Skip to main content

Blog Post #2: Chapter 3

Chapter 3 describes what makes a reason a “good reason” which includes being non contradicting, consistent, complete, having starting points that are within appropriate audience, having a language that could be understood by the decision makers, demonstrate consistent patterns of inference drawn from logic, and relate to the point they support (Peterson, Rieke, Sillars, pg. 39). In my opinion, one of the most important criterias of a  “good reason” relates to the way it appropriately addresses the audience. As mentioned by the authors, arguments should not state things the audience already knows nor assume starting points that do not exist (Peterson et al, pg. 39). I support this claim because if an argument just includes information that the audience already knows then no value is added to the audience's reasoning. Also, providing the audience with false starting points can lead to wrongful reasoning. The importance of communicating in the same language and terms as the decision makers,which was brought up in Chapter 2, was also mentioned in this chapter reinforcing how a valuable argument is one that can be easily interpreted by the decision makers.
Furthermore, in this chapter the authors state how in most cases, “argumentation and debate lead to a mutually agreeable solution”  and “failure to settle a dispute is viewed as a symptom of unskilled communication, failure to engage in critical decision making, or just plain selfishness” (Peterson et al, pg.42). I cannot say I fully agree with either of these statements since not every debate will end in a mutually agreeable solution. For example, a very controversional debate topic is abortion, if you have a pro-life individual going against a pro-choice individual it is very unlikely that they will end on mutual terms. However, I would agree that in order to have a reasonable arumentational interaction skilled communication and engagement is necessary.
Lasly, I enjoyed learning about the Alternative Dispute Resolution which involves individuals negotiating on an agreement of an issue and creates a social environment where these individuals can learn from one another (Peterson et al, pg. 49). ADR can be useful for any argumentational interaction by shifting the feel of the conversation from confrontational to constructive discussion. Individuals would gain a lot more from debates if they took this open approach including valuing differences and learning/fact finding (Peterson et al, pg. 49).

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