Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, it is crucial to understand the audience/decision makers, and to anticipate how they will receive the proposition. This reminds of previously in the text when they talk about the nature of argumentation and how they say that if the elements of the argument are there and coherent, then the argument will be successful regardless of who delivers it or receives it. However, as we have seen with the feminisms, the character of the arguer has a huge influence in reception, and as we see with the importance of understanding the audience in this chapter, the character of the decision makers also influence the reception of the argument. These two concepts together suggest that argumentation is highly situational. Furthermore, due to the situational nature of argumentation, we see the trend in this chapter to be preparation of the argument. The extensive analysis and development of a given proposition point to the fact that argumentation takes a lot of work and planning (both in regards to the topic itself and the audience which will hear it) in order to be successful.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment