Skip to main content

Blog Post 1

As we enter the third week of classes, I will be writing a blog response covering Chapter 2 of our book: Argumentation and Critical Decision Making (8th ed.) by Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., and Peterson, T.R.

This chapter covered a variety of topics. It began by discussing what the book described as 'reasonable argumentation.' The book described the term 'reasonable' as describing "the process through which arguments are tested and finally granted adherence because they rest on reasons and reasoning that reflect the standards of the sphere within which they are being critically examined." (pg. 26) I interpreted this as meaning that, for something to be reasonable, it needs to be something that is factual within the social realms in which the argument is being made.

I believe that my interpretation is supported throughout the rest of the text. The first support of my claim of proper interpretation was found on page 27. Under the title "Argumentation and Being Reasonable," they discuss how, while presenting and interpreting your argument, you must be aware of the criteria under which your argument is being evaluated. This ties to being factual within the social realms of the situation. Additionally, the following pages discuss how things, such as the mind, thinking, beliefs, etc., are not necessarily reasonable. The support they give for these reasons closely reflects the portion of my interpretation that states "it needs to be something that is factual within the social realms in which the argument is being made." It does this by portraying what is not reasonable as lacking facts and usually having a base more dependent on loose interpretations and impulse, such as wanting to go with the flow of crowds or believing preconceived stereotypes. These baselines, while sometimes supported by others in the community or specific people's points of views, have no solid base and will not strongly support an argument, making them unreasonable due to lack of facts.

The chapter then continued to discuss "The Bases of Reason in Argumentation." In this section, they talk about starting points. Starting points are basically thoughts/concepts/ideas that an audience already knows or accepts. They identify these starting points as being language interpretation strategies, facts, presumptions, commonplaces and probabilities. Each of these are considered "powerful concepts," for if they are controversial, especially by the people making a decision based on an argument, the argument is not going to go over well. This means that know the audience's common language, having basis of non-controversial facts, knowing which way the result of an argument will go if a solid conclusion cannot be drawn (eg. innocent until proven guilty), knowing the basis of the argument, and having knowledge of common beliefs of one's audience are all important in making a strong, clear and effective argument.


Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: Pearson.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2018 at 6:30 AM

    Hi Peyton! I really enjoyed reading your post regarding Chapter 2. You mention how a reasonable argumentation is one that is "factual within the social realms being made", I would agree with this statement to an extent since a reasonable argument from my understanding is one that follows a specific criteria. However, I question if all reasonable arguments are always 100% truthful. Additionally, you later bring up a great point that addresses my question when you mention how unreasonable arguments lack facts. Lastly, you discuss the starting points of argumentation and their importance. I believe these starting points are crucial for any argumentation since individuals must be interacting in the same terms in order to understand each other and have a reasonable argumentation.

    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

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

Case Building

Chapter 6 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making focuses on the steps required in building a case. Among the concepts that are discussed, visualization stands out as one of the most important. On page 101, the authors even state “Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your ultimate purpose” In other words, having a great argument alone is not going to necessarily gain you adherence. Instead, it needs to be supplemented with a story that vividly shows the decision maker the outcome if they were to agree to the proposition.   The chapter goes on to say that to create a powerful vision you must know the decision maker’s narrative of the subject you are arguing about. The example that is given is college. Some decision makers might have had the greatest time of their lives in college during which they made a ton of friends and found love. On the ...
1 comment
Read more