This chapter was about Refutation. Refutation was one of the chapters that I didn't know much about, therefore I didn't really have many preconceived notions of what refutation is. All I believed was that refutation was when you prove that an argument or statement is wrong/false. As I read this chapter I discovered that there is so much more to it than that. In the book it talks about how refutation is when someone criticizes an argument made by another person or faction (pg.156) I completely agree with what they are saying but what I didn't know was that the word 'criticize' is very important in this definition. Supposedly many people see refutation as a destructive process, where one side is tearing down the arguments of another--which is the way I viewed it. In the book though, they mention how it's more of a constructive process, where you put their arguments to the most severe tests possible to make the best decisions. This sparked my interest a ton because I've never viewed refutation like that. There are many things that help us to refute an argument but one tool that stuck out to me, because we just learned about it, was credibility. It is mentioned in the book, when we think about how it challenges to others' credibility, we might be able to form a basis of refutation. I completely can understand how this can be. Refutals in an argument can be made if ones said credibility isn't actual credible; which tends to happen more than we believe. A person's said 'credibility' could actually be outdated or the person may not actual be as credible about the subject they're speaking on as they're said to be etc. It's important to refute credibility as it is such a key component on decision making when you are deciding whether to agree/believe an argument or not.
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, ...
Hi Brooke!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post this week and had a similar experience when reading this chapter. I also thought that refutation was when a statement was proven to be wrong or false. You point out something important which is the misconception of "criticizing" an argument which many believe to be a destructive process. However, the authors explain how refutation is meant to be a constructive process where arguments are tested in order to make the best decision. I would agree that credibility is a helpful tool when refuting an argument. Could we also question values and motives when refuting an argument? What method do you think would be the most constructive and why?
I think that it is interesting that criticism is so negatively charged. In fact, people will sometimes preface the word with "constructive" so as to make the term "constructive criticism." Though I concede that receiving criticism is often by nature undermining of an action or clause I undertake or espouse, I do view critique as something which benefits the thing being critiqued. I remember when I used to dance regularly, my instructor would critique those who were closer to excellence, as opposed to those who were so far from the medium that to critique them would be futile. I think criticism should also be more positively charged in that it helps everyone evolve and furthers the betterment of a given idea. Rather than looking at critics as people who seek to destroy an idea, it is useful to view them as people who bolster the idea and assist it in reaching its most viable and conclusive form. An idea that has not undergone criticism can be astronomically damaging.
ReplyDeleteHey Brooke!
ReplyDeleteSo, my blog this week was very similar to the start of yours. I also came into this thinking that refutation was when one proved something wrong/false and that it was a negative thing. That being said, I also found how the book defined refutation as a positive and constructive thing very interesting. Something that you pointed out that I thought was interesting was that you found, on page 156, an instance where they referred to refutation as criticizing someone's argument. If this is true, this seems to contradict their claims that refutation is a positive thing because criticize has such a negative connotation. I actually looked it up, and dictionary.com defines criticize as "indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way." That who description seems pretty negative to me. Now, I understand that, by using refutation, one does point out the flaws in an argument, but it can be used for improvement, to make things better, and to make sure that a good, solid, decision is made by making all flaws and angles of the situation noticed. However, to me, refutation still seems to have a negative connotation because it seems like, no matter what, you're finding faults, which doesn't seem positive.
Aside from all that, I thought that you had a really thorough blog post that covered a lot of important elements from the chapter. I really liked how you tied refutation to credibility more in a more in depth way; it was really interesting because I really just focused on refuting arguments not the arguer.