Skip to main content

Cooperation in Refutation -- Chapter 10 Post

This weeks reading on chapter 10 focused on refutation within an argument and the various aspects that influence it. In my blog post I will be focusing on the cooperation aspect of refutation. This term applies to various spheres and focuses on the constructive character of refuting an argument in regards to various forms of communication and negotiation. This cooperation process is important in legislation, law, science, and other various spheres of communication. This is a very useful process in reaching an end to an argument because factions are critically examining the opposing argument, trying to pick apart all flaws to reach the best decision for them. Although this is often very time consuming, it will likely lead to a stronger ultimate decision that is constructive amongst both sides. Despite this being a lengthy process with various costs and benefits, it is commonly used to refute other arguments in order to reach a decision that can satisfy the different beliefs, goals, and intentions of the differing factions.

A great example from current events is the midterm election with the Democrats winning the House of Representatives, and the Republicans winning the Senate, leaving a lot of room for cooperation between the opposing parties. Although having both parties properly cooperate may be difficult, the Democrats have a specific policy agenda that will likely involve cooperation with the Republicans and the Trump administration. Democrats have previously had an intense focus on impeaching President Trump, however they have abandoned this idea after the midterms because it is unrealistic. With this even split in Congress, the two parties have to settle with each other’s differing policies or come up with an ultimate solution to their issues, which is this new policy agenda. Even though the Democrats have a new and strategic plan for their future with Republicans, they will face different problems from the Republicans through their refutation. A main cost of this refutation and lack of cooperation that the book emphasized is the time delay. Since both parties are constantly looking for weakness in the other faction, they are slowing the process immensely. This cost is often accepted because it is any factions best interest for the critical decision at hand. Overall, the two parties will eventually settle and find a constructive solution through these processes.

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