Skip to main content

Chapter 10


I was very interested in this chapter, as it dealt with refutation. I was interested to read that the text defined refutation as critically proving evidence as incorrect. I definitely agree with this, especially in the current time we live in. I think that in many cases, you need to be critical to be convincing and you need to be critical to point out flaws with other arguments. I also agree with the text when it states that you need to come at refutation from different angles, as many issues have more than two sides. As a society, we have fallen into the habit of looking at every issue as a two sided one. This is problematic because so, so many issues are much more multifaceted and complex than that. This is especially evident in politics today- many people view super complex issues as either Democrat or Republican issues, when in many cases the issue is not partisan. Additionally, I was interested that the book used the term "McCarthyism" without explaining the background or what it means. The term comes from Joseph McCarthy, a senator in the 1940s and 1950s. When someone said something he did not agree with, he would denounce them as a communist, which was a huge deal at the time, as communism was being painted as the enemy of the United States and the developed world overall. I also think that criticism is necessary to bring light to points that people making different arguments may not have considered.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 13, 2018 at 11:58 AM

    I enjoyed reading your post because I also discussed refutation in the political sphere. Indeed, issues discussed in politics today are relegated to simply being part of either party’s agenda. Very rarely do people consider that bills could be intended to seek bipartisan compromise in order to advance the goals of both parties. Therefore, refutation often comes in the form of attacking the politician’s party, instead of the bill in question. However, the text identifies effective refutation as coming from the perspective of a viable constructive position (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 166). Hence, politicians or lobbying groups need to refute claims that can directly improve the bill in question, instead of attacking the bill sponsor’s personal characteristics.

    I enjoyed how you brought up Joseph McCarthy as an example as well. His refutation from the point of fear, while not constructive, could be considered to be using momentum to advance his arguments. The text defines momentum as describing “a state of mind regarding critical attention to arguments” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 169). During his time in politics, the nation was extremely afraid of communist infiltration in the federal government. Therefore, he knew that using his scare tactics was beneficial as he had momentum on his side. Thus, refutation, while not constructive at times, can still be effective because of external factors such as momentum and the time period.

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

    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