In chapter 4, the authors discuss the nature of arguments. They first discuss this concept by explaining how an argument should be modeled as they evaluate the Toulmin Model. The Toulmin Model has become the standard pattern for arguments as it employs claims, grounds, warrants, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals or reservations in order to form a strong and effective argument. The authors then further expand on the concept of the Toulmin Model as they talk about how it can differ in various forms of arguments. One of the common arguments that the authors write about is argument by authority, and I found this concept to interest me the most. An argument by authority aids in the belief that a claim is justified because it is held by a credible person. The authors also believe that the most common way of presenting an argument is to cite authority.
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...
I particularly enjoyed reading your post because I really resonated with your use of parents as examples of individuals who frequently cite their authority in arguments. According to the text, an argument from authority is “a claim that is justified because it is held by a credible person” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 64). There is no doubt that parents are credible figures due to their vast life experiences. Moreover, having raised us, they also understand us more than anyone in the world. Nonetheless, they sometimes provide bad arguments, that we, as students of the Toulmin model, might be able to effectively rebut. We could do so by identifying whether their arguments lack warrants, backings, or even qualifiers.
ReplyDeleteExpanding on the arguments that parents regularly use, from personal experience, I have also heard my parents using another form of argument by authority known as ad populum. The text defines ad populum as a claim that is “good because people believe it” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 64). In other words, these claims rely on the popular opinion of the people in a particular sphere. An example of an ad populum argument used by my parents would be for curfews. When I was a junior in high school, my curfew was midnight on weekends because it was what other parents in the neighborhood had set for their children as well. As many other parents believed that midnight was a reasonable time for a curfew, my parents adopted it for me. This worked in the sphere of our neighborhood as my friends and I had similar curfews, and we did not question our parents’ judgement. However, had we known about such a fallacy, we might have drawn on other arguments to negotiate with our parents. Such examples could have been other forms of arguments, such as arguments by generalization. We could have claimed that the older students in our neighborhood had later curfews, and they did not experience any harm. Therefore, a later curfew could have been generalized to be safe for all students. The above example is an illustration of the different types of arguments at play, and it would have been interesting to see how our parents would have responded to our arguments.
Source:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great summary about the Toulmin Model and I am also interest in the topic about the argument from authority. It is one of the most common way of representing such an argument is to cite an authority, and people would tend to prefer or follow the advice from more credible person such as experts, professors or political leaders. It especially relates to me since I am currently applying for a master program and almost every university require at least three recommendation letters from professors or companies. Recommendation letters play an important part in application since the admission officers value the approvals from relatively more credible people. The argument from authority also appear on our daily lives, because we have been taught by parents or elders what should do and what shouldn’t do since little. But it is also important for us to develop critical thinking skill and question the authority, because nobody is perfect and the words from credible people might cause serious consequences to the society.
ReplyDelete