Argumentation Theory - Presentation

8/6/2019 Argumentation Theory - Presentation

1/40

ARGUMENTATION

THEORY

DEFINITIONS


2/40

Argumentation embraces fields /

arts such as:

debate and negotiation;

dialogue;

conversation; persuasion;

information seeking;

inquiry;

deliberation;


3/40

Argumentation studies: rules of inference*;

rules of logic;

procedural rules in both artificial and

real world settings.

*to infer / to make an inference = to form an

opinion that something is probably true

because of information that you have

(Longman Dictionary)


4/40

Definition:

Argumentation is concerned primarily

with reaching conclusions throughlogical reasoning, that is, claims based

on premises.


5/40

Mainstepsofargumentation

Understanding and identifying arguments(either explicit or implied), and the goals ofthe participants in the different types of

dialogue; Identifying the premises from which

conclusions are derived;

Establishing the burden of proof" -

determining who made the initial claim andis thus r esponsible for providing evidencewhy his / herposition merits acceptance;


6/40

Gathering evidence for his/her position in order toconvince or force the opponent's acceptance (byproducing valid,sound, andcogent arguments, devoidof weaknesses, andnoteasily attacked);

In a debate, fulfilling the burden of proof so as tocreate a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identifyfaulty reasoning in the opponents argument, to attackthe reasons/premises of the argument, to provide

counter examples if possible, to identify any logicalfallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/herargument.


7/40

ComponentsofArgument

In The Uses of Argument(2003),Stephen E. Toulmin proposed a layout

containing six interrelated componentsfor analyzing arguments:


8/40

Claim* - Conclusions whose merit must be

established;Data* - Thefacts we appeal to as a basis for

the claim;

Warrant*- T

he statement authorizing ourmovement from the data to the claim;

Backing - Credentials designed to certify the

statement expressed in the warrant; it must

be introduced when the warrant itself is not

convincing enough to the readers or the

listeners;


9/40

Rebuttal - Statements r ecognizing therestrictions to which the claim may

legitimately be applied;

Qualifier - It refers to wor ds or phrasesexpressing the speakers degree of force or

certainty concerning the claim. Such words or

phrases include possible, probably,

impossible, certainly , presumably,

as far as the evidence goes, or

necessarily.


10/40

So,theinternalstructureof

argumentsconsistsof:

a set of assumptions or premises

a method of reasoning / deduction

a conclusion / point.! An argument must have at least one premise and

one conclusion.

!Each premise and the conclusion are only either

true or false (never ambiguous).

! Arguments are referredto as beingvalid / sound or

invalid (! not as being true or false).


11/40

Types of ArgumentsIn brief, Cham Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca* establish the

following taxonomy of arguments:

- quasi-logical arguments,

- arguments based on the structure of the real,

- arguments to generate the configuration of the real,

- and arguments based on the delimitation of notions.

According to the opinion of the above-mentioned authors, the starting point

in argumentation is the concept of agreement supported by truths, facts

and surmisings* (subordinated to the real), and by values, hierarchies and

topoi* (related to the preferential).* Cham Perelman, Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, La nouvelle rhtorique; Trait de

lArgumentation, P.U.F., Paris, pp. 259-610

* to surmise = to guess that something is true, using the information you know already

* topoi = [plural form oftopos] a rhetorical convention; a motif in literature


12/40

Anotherdistinctionestablishes:

Deductive arguments asserting that the

truth of the conclusion is a logical

consequence of the premises if the

premises ar e true, then the conclusion mustbe true. From generals to particulars.

Inductive arguments asserting that the

truth of the conclusion is supported by thepremises. But the premises do not entail the

conclusion. From particulars to generals.


13/40

Counterarguments

Def: - in informallogic,an argument that hastruepremises but afalse conclusion.

Types ofCounter Arguments: a different conclusion could be

drawn from the same facts;

a key assumption is unwarranted;

a key term is used unfairly; certain evidence is ignored or

played down;

one or more disadvantages or

practical drawbacks to what youpropose could arise;

an alternative explanation or proposal that makes more sense

could be given, etc.


14/40

CLASSIFICATION OF LOGICAL FALLACIES:

Material (= an argument may be fallacious in its

material content, through a misstatement of the

facts); Verbal (= an argument may be fallacious in its

wording, through an incorrect use of terms);

Formal (= an argument may be fallacious in its

structure / form, through the use of an improper

process of inference).


