Skip to main content

Chapter 11

Throughout this chapter it is discussed what defines refutation, how it is used in an argument and the purpose of refuting. Refuting a statement in an argument is to reject the case that the opposing side has laid out, and present facts and claims that will help one win in an argument. It is important that claims from both sides become refuted, this opens up the opportunity for both sides to reflect and create deeper reflections about the topic that is being argued. When someone refutes ones argument, it will result in the person reflecting about what it is they are claiming and so they look at multiple aspects of their case, in order to construct the best argument possible. Another aspect to refutation one must keep in mind, is that it is important to be aware of the claims one makes before presenting them to the opposing side, in order to try prepare for possible counter-claims that can be brought against ones claims. If one is prepared to answer to refutations made by the opposing side, then one will be able to have a strong argument all around.  

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 28, 2018 at 7:46 AM

    Hi Matz! I really enjoyed reading your post this week and believe you have brought up some important points regarding the act of refuting. As you mention, refuting is "a statement in an argument used to reject the case proposed by the opposing side, and present claims that will help one win an argument." Some people might view the act of reputing as confrontational or negative. In other words, reputing can be seen by some as a way of "attacking" the opposing side. However, reputing can be constructive and be favorable for a debate or an any argument. Additionally, you mention the importance of being prepared to answer reputations in order to allow a strong argument. What are some ways of preparing for reputation? How can reputing be a positive/constructive act?

    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