Skip to main content

Chapter 10 Blog Post


    In this chapter, the authors develop a deep discussion of refutation. The concept of refutation is defined as the process through “which one person or faction involved in a decision criticizes arguments advanced by another person or faction (pg. 156). We need to keep in mind that refutation should be approached as a cooperative and critical process important to good decision making (pg. 157). Except for a clear understanding of the situation, there are two most important factors during an argumentation: identifying who decision makers are, and identifying what those decision makers want. For the first one, we must prepare enough for analyzing the decision makers and the opponents, therefore we might find out a suitable entry point for refutation. Take myself as an example, I work in event management department in a student organization. Every time we come up with a new activity, I need to think of something that needs to be improved or changed, and it requires me to refute some original thoughts. I gradually find out that the best way I could think of anything to refute is by putting myself in decision makers’ shoes (target students’ shoes). I will imagine what I don’t like about the activity if I was the decision maker, and then I could provide these refutations and adjust the plan. For the second one, we need to know what are the desires of the decision makers, and we might persuade the decision makers to adopt a different choice by offering an alternative (pg. 164). I think this approach does not always work since it heavily depends on the decision makers. However, the probability of persuading the decision makers would be increased if we let them know that the alternative could almost fulfill their desires. In general, refutation should be aimed at the highest conceptual level, and it is necessary for a well-developed argumentation since it helps in building a stronger case.

Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: 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