Skip to main content

Blog Post 1 - Appraising Argumentation

Chapter 2 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson deals with evaluating the reasonableness of arguments.  The text touches on why unreasonable arguments are often made in the first place. Unreasonable arguments are defined as arguments that cannot stand up to critical appraisal. The text tells us that the most common reasons for their advancements are inaccurate convictions, heuristic thinking, sensory stimuli and social influence. I really connected with the social influence section. In today’s world, we are so interconnected with social media that it is difficult to not come across posts that might be trying to sway our opinion on a topic. I cannot recount the amount of times that I have seen a shared post on Facebook that throws out statistics or  “facts” that may not be so accurate. However, most people, including me, often times scroll past these posts without verifying the information and perceive them as true just because their friend shared it. This creates false convictions, like those mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, and then leads us to later on create unreasonable arguments based on those fallacies.

The chapter also explains that when arguments and support line up with the criteria that key decision makers are looking for they become more reasonable and therefore more likely to gain adherence. Connecting this to a real life, there is a shortage of housing inventory in the Twin Cities which is driving real estate prices up In response, many developers are proposing new building plans in order to get adherence from the city. According to this principle, the developers should base their plans around the criteria that the city is looking for such as compliance with zoning codes and building codes in order to have the best chance at getting adherence.

Lastly, strong starting points for structuring reasonable arguments are explained prior to the conclusion. These are interpretation strategies, facts, presumptions, probabilities and commonplaces. Using probabilities as starting points seems especially powerful because they give a numerical value to the argument. Connecting back to the previous chapter, we learned that people are attracted to certainty when making decisions and that arguments are inherently uncertain because their outcomes often happen in the future. When we use probabilities in arguments it brings their outcomes much closer to certainty because the audience no longer has to guess the odds of something happening. So, the audience has something solid to grasp and in result the argument becomes more persuasive.  

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2018 at 9:47 PM

    First, I really like how you simplified some of the key points of chapter two in regards to what constitutes an unreasonable and a reasonable argument; also, I agree with your definition that unreasonable arguments cannot survive critical appraisal. Furthermore, like you, I too connected with the social influence portion of the reading, and I strongly relate to and identify with this portion of your blog post. Every day I check social media and usually I check it multiple times a day. So, often times I see statistics or facts and believe them because someone that I follow or I am friends with posted it, making me perceive their posted information to be true because often times I never fact check what I am reading on social media. However, I also think that not everything on social media contains fake statistics, facts, or news and often times we need to consider who is posting the content and in which context they are posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2018 at 9:32 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more