Skip to main content

Blog Post- Chapter 10


              In this blog post, I will talk about the role of refutation in an argument. According to the textbook, “Refutation requires the open expression of disagreement with an argument made by someone else. Social rules in force in many cultures discourage such expressions. It is commonly considered impolite to question or challenge others, and linguists say people have a preference for agreement.”

               The textbook’s example of how cultures discourage refutation can really relate to me. I myself come from a culture where expressing or having different views is discouraged. Growing up in Pakistan I have had a hard time expressing my thoughts either in school or in conversations because most of the time my views were in opposition of the majority views and at times when I did express my views people disliked that about me. And that influenced my personality a lot, even though my thoughts weren’t popular, but they definitely were not wrong. And that is something that we often forget to acknowledge because often refutation is viewed as a negative/ threat to the norms in a culture. But in reality, approaching refutation requires finding a working point somewhere between these extremes.


Comments

  1. YiwanningNovember 11, 2018 at 7:04 PM

    Hi Ushna
    I enjoy reading your post, and I came from a culture that discourages people from expressing themselves too. We are educated to listen and consuming instead of asking the question and explore. I guess it is because of the education system. In China, there are the horrible amount of students every year, to compete with each other, each school will try to teach students more knowledge. Thus, time will be limited. The instructor has no time to explain your curiosity in class, and asking question after level seems to be impossible because your instructors are busy too, sometime your instructor will only tell you to remember the textbook and do great on the test.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CharlieNovember 13, 2018 at 12:48 PM

    Hi, I am also interested in the idea of different cultural influences and how they impact one's ability to make an argument effectively. As you said, in some cultures refutation is seen as hostile and is unwelcome in argument. However, as the textbook states it is an integral part of argumentation. Sure this juxtaposition put the anyone who comes from a culture which discourages refutation at a disadvantage in American argumentation, as least that style described by our textbook. I think it important to remember, and this chapter points this out well, that the methods of argumentation taught to us is not necessarily universal. Consequently, those who have ingrained an ideology that conflicts with these methods, e.g. where refutation is frowned upon, they are made to do more work to learn this style of argument.

    ReplyDelete

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