I ended up choosing to make this post about chapter 16 of the book, which revolves around argumentation within the field of politics. In the chapter they mention how political choices are made not only within the field of politics, but also in many other different situations such as for families to professional organization. One always tried to argue ones case and why the other person should agree with you, this can take place in a business meeting, or even just a family having a discussion around the dinner table. Which if you look at the basics of political argumentation, there are a lot similarities of what makes up an argument. Within politics there are often made policy claims which means that someone wished to change something about a certain topic. This type of discussion and policy claim often takes place within families as well as organizations. The chapter also brings up Aristotle and him having a certain amount of argumentation topics which more often than not is the basic topic of what an argument revolves around. One of Aristotle’s topics is framing of laws, this is certain,y a topic that is being discussed in present day political settings on a global level. A few more of Aristotle’s categories are war and peace, finance and national defense, all of which are basic topics that are being discussed in this day and age. It was interesting to learn about how aspects that you would think only is a part of the political scene can be related to many different situations and on a daily basis.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment