Skip to main content

chap10


I find interesting the distinction made between refutation and uncritical rejection of arguments. I feel that refutation has a threatening connotation to it and therefore people are both worried about refuting ideas, and having their own ideas refuted. It seems that the confusion behind this may be from associating refutation with uncritical behavior, but they are actually opposite methods of criticizing arguments. While refutation actually works to further the debate and come to a better conclusion, uncritical thought simply disregards the argument all together. Because of this false association, refutation sounds intimidating and powerful. However, if the parties use refutation appropriately, they will strengthen the arguments on both sides and ultimately have a better understanding of the debate and hopefully come to an agreement. I still do not fully understand the difference between criticism and refutation. To me it seems that an argument may be able to stand up to criticism, but all are subject to possible refutation. While this is my inclination, I am still not entirely clear on the distinction. Facing refutation and criticism is frightening, but it is an essential strengthening system of argumentation. Because of the importance of refutation and the ability that it has to strengthen both sides, it is crucial to be prepared for such criticism and refutation. Without being prepared or being able to take the refutation and work with it, then instead of strengthening the argument and the debate, it could simply discourage the presenter. Not only is important to learn how to take refutation, but it is equally if not more important to learn how to present it in a way that will not beat down the presenter.

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