Skip to main content

Blog post 4: Chapter 5


The reading in this week explores further on analysis of argumentation. The authors introduce the concept of analysis as an examination of an argumentative situation for it claims to discover the issues. An engagement in such analysis could be achieved from two parts: the critical process of developing a proposition from a problem or a “feeling of doubt”, and the process of finding the crucial issues in the argumentation after identifying the proposition. For coming up with a critical proposition, we need to refer to six potential steps. The first one is identifying the questions, which requires us to entertain genuine doubt to refine a clearly stated question. The ability of critical thinking is important during this process since we must pay attention to our surroundings to find out potential issues that are noteworthy for argumentation. The second step is surveying implicated objectives, values and biases. It is vital to avoid biases, and we should be aware of not only our values but also those of decision makers in order to locate the ultimate purpose of our argumentation. The third one is searching for new information so that developing a measure of the quality of evidence and eliminating errors as much as possible. The following step lets us canvass alternative decisions through a wide range of alternative propositions, including those we are tempted to dismiss before. Then we need to weigh the costs and risks to all of these alternative decisions, and finally select a proposition that best answers the problem posed from the first step. The authors continue illustrate how to analyze the proposition more specifically after it is determined. Except for rank-ordering both sides of the issues, an arguer should also achieve five generic values of clarity, significance, relevance, inherency, and consistency. Furthermore, the strength of the claim in an issue could be analyzed by four locations: the formation of appropriate criteria; the relative importance of various criteria; whether the claims meet the criteria, and the strength of support for the criteria. In summary, by giving a clear proposition, discovering the issues, and identifying their specific natures, we can have a better decision making of what should be argued and how to develop a case for it.


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