Blog Post 2 - Chapter 3

          As we have learned in the course so far, argumentation happens often in our daily lives. Whether we like it or not, we are frequently tasked with making choices that involve critical decision making. For example, deciding whether to study for a test or going to a campus event is a choice that I regularly make in my daily life in college. However, although we have adequately discussed what constitutes a critical decision, we have yet to analyze how to make sense of argumentation. Chapter three does a good job of explaining how people make sense of the various arguments that are presented before them. The authors list five different ways that people make sense, or analyze, arguments. These approaches are good reasons, good stories, science, the feminist theory, and alternative dispute resolution. How we choose to utilize these five modes of analyzing arguments are affected by our history as well as our current circumstances (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 50). In other words, what counts as a good reason to some, might be deemed as a bad reason by others. Thus, although these five general approaches have been labeled as common, they are by no means uniformly perceived by all individuals.

            Good reasons and science are two approaches that I regularly use to advance and evaluate arguments. The authors claim that reasons are good because they are derived from authority. When one thinks something is a good reason because one believes something to be true, that is an appeal to personal authority. When I was growing up, this was often the approach that my parents used. For example, they told me that eating ice cream before bed was bad for me because they believed it to be bad as well. When I grew older, I started to read textbooks that told me about the effects of sugar. After gaining that knowledge, my thoughts towards eating ice cream before bed were aligned with my parents’. I believed the textbooks because they had power authority. Lastly, individuals who have chosen to go vegan might not consume ice cream because of numerous personal reasons. These reasons are often generated from a moral authority, or obligation, to protect animals. Hence, reasons are extremely helpful in evaluating arguments. As seen from the examples listed, what constitutes a good reason is also based on whether one perceives the parties arguing to have authority or not. In college, when I am debating ideas with classmates, I often draw on all three of these authorities to ensure that I am advancing the best arguments possible.

            In educational settings, we are often told to back up our arguments with scientific research. When we use science, we are appealing to a logic that “rests on carefully performed observations, successful predictions, and the ability of others to obtain the same results” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 40). In other words, arguments backed with science draw authority from experiments that have generated similar results many times over. For a long time, people thought that arguments backed with science were as good as certain. However, as technology becomes more advanced, scientific claims get re-analyzed and re-written. Despite this, the method of deciding how scientifically logical arguments are is still a good way of making sense of argumentation. When writing papers, I often quote scientific sources to further my arguments. Nonetheless, some professors require sources that are from the past five years or from a recognized scientific journal. These additional requirements illustrate that the tendency to believe scientific arguments is also based on personal experiences and circumstances. Hence, when individuals make sense of argumentation, the reasons and science that people believe to be good, will inevitably vary from person to person.   

    

Sources

Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.