Skip to main content

Chapter 10


This chapter discusses refutation as a component of argument and outlines the purpose of refutation as well as the criteria for a valid criticism of an argument. The book states that the purpose of a refutation should not be to “win” an argument unjustly, but to provide arguments that can properly refute the opposing side’s argument while giving credence to yours. A refutation must be a part of a critical interaction, and one that fails to do this is considered a fallacy. Examples of refutations that do not qualify as critical behavior are ones that attempt to silence the opposing side’s argument without addressing the points they brought up, or changing the subject by using personal attacks. An example of this is in recent events was Jim Acosta’s interaction with President Donald Trump at a White House news conference. Acosta asked questions about Trump’s attitude towards the immigrant caravan in Central America, and rather than engaging in a critical interaction and offering a valid refutation, Trump attacked Acosta’s character and interrupted him while a White House intern attempted to silence him by taking his microphone away. These responses to Acosta’s questioning and argument that Trump was demonizing immigrants in the caravan are fallacies because they failed to address Acosta’s argument.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 13, 2018 at 7:00 PM

    I think you talk about a very important thing the textbook outlines, that refutation is not about attacking and absolutely destroying your opponent or the adverse party, but to actually get a valid point across to make the argument stronger and move forward. A lot of the times, like Trumps example you used, the refuting party won't even acknowledge the argument and will form a new argument themselves or just completely miss the point, making their refutation unnecessary and will fail to make any debate or argument move forward or come to a close.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nate AndersonNovember 14, 2018 at 7:50 AM

    I also found the idea of uncritical refutation interesting and your example brings up a connection to the previous chapter. By attacking Acosta's credibility, especially in a disorganized and completely uncritical way, Trump signals to the audience his unwillingness to even consider different ways of thinking. Of course, there is a certain cult of personality based around Trump, so there are certainly audience members who would find his disregard for argument acceptable. Referring to the last chapter, by attacking Acosta's credibility rather than making his own argument better, Trump is playing a risky game. Often the decision to attack someone else's credibility reflects poorly on the person making the attack.

    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