Skip to main content

Chapter 3 blog post 2


In chapter 3, the lesson is about making sense in arguments you present. There are ways of making sense in arguments that the world sees all the time. One of those ways are good reasons. In the chapter, good reasons are explained in an example. Good reason is when you demonstrate good reason to support your claims by employing standard patterns of inference, drawn from logic. Another way you see making sense in arguments in the world is from people having good stories. I think this is the most important way because everyone loves a good interesting story and that draws more people to listen or gets people interested. For instance, when someone describes an event, you listen to what happened and decide if it makes sense on the basis how believable the story is. The next way the chapter talks about is science. What I got from this piece of the chapter is that humans normally observed the world through our senses so whatever we get from those five things tend to make sense to us, which is science since that is a systematic way of observing something. The chapter also talks about the feminist theory being a way to make sense to the world in arguments. The feminist theory is defined as a theory where many people have recognized that men and women have been socialized differently and that this socialization process affects how people construct, deliver, and receive arguments. So, the chapter relates this theory to making sense by saying that the theory makes people carefully approach arguments before engaging into them. The last way to make sense in an argument is by using ADR (Alternative dispute resolution). This way helps you clear problems within the world without deleting key things. These five ways really are beneficial to the world because they help you in the most important part of an argument. Which is making complete sense so that you can get people engaged and keep them interested into what you have to say;.

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