In chapter 8, the authors discuss values in argumentation. All arguments have values in their developments and may serve as support for claims or be claims themselves. Also, a value maybe implicit or explicit, but is distinctive of an individual or group. Furthermore, values are the grounds and warrants by which decision makers use to aid in their decisions making processes. The section that I found to be the most interesting in the reading was values and science in argumentation. Scientific argument explains how physical, biological, human, and social entities function and interact, in essence showing that there is some order to phenomena. The values of science are order, usefulness, prediction, rationality, and knowledge. So, I found this section of the reading to be the most interesting because I am most likely to believe an argument if it is support by science. I am most likely to believe these arguments because scientific evidence must undergo many processes and evaluations in order to be considered valid. Furthermore, I am intrigued by the sphere of science and the sphere of religion contrasting one another. None of the value terms of one are found in the other. So because there is no overlap between the two spheres, the two spheres have completely different roles and often become a secondary value system to the other. However, I am curious to further investigate if there are some overlaps possible between the spheres of religion and science.
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...
While reading this chapter, I was also very intrigued by values in scientific argument. In particular, I was interested in the concept of rationality, and how it played a part in argumentation. The authors define rationality as relating “directly to the assumption that order exists” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 135). Simply put, people who make rational arguments assume that there is inherently a certain way that our world operates. Moreover, these processes and operations can be revealed through scientific and methodological studies. For example, people who argue for raising the minimum age of purchasing cigarettes from 18 to 21 might use scientific data to show that raising the minimum age reduces the likelihood of teen smoking. People persuaded by rationality will understand that these studies are concrete pieces of evidence that are not up to personal interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIn your post, you also mentioned how values might inadvertently clash. For example, scientific values are sometimes confronted by religious values. While reading the chapter, I thought of another way that values could conflict with each other. The text mentions that most American politicians are guided by the enlightenment value system. Embedded within the system are the values of freedom and personal liberties. Going back to the debate on the purchase of cigarettes, it is clear that raising the minimum age to 21 has measurable health benefits that are backed by science. However, such scientific evidence might clash with the values of personal freedoms. Supporters of keeping the age at 18 might argue that adults over the age of 18 are endowed with the freedom to make decisions for their own lives. Hence, they oppose stricter restrictions on what adults can or cannot do. This is a typical example of how values can clash, and it will be interesting to see whether the federal government raises the minimum purchase age in the future.
Sources:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.