Skip to main content

Chapter 8 Blog Post


In chapter 8, we start to learn how values play important role in arguments. According to the textbook, a value is referred to as “a conception of the desirable that influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action” (Pg. 121). Values are used in the development of all argumentation even though some argumentation is not obviously based on values. One of my misunderstandings about the universal of values was corrected after I learned that all three kinds of claim have values involved. Even factual claim has statements about laboratory observations implies the values of knowledge and rationality. The chapter continues to talk about characteristics of values, how values appear in systems, and several principles for the use of values. We should also remember that these practices are affected by a realization that the value systems differ from sphere to sphere.
Values in argumentation could be characterized in stated/implied, terminal/instrumental, positive/negative, and abstract/concrete. Here I want to explore the first two categories. The first category distinguishes direct value concepts such as freedom and wealth from implied concepts that shown in the understanding of stated values. I borrow the phone banking experience I had from this class’s mini-internship to have a better understanding of this concept. During the phone banking, I volunteered to call people from the union, and recommend them to vote for Tim Walz on Nov 6th. An example of a stated value is “Tim Walz is the best candidates for working people.” In order to gain adherence to this claim, I provided facts with implied values, such as “Walz supports to increase state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour” and “he wants to fight wage theft and protect working people from unscrupulous employers.” I think the process of phone banking also relates to the second category of terminal and instrumental values. The former one emphasizes the ends that a person admires, and the latter one is the means to attain the ends (Pg. 123). In this case, the terminal value means the goal to vote for a certain person, and the instrumental value that helps to achieve this goal is shown in this person’s political propositions. I think it is important to remember that people frequently make a terminal out of an instrumental value. I find this relates to one of my calls during the phone banking when one guy asks me whether Tim Walz is a Democrat. He immediately agreed to vote for him after I said yes. In this case, this guy’s own instrumental value of supporting Democratic party becomes his terminal value in politics. In my opinion, there is no simple right or wrong answer for whether people consider their instrumental values (means) as their terminal value (end). It is helpful for the arguer to recognize and adapt to the decision maker’s specific value in argumentation, just like a person would tend to vote for somebody who has a similar political values.
Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: Pearson.


Comments

  1. YiwanningOctober 29, 2018 at 8:27 AM

    I agree with the sentence which has been stated in the discussion that “ this would be mainly used in parents when they are educating their children values”. I strongly agree with this sentence. To let children to understand what values is important in our life. Also, values play a crucial role in the argumentation. As mentioned in the paper, the reading listed many application of that. We can get lots of useful examples from the reading. “Values in Scientific Argument” has described many application on science. It stated very clearly to the readers.
    What is more, I agree with this idea that “it is important when discussing major issues in society”. As mentioned in the reading, “Relate Your Values to Decision Makers”. “The fact that limited options are available to you in a value dispute makes it clear that you will be most successful by arguing within decision makers’ value systems.” , which explicitly let us to know how the important the value is and what it can make the decisions makers do. It is very important to us and for our society.
    To be concluded, I appreciate some points of the above. That is what I want to express from what I have read in the reading.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 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

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more