15/40

Material Fallacies (Fallacies of

Presumption)1). The fallacy of accident is committed by an argument

that applies a general rule to a particular case in which

some special circumstance (accident) makes the ruleinapplicable. The truth that men are capable of seeing is

no basis for the conclusion that blind men are capable of

seeing. This is a special case of the fallacy of secundum

quid according to its truth as holding only under special

conditions. This fallacy is committed when a general

proposition is used as the premise for an argument without

attention to the (tacit) restrictions and qualifications that

govern it and invalidate its application in the manner at

issue.


16/40

2). The converse fallacy of accident argues

improperly from a special case to a general

rule. Thus, the fact that a certain drug isbeneficial to some sick persons does not imply

that it is beneficial to all people.

3). The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion iscommitted when the conclusion changes the

point that is at issue in the premises. Special

cases of irrelevant conclusion are presented by

the so-called fallacies of relevance.

These include:


17/40

a). the argument ad hominem (speaking against the man

rather than to the issue), in which the premises may onlymake a personal attack on a person who holds some thesis,

instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is

false;

b). the argument ad populum (an appeal to the people),

which, instead of offering logical reasons, appeals to such

popular attitudes as the dislike of injustice;

c). the argument admisericordiam (an appeal to pity), aswhen a trial lawyer, rather than arguing for his clients

innocence, tries to move the jury to sympathy for him;


18/40

d). the argument ad verecundiam (an appeal to awe),

which seeks to secure acceptance of the conclusion on thegrounds of its endorsement by persons whose views are

held in general respect;

e). the argument ad ignorantiam (an appeal to

ignorance), which argues that something (e.g.,

extrasensory perception) is so since no one has shown that

it is not so;

f). the argument ad baculum (an appeal to force), whichrests on a threatened or implied use of force to induce

acceptance of its conclusion.


19/40

4). The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio

principii (begging the question), occurs when the

premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusionthat is to be demonstrated (example: Gregory always

votes wisely. But how do you know? Because he

always votes Libertarian.).

A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, orcirculus in probando (arguing in a circle); (example:

McKinley Colleges baseball team is the best in the

association; they are the best because of their strong

batting potential; they have this potential because of theability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat. But

how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are

such good batters? Well, after all, these men are the

backbone of the best team in the association.).


20/40

5). The fallacy of false cause (non causa pro causa)

misallocates the cause of one phenomenon in another thatis only seemingly related.

a). The most common version of this fallacy, called post

hoc ergo propter hoc (after which hence by which),

mistakes temporal sequence for causal connection - aswhen a misfortune is attributed to a malign event, like

the dropping of a mirror.

b). Another version of this fallacy arises in using reductio

ad absurdum reasoning: concluding that a statement is

false if its addition to a set of premises leads to a

contradiction.


21/40

!What is required to avoid the fallacy is to verify independently that

each of the original premises is true.

Thus, one might fallaciously infer that Williams, aphilosopher, does not watch television, because adding:

A: Williams, a philosopher, watches television.

to the premises:P1: No philosopher engages in intellectually trivial

activities.

P2: Watching television is an intellectually trivial activity.

leads to a contradiction.

Yet it might be that either P1 or P2 or both are false. It might even be

the case that Williams is not a philosopher. Indeed, one might even

take A as evidence for the falsity of either P1 or P2 or as evidence

that Williams is not really a philosopher.


22/40

6). The fallacy of many questions (plurimum

interrogationum) consists in demanding or giving a singleanswer to a question when this answer could either be

divided (example: Do you like the twins? Neither yes

nor no; but Ann yes and Mary no.) or refused altogether,

because a mistaken presupposition is involved (example:Have you stopped arguing with your wife?).

7). The fallacy of non sequitur (it does not follow)

occurs when there is not even a deceptively plausible

appearance of valid reasoning, because there is an obviouslack of connection between the given premises and the

conclusion drawn from them. Some authors, however,

identify non sequitur with the fallacy of the consequent.


