Skip to main content

Chapter 13

In Chapter 13, the authors of the text discuss argumentation in science. They stress that scientific methods are best when we try to make an understanding of our world accessible to ourselves and the people around us. The authors remark, “Scientific standards for evidence and argument are held up as the way to understand what the natural world is like” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 204). Science provides an extremely persuasive narrative, and the authors believe that this is because science appears so consistent with many of our society’s core values like knowledge, order, usefulness, prediction, and especially rationality. When we combine these values, we make rational decisions that ultimately are useful to us. I believe this is why we popularly emphasize argument with approaches that are based in thinking oriented around scientific methods of reasoning.

Scientific approaches to argumentation don’t only appear in labs or a physics lecture, either. We use these approaches commonly in everyday life and casual arguments that we have among ourselves. For instance, my stepmother and father seem to only argue using scientific methods. They strongly prefer values like rationality and usefulness. When I was choosing between universities to attend, I had to argue that the University of Minnesota was a better choice for me than Northwestern University. My parents were baffled and failed to acknowledge my argument for choosing the University of Minnesota when they felt choosing Northwestern was a more useful and rational decision. I realized that our values were out of sync, and had to adjust my argument to include appeals to their scientific values. Hence, using scientific methods of thinking approaching argumentation doesn’t only apply to arguments in the scientific sphere, but they can be and are often used even in everyday instances.

Reference:

Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Comments

  1. Since when it comes to arguing you claim, the importance of using science and facts is great because most people will not be convinced to agree with you if they simply think it is an opinion of that is not being based on any facts or science. One of the best ways to argue with people is to be rational, which is something that is present in science. You also mention using scientific reasoning and it’s usefulness, I would agree that it’s a method which would be very effective during any form of argumentation and it is also the way that I try to argue my claims. Being rational and basing your claims with scientific reasoning is a solid way of constructing ones argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really enjoyed your post about Chapter 13 as I did not read the chapter and was still able to understand the basics of argumentation in science through your explanation. I thought it was very powerful when you talked about scientific approaches outside the sphere of science in people’s daily lives. When thinking about this daily use of the scientific method in everyday argument, I immediately thought of the specific backings that are required in this type of argument. Whether it is actually science related or not, backing is always required to support the grounds and ideas in an argument. Backing scientific arguments with data, statistics, and other types of information is always necessary to prove a point and actually explain its validity. In terms of scientific method in a more general or everyday sense, it will still need more information, testimony, instances, and credibility to successfully make an argument. In the case with your parents, you clearly used various types of backing to support your claim about which school to attend and were definitely successful in doing so.

    ReplyDelete

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...

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...