For this week's blog I'm choosing to focus on one key term: presumption. My understanding of the term, as presented by the book, is that presumption is the socially accepted "status quo" solution to an argument. When I read this, I instantly thought of the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption that we hold in our courts.
The idea that a presumption is the socially accepted "status quo," means that, if an argument is being made, the side going against the social norm, or presumption, must work harder, present more facts, and make a more convincing argument all around. If the opposing side falls flat, or even if the argument is equal to that of an argument that is supported by presumption, it will lose.
The book also discussed that presumption is not static, but dynamic. This confused me a bit because it was first presented as a kind of solid fall back in an argument, but, if a presumption can be changed, how "solid" can it really be? The book further explained how, in a debate, a variety of presumptions may exist. Presumptions may differ between locations and audiences. For example, the book discusses the concept of marriage and the different presumptions held by different states in regards to whom a marriage may be between. I believe this ties us back to some of the concepts we've talked about before.
In past weeks, I have written blog posts about how important it is to know your audience: what their reality is, what their key values are, etc. The concept of presumptions can now tie back to that because you must know what presumptions your audience holds to know if your argument is the side being supported or if you need to be working extremely hard to make your argument because the collective presumption of your audience is against you. In this way, understanding presumptions is important in forming your argument in a way that would not only properly get through to your audience, but is constructed with enough strength that it could overcome the opposing force of the presumption.
I believe that presumptions can be both helpful and dangerous in a world full of argumentation. I think that it's good to have a solution to fall back on if a solid conclusion can't be drawn from the argument. If there wasn't a fallback, certain arguments could just stay stuck in the air forever, and nothing good comes from a frozen argument; we would get no where and could even start moving backwards under some circumstances. However, presumptions can be dangerous because if new and contradicting information is presented, it could be very hard to overcome the wall of presumption, especially with a skeptical audience. In a case like that, if we simply fall back on our presumption, a wrong decision could be made out of convenience, and we, once again, find ourselves stuck or moving backwards.
The idea that a presumption is the socially accepted "status quo," means that, if an argument is being made, the side going against the social norm, or presumption, must work harder, present more facts, and make a more convincing argument all around. If the opposing side falls flat, or even if the argument is equal to that of an argument that is supported by presumption, it will lose.
The book also discussed that presumption is not static, but dynamic. This confused me a bit because it was first presented as a kind of solid fall back in an argument, but, if a presumption can be changed, how "solid" can it really be? The book further explained how, in a debate, a variety of presumptions may exist. Presumptions may differ between locations and audiences. For example, the book discusses the concept of marriage and the different presumptions held by different states in regards to whom a marriage may be between. I believe this ties us back to some of the concepts we've talked about before.
In past weeks, I have written blog posts about how important it is to know your audience: what their reality is, what their key values are, etc. The concept of presumptions can now tie back to that because you must know what presumptions your audience holds to know if your argument is the side being supported or if you need to be working extremely hard to make your argument because the collective presumption of your audience is against you. In this way, understanding presumptions is important in forming your argument in a way that would not only properly get through to your audience, but is constructed with enough strength that it could overcome the opposing force of the presumption.
I believe that presumptions can be both helpful and dangerous in a world full of argumentation. I think that it's good to have a solution to fall back on if a solid conclusion can't be drawn from the argument. If there wasn't a fallback, certain arguments could just stay stuck in the air forever, and nothing good comes from a frozen argument; we would get no where and could even start moving backwards under some circumstances. However, presumptions can be dangerous because if new and contradicting information is presented, it could be very hard to overcome the wall of presumption, especially with a skeptical audience. In a case like that, if we simply fall back on our presumption, a wrong decision could be made out of convenience, and we, once again, find ourselves stuck or moving backwards.
Comments
Post a Comment