Skip to main content

Blog Post- Chapter 8

In this blog post I will talk about values. "Values, are concepts of what is desirable, that arguers use and decision makers understand. Arguers use them with credibility and evidence to justify claims." Some statements of value concepts are direct and are called stated values. but values are not always explicitly stated, however they are implied and are also known as belief statements. They are often proceeded buy the phrase we believe that. The author gives an example of equality; Equal pay for Equal work. (stated value) and Women deserve the same pay as men for the same work (implied value).
             But something that came to my mind was how implied values can also be negative. The example that came to my mind was that “I am a feminist” (stated value). It has many implied values; one being that women should be treated equally as men. But another implied value that people believe about feminism is that women who are anti- men or don’t like men. I think it is really important to realize the implied values that come from stated values especially when the implied values can have a negative effect on the argument that one is trying to make.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...
1 comment
Read more