Skip to main content

Chapter 16

In the section on maintaining the story I found the global warming example interesting, but also telling. In the example, conservative strategist Frank Luntz is quoted saying "the scientific debate is closing but it is not yet closed, [t]here is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science" (Rieke et al., 272). This statement constitutes an admission, a defense, and a reveal of the strategy of some conservative politics. This quote is from 2003, so it is old, but it is interesting that he could say that there is any scientific debate about climate change. There was no debate; the consensus existed then as it does now. The phrase "challenge the science" is one of the most backwards things I have ever read. A person with no experience can only pose a threat to science by maintaining their position in spite of facts. With no firm basis in facts, it seems that one can still maintain their argument by simply repeating themselves. Effectively, this tactic creates a debate and a sense of uncertainty out of thin air.


Similarly, taking advantage of uncertainty (no matter how ridiculous) seems to be the principle applied to Hillary's emails. Before the 2016 election and even up to the present Donald Trump, Fox News, and other strongly conservative media figures have continuously bombarded the American people with the idea that we cannot know whether Hillary committed a crime. Even after a thorough investigation which produced no charges and no unanswered questions, the idea that something was missed or hidden still exists. I believe that this argumentative tactic functions as both a distraction to people and as a way of undermining people's belief in the democratic party. By keeping this bogus story in the public eye, uncertainty is maintained despite contradiction with the facts.

Comments

  1. AnonymousDecember 4, 2018 at 11:36 PM

    I like what part of Chapter 16 you chose to write your blog post about. I think that the global warming debate and the politics that play into it are very interesting. Like you said Frank Luntz said there was still an opportunity to challenge science. Which as you point out is a bunk argument. However, in the context of politics the argument is being made and is convincing to some people. As you say, this example is people taking advantage of the slight uncertainty that they think exists in the argument. The same type of thing was applied to Hillary Clinton’s email crisis as you also point out. The way that argumentation in politics takes advantage of the uncertainty is interesting. I quite like what you wrote and I do agree with a lot of it. Very intelligent writing.

    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

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...
1 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