Skip to main content

Chapter 10 blog post

In chapter 10, we learned about the term refutation. Refutation is the process in which someone criticizes another person’s claim by saying its wrong within some context. In the book, the author states that refutation is a destructive thing for arguments. But I think refutation is a good use for arguments. All arguments have refutation I think bc everyone disputes or say the opposer’s side of the argument is wrong at one point. In the chapter, it talks about the process you should go through before you refute. I think this is very valuable because it makes you think before refuting. It helps with making your refutation a positive one rather than a negative one. In overall, refutation can be constructive to any argument if the process before is completed.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 14, 2018 at 7:58 AM

    Hey Eric,

    I liked your take on refutation, I thought that part about the process of refutation was really interesting because I had never learned that or never heard anyone discuss that before! I agree that this is a very valuable process, and it makes you consider all of your options and all of the alternative things you can say before you potentially rudley or abruptly refute someone's point. A big factor in whether your refutation of their arguments will be successful or not depends on if it's a positive or negative sounding statement. If you're genuine and inviting more ensuing conversation, the refutation was a positive one, but if you're demeaning and shut down their ideas then the refutation will have been a negative one. I also agree with you when you say refutation is a good thing to use in arguments, especially academic or political arguments, you can't just accept whatever people say to be fact, there has to be some push back otherwise you will just follow whatever the loudest voice in the room says.

    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