23/40

Verbal Fallacies (Fallacies of

Ambiguity)These fallacies arise when the conclusion is achieved through an

improper use of words. The principal instances are as follows:

1). Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used inone sense in one premise and in another sense in some

other needed premise or in the conclusion (example: The

loss made Jones mad [= angry]; mad [= insane] people

should be institutionalized; so Jones should beinstitutionalized.). The figure-of-speech fallacy is the

special case arising from confusion between the ordinary

sense of a word and its metaphorical, figurative, or

technical employment.


24/40

2). Amphiboly occurs when the grammar of a statement is

such that several distinct meanings can obtain (example:

The governor says, Save soap and waste paper.' So soapis more valuable than paper).

3). Accent is a counterpart of amphiboly arising when a

statement can bear distinct meanings depending on which

word is stressed (example: Men are considered equal.Men are considered equal.).

4). Composition occurs when the premise that the parts of a

whole are of a certain nature is improperly used to inferthat the whole itself must also be of this nature (example: a

story made up of good paragraphs is thus said to be a good

story).


25/40

5).Division - the reverse of composition - occurs when the

premise that a collective whole has a certain nature isimproperly used to infer that a part of this whole must also

be of this nature (example: in a speech that is long-winded

it is presumed that every sentence is long). But this fallacy

and its predecessor can be viewed as versions ofequivocation, in which the distributive use of a term - i.e.,

its application to the elements of an aggregate (example:

the crowd, viewed as individuals) - is confused with its

collective use (the crowd, as a unitary whole) - compare

The crowd were filing through the turnstile with The

crowd was compressed into the space of a city block.


26/40

Formal Fallacies

Deductively invalid arguments that typically commit aneasily recognizable logical error.

1). A classic case is Aristotles fallacy of the consequent,

relating to reasoning from premises of the form If p 1,

then p 2. The fallacy has two forms:

a). denial of the antecedent, in which one mistakenly

argues from the premises If p 1, then p 2 and not-p 1

to the conclusion not- p 2 (example: If George is a manof good faith, he can be entrusted with this office; but

George is not a man of good faith; therefore, George

cannot be entrusted with this office), and


27/40

b). affirmation of the consequent, in which one mistakenly

argues from the premises If p 1, then p 2 and p 2 to

the conclusion p 1 (example: If Amos was a prophet,then he had a social conscience; he had a social

conscience; hence, Amos was a prophet).

2). Most of the traditionally considered formal fallacies,

however, relate to the syllogism. One example may becited, that of the fallacy of illicit major (or minor)

premise, which violates the rules for distribution. (A

term is said to be distributed when reference is made to

all members of the class. For example, in Some crows

are not friendly, reference is made to all friendly things

but not to all crows.)


28/40

OtherclassificationofLogical Fallacies(source: art. 'Types of Logical Fallacies', The Winthrop Writing

Center, 323-2138)

slippery slope (= if we don't want Z to occur A mustnot be allowedto occureither);

hasty generalization (= a conclusion based on

insufficient or biased evidence); post hoc ergo propter hoc (= a conclusion that

assumes that if 'A' occurr ed after 'B' then 'B' must have caused'A.');

genetic fallacy (= a conclusion is based on anargument that the origins of a person, idea, institute,or theory determine its character, nature, or worth);

begging the claim (= the conclusion that thespeakershould prove is validatedwithin the claim);


29/40

. circularargument (= this restates the argument ratherthan actuallyproving it);

. either...or (= this is a conclusion that oversimplifiesthe argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices);

. adhominem (= this is an attack on the character of aperson rather than their opinions or arguments);

adpopulum (= an emotionalappealthat speaks topositive-such as patriotism, religion,democracy - ornegative-such as terrorism or fascism - concepts ratherthan the realissue at hand);

redherring (= a diversionary tactic that avoids the keyissues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather thanaddressing them).


30/40

. bandwagonappeals (= suggesting thateveryone isdoing it, so why shouldnt he / her);

. falseanalogies (= assuming without sufficientproofthat if objects orprocesses are similar in some ways,then they are similar in other ways as well);

. namecalling (=linking a person, or idea, to a negativesymbol); oversimplification (= reducing multiple causes to just

one or a few);

polarization (=exaggeratingpositions andgroups byrepresenting them as extreme anddivisive);

rationalization (= coming up with excuses or weakexplanations for behavior that avoids actualcauses);


31/40

Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or

persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support

claims andrespondto opposing arguments:

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic orreason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive

ordeductive reasoning.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the

character, credibility, or reliability of thespeaker.

