Skip to main content

Blog Post 9, Chapter 10


          Refutation is an extremely important topic for college students because we live in an age where our views are constantly being challenged by classmates, professors, and our family members. In academic settings, we are also often called on to refute arguments made by professionals in the field, and to advance our own views in class presentations or papers. The text defines refutation as “the process through which one person or faction involved in a decision criticizes arguments advanced by another person or faction” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 156). Put differently, refutation involves analyzing arguments and providing points to counter them. While refutation is often seen as being rude or uncooperative, the text advances the notion that “refutation is a cooperative part of the critical process” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 159). Framing refutation as a constructive means of improving argumentation is a much better way to view the process than the traditional view of it being verbal conflict.
            Having established that refutation is a cooperative process, it is also helpful to discuss the various ways that refutation can be used effectively. The first strategy is to refute constructively. The authors argue that “refutation is most powerful when it comes from the perspective of a viable constructive position” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 166). Using the legislative process as an example, constructive floor debate often results in bi-partisan bills that represent a good compromise between both parties. When legislators advance constructive and not vindictive remarks, the process improves as a whole. Another strategy that is noteworthy is to center the focus of refutation on the goals of making decisions. Ultimately, the reason why people engage in debate is to come up with a decision that meets the goals of the group. For example, Members of Congress debate on bills with the hope of passing them to better society. Therefore, refutation should not include personal attacks or material that is irrelevant to the ultimate decision. To that end, I believe that the filibuster is not a useful method of refutation, since it prevents decisions from being made. Lastly, engaging in framebreaking (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 167) is also an especially useful strategy. Framebreaking involves “helping others break their typical frame of reference in considering decision proposals” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 168). Put simply, framebreaking forces people to look at arguments from another standpoint. In the legislative process, people often use framebreaking to garner support for bills. Lobbying groups often try to shift the focus of bills to how it will affect their communities. Similarly, issues are often re-labeled to change the general public’s mindsets. Legislation that is pro-environment could be reframed as anti-jobs and cause a lot of conflict. Therefore, knowledge of framebreaking is absolutely essential to the argumentation process.
            Ultimately, no matter what strategy is employed, a good theme to focus on when it comes to refutation is that arguments from both sides should be intended to improve the overall decision-making process. When advancing views, students should reflect on whether their points are truly constructive before proceeding.

Source:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.

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