Skip to main content

Chapter 8


Values come in many different forms that are up to the individual to decide if they give value to something or not, and because of this it is often difficult at times for arguers to persuade and evidence can be used to help justify their claims. These values that the arguers use can be associated with positive and negative values that they give to their argument in order to either support or attack an argument. For example, using negative words or phrases like random or chance, or positive ones like certain and creative, are used to associate your argument with values that you may have. Values are not limited to intangible words but can also be concrete examples such as the person, group, or object to provide you with an example of an evidence that is easy to comprehend because of it’s attributes or values it/they have as an individual or unit. Values are very complex and layered, and are more than likely different from person to person and country to country. They are a mixture of material and inmaterial things that we arrange respectively in correlation to each other about what we think has meaning in our lives. This list can look very different from one another but is an invaluable tool for giving or arguments meaning.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 30, 2018 at 2:13 PM

    Hi Scott! I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week. I feel like you covered a lot of important points regarding values; especially in connection to 'negative' and 'positive' values. I actually focused my blog on the same terms, and I don't really have anything to add to your definition/analysis because we were on the same page throughout.

    One thing that you touched on in your blog in a more in depth way than I did was how values differ between people, places, etc. I believe that I touched on how different people have different values, and it's important for the person presenting an argument to know what values the audience holds in order to shape their argument in an effective way. However, there was a key phase that you wrote that I found very interesting. You said that values are very complex and layered. I didn't touch on that directly in my blog, and I think that you bring up a really good point. It's important for arguments not to be shaped with assumptions that values are black and white. As we both know, values can differ from person to person and will be shaped by their lives and experiences. That being said, all values will be formed with different concepts, limitations, worldviews, and maybe even definitions, in mind. I'm glad that you pointed that out.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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