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

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