Skip to main content

Chapter 8

 Chapter 8 of the text discusses in detail how arguments can be supported by values in addition to evidence etc. The text makes a distinction between the two types of values: stated values and implied values. Stated values are direct the text provides examples of freedom, health, and wealth. These words are a direct statement of the value, therefore they are stated values. The other kind of value is implied values. The textbook defines implied values as: values that are not explicitly stated. The examples of this that the book includes are: equality, science, and self-respect. Values are important to defining arguments and why they are good or bad etc. The text also describes positive and negative values. Values can be either positive or negative and arguments can be made for an idea by either associating it with positive values or against it by associating it with negative values.
I think that the use of values to define arguments is very interesting and looking at our world we can find how values are used in our modern society. If we look at the United States and all sorts of values that influence the ideas and arguments of our people and where those values come from it is very interesting. Our values are defined here in America partially by protestant Christianity. So when many arguments are made you can hear these values in them and you can tell where someone is coming from based on their values. I think that is very interesting to see where the values that people use to justify their arguments come from.

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