver’s frame of reference • an argument that appeals to one audience may not appeal to another

  10. argumentation is probabilistic • arguing is always “iffy” because there is no guarantee the other person(s) will agree • in argument, success is usually a matter of degree • the other person might convince us instead

  11. Conventions for arguing are based on formal and informal rules formal rules in legal argument: admissibility of evidence, exclusionary rule formal rules in social science argument: p < .05 level of significance, scale reliability, replication NFL challenges and instant replay Informal rules in everyday argument turn-taking, interruptions fairness requirements for evidence ad hominem attacks availability condition argument is rule-governed

  12. Three perspectives of argument • Rhetorical perspective: • views arguments as being audience-centered • arguing is strategic: arguments must be adapted to the listener’s frame of reference • standards for evaluating arguments are person-specific, situation dependent

  13. Three perspectives-continued • Dialectical perspective: • views argument as a back and forth, give and take process • arguments are multilateral, they evolve, change, and develop over time • involves testing arguments in the “marketplace of ideas,” assumes the strongest arguments will prevail

  14. Three perspectives • Logical perspective: • presumes there are objective, universal standards for evaluating arguments • arguments are unilateral, complete, self-contained • based upon formal logic, standards for determining validity/invalidity

  15. Ethical standards for argument • Teleological ethics: focuses on consequences • the outcome is what matters • greatest good for the greatest number • example: lying is sometimes necessary and even desirable, abortion is justified under certain circumstances

  16. Ethical standards for argument • Deontological ethics: based on moral absolutes • principles don’t change due to situations, circumstances • based on a priori moral standards • example: torture is morally wrong, abortion is murder, eating meat is immoral

  17. Ethical standards for arguing • Clarity: making arguments clear and concise, avoiding purposeful ambiguity • Honesty: being candid, not relying on deceit, distortion, misrepresentation • Efficiency: involving the audience, making the form and content of the argument effective • Relevance: adapting arguments to the listener’s frame of reference

  18. Pro-social view of argument • Arguing is a key ingredient in decision making and problem solving • Arguing gets issues out in the open; lets people know where they stand • Arguing is a peaceful means of conflict resolution

More Related