Skip to main content

Chapter 10 Post 9

According to the textbook, refutation is “the term we use to describe the process through which one person or faction (a group of people) involved in a decision criticizes arguments advanced by another person or faction or do decision makers who are not part of any faction.” In my original perspective, refutation is just the process that argues someone else’s idea or proposes, but the truth is, refutation is setting the goal of passing the most critical argument, dig into the essence of the object, and make arguments for decision-makers to make an accurate decision. I like this works from the book says “To be open to refutation, indeed to seek it out, is the very essence of scholarship in the cooperative search for knowledge.” Now that we are sure about the accuracy of refutation, it’s time to discuss the framework for rebuttal. We should first assess the argumentative situation, Including identifying the question or claim, surveying objective and values, canvassing alternative decisions, weighing the costs and risks, searching for new information, noting biases underlying positions, and making plans to implement the decision. You need to understand the current situation fully and figure out your argument.
What's more, understanding the situation is not enough, we also need to analyze the decision makers. Who are the decision makers? What are decision makers goals? What is the presumption of the decision makers? Are involved factions trying to act like decision makers (funny!)? After analyzing the decision makers, the last thing we need to do to frame our refutation is to examine the opponent. Hint form the textbook is, knowing as much information as possible. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 14, 2018 at 8:09 AM

    Hi Yi, I really enjoyed reading your post and I think you did a good job on summarizing this chapter. I think you made your point clear with the statement that knowing as much information as possible is necessary for a possible refutation. Seeking a refutation is like preparing an argument in a debate team, we must first listen carefully what the opponent says and pay attention to potential biases, which could be a good entry point to contradict. I agree with you as well on the part that we should analyze who are the decision makers and what are their terminal goals. With abundant understanding, we could develop an alternative for the decision makers to adopt during a refutation process. For example, when my friend wanted to buy new iPhone earphones last week after she lost it, I persuaded her to wait until Black Friday, when she could buy the earphones in discount. In this case, I brought up a successful alternative since I understand what she prefers between saving some money or immediately get the earphones.

    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

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Building

Chapter 6 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making focuses on the steps required in building a case. Among the concepts that are discussed, visualization stands out as one of the most important. On page 101, the authors even state “Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your ultimate purpose” In other words, having a great argument alone is not going to necessarily gain you adherence. Instead, it needs to be supplemented with a story that vividly shows the decision maker the outcome if they were to agree to the proposition.   The chapter goes on to say that to create a powerful vision you must know the decision maker’s narrative of the subject you are arguing about. The example that is given is college. Some decision makers might have had the greatest time of their lives in college during which they made a ton of friends and found love. On the ...
1 comment
Read more