Skip to main content

Blog Post 1

In chapter 2, the concepts of reasonableness and criteria for argumentation helps us get a sense of what makes arguments acceptable and which ones can be considered bad arguments based on the criteria and the sphere we find ourselves in. The textbook defines the term reasonable as “the process through which arguments are tested and finally granted adherence because they rest on reasons and reasoning that reflect the standards of the sphere within which they are being critically examined.” (27) This relates highly to a person's belief systems and worldviews. Our process of argumentation is rooted within these beliefs that we have which is why there are not always considered reasonable. A person can hold certain sets of beliefs and worldviews that are facts to them but to others, depending on the sphere a person finds themselves in, can be completely wrong.
The textbook helps us understand better what makes our arguments reasonable and what factors into making our argumentation more reasonable such as criteria and worldviews. Argumentation is “the product of centuries of evolution in social practices aimed at resolving or creating uncertainty.” (32) In order for argumentation to be efficient so that the parties involved in these discussions fully connect with one another in order to reach adherence of peoples claims. The common ground when argumenting can be set up by a set of criteria that are influenced by one's worldview, the experiences that have shaped "stereotypes, prejudices, norms, folkways, language, and culture.” (28)

Keeping these things in mind, reasonable argumentation is based on these foundations such as worldviews and belief systems and it is because of these personal views and ideas that our way of argumentation is formed.

Comments

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