Skip to main content

charpter 14


I read chapter 14 which is on argumentation in religion. Argumentation in religion is different from that of law and policy because it relies heavily on interpretation and moral values. Religion is a complex that has its foundation in moral philosophy, which makes argumentation about it inherently meaningful to people. Even people who do not affiliate with a religion can be passionate about it because being nonreligious is part of their moral philosophy. Argumentation about meanings of religious texts is common because different interpretations can elicit very different outcomes and actions; divergence in interpretation of religion can have beneficial outcomes for some and devastating ones for others and vice versa. I think that one of the most important things to keep in mind when arguing within the sphere of religion is the presenter must understand the religious view of the decision makers as well as the starting points that stem from them. With religion, if a presenter were to make a claim as a starting point, but it directly conflicted with the religious views of the audience, their argument might be discounted immediately. Without having an understanding of what starting points are acceptable within a certain religious sphere, a presenter has no chance of obtaining accordance. However, if they can play on the moral foundation of their audience’s religious views and connect that to their argument, then they can potentially make a viable proposition. Since religion is such a highly held institution, argumentation within it can have extremely important stakes; because of this it is necessary to be familiar with the religion and understanding the philosophy that upholds it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 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

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more