Pathos or the emotional demand appeals to an

audience's needs, values, and emotionalsensibilities.


32/40

ARGUMENTATION & DEMONSTRATION

- Argumentation represents a fundamental concept invarious domains such as: Rhetoric, Logic, the

Philosophy of Language, Linguistics, Pragmatics, but

beyond its specificity, it is intrinsically related to the

human activity the authority and the personality theemitter proves and the quality of the receivers

perception and response.

- Argumentation always aims at persuading or

convincing the audience (to whom it is addressed) of

the value of the theses for which it seeks assent.


33/40

- Unlike demonstration, argumentation cannot be

conceived in an impersonal manner. Because the purpose

of all argumentation is to gain or reinforce the adherence

of an audience, it must be prepared taking into account this

very audience. On the contrary, in order to have any

effectiveness it is essential for it to be adapted to the

audiences perspectives, comprehension, age, social status,

education, needs and aspirations, etc. Consequently, the

orator / the person who presents an argument to the

audience must seek to build his argumentative discourse on

theses already accepted by his audience.

- Demonstration represents a method of explaining

something by example.


34/40

ARGUMENTATION & NEGOTIATION

Negotiation is a dialogue (as an alternative resolution to adispute) meant to cause some agreement upon a matter

of discussion, to bargain for ones or anothers

advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various

interests.

- Negotiation involves three basic elements: process,

behaviorand substance.

T

he process refers to how the parties negotiate: thecontext of the negotiations, the parties to the

negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the

sequence and stages in which all of these play out.


35/40

Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties,

the communication between them and the styles they

adopt.

The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over:the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully -

interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at

the end.


36/40

Tactics ofNegotiation

negotiation hypnosis, a straight forwardpresentation ofdemands or setting of

preconditions,

cherry

picking (a more deceptive approach, the act ofpointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm

a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion

of related cases or data that may contradict that

position), intimidation,

salami tactics (a divide-and-conquer process of threats

and alliances used to overcome opposition),


37/40

Shell (G. Richard Shell, Bargaining for Advantage: NegotiationStrategies for Reasonable People, New York, Penguin Books,

2006) identified five other negotiation styles:1). Accommodating: Individuals enjoy solving the other

partys problems and preserving personal relationships,

being sensitive to the emotional states, body language,

and verbal signals of the other parties. They can,however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the

other party places little emphasis on the relationship.

2). Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and

do not do it unless warranted. When negotiating,

avoiders tend to put back and avoid the confrontational

aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived

as tactful and diplomatic.


38/40

3). Collaborating: Individuals enjoy negotiations that

involve solving tough problems in creative ways.Collaborators are good at using negotiations to

understand the concerns and interests of the other

parties. They can, however, create problems by

transforming simple situations into more complex ones.

4). Competing: Individuals enjoy negotiations because

they present an opportunity to win something.

Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all

aspects of negotiating and are often strategic. Since their

style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive

negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships.


39/40

5). Compromising: Individuals are eager to close the deal

by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved inthe negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there

is limited time to complete the deal; however,

compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation

process and make concessions too quickly.


40/40

Bibliography: Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,

2003

Walton, Douglas,DialogTheory forCriticalArgumentation, Amsterdam / Philadelphia,

John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007

Besnard, Philippe, Hunter, Anthony, Elements of Argumentation, Cambridge, The MIT

Press, 2008

Schatzki,Michael,Negotiation (The Art of Getting What You Want), 2005-2006,www.negotiationdynamics.com/bookart.asp.

Mulholland, Joan, Persuasive Tactics (A Handbook of Strategies of InfluencingOthers Through Communication), London & New York, Routledge, 1994

Gardiner, J.H., The Making of Arguments, Project Gutenberg eBooks, Produced

by Afra Ullah and PG

Distributed Proofreaders, 2004,www.gutenberg.net Pattee, K. George,Practical Argumentation, Project Gutenberg eBooks,

Produced by Scott Pfenninger, Charles Franks and the Online DistributedProofreading Team, 2002

Documents

Argumentation Theory - Presentation