CR11 Warrants

WARRANTSFrom The Craft of Research by Booth, Colomb, and Williams

WARRANTS Warrant: the logical relationship between a

circumstance and its consequence. “The Proverb” A true statement of a general

condition and result that explains why a specific condition can lead to a specific result.

When X, then Y. Extra: Enthymemes and Logic

In formal logic, all the premises and conclusions should be laid out

We often don’t mention assumed premises in spoken and written language

Enthymemes: logical formulas missing a step or two Yet formal writing should include clear logic

EXAMPLE Russia faces a falling standard of living

because its birthrate is only 1.17 and men’s life expectancy has dropped to about 58 years.

What is the logic? Reader may not understand if the logic is not

explained.

DIAGRAM OF A WARRANT’S LOGIC

General Circumstance Implies General Consequence

When a nation’s labor force shrinks,

Specific Circumstance Specific Consequence

its economic future is grim.

Russia faces a falling standard of living.

Russia’s birthrate is only 1.17 and men’s life expectancy has dropped to about 58

years

Then

Therefore

Let us infer

TESTING THE RELIABILITY OF A WARRANT Is the warrant basically true? Is it prudently limited? Can your warrant be trumped? Is your warrant appropriate to the reader’s

community? Are your reason and claim good instances of

the General Warrant?

IS YOUR WARRANT BASICALLY TRUE? Will readers believe the truth of your warrant? If not, treat the warrant as a claim that needs

its own reasons and evidence. Example:

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, valuable objects were listed in wills, so when a will failed to mention such a valuable object, the person did not own one. (warrant/claim)

Watson (1989) confirmed that to be the case. (reason)

IN a study of 1,356 wills filed in Cumberland County between 1750 and 1825, he found . . . (evidence)

IS YOUR WARRANT PRUDENTLY LIMITED? A warrant might be need to be limited to be

believed. Example:

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, most household objects considered valuable by their owners were usually listed in wills.

(Problem: “most” and “usually” are vague terms)

CAN YOUR WARRANT BE TRUMPED? Can a competing warrant be used to trump

yours? Why is your warrant better than alternatives?

Examples: “Out of sight, out of mind.” “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” When a group wants to express political views, it

has a constitutional right to do so. When a group does not unanimously agree, its

leaders should not express their own opinion in the name of the group.

You may need to recognize and respond to competing warrants.

IS YOUR WARRANT APPROPRIATE TO YOUR READER’S COMMUNITY? Some fields of research may reject a warrant

you think is obvious: Example:

Law Obvious: When a person is wronged, the law should

correct it. Law: When one ignores legal obligations, even

inadvertently, one must suffer the consequences. Thus, in law: When elderly home owners forget to pay

real estate taxes, others can buy their houses for back taxes and evict them.

ARE YOUR REASON AND CLAIM GOOD INSTANCES OF THE GENERAL WARRANT?


When you aren’t safe,


You should be able to protect yourself.

You should buy a gun.If you live alone,

Then

Then

Let us infer



When children are constantly exposed to

images of sadistic violence,


They are influenced for the worse.

TV is a destructive influence on children.

Violence among children 12-16 is rising faster than among any

other age group

Then

Therefore

Let us infer



When children are constantly exposed to

images of sadistic violence,


They are influenced for the worse.

TV is a destructive influence on children.

TV is a major source of children’s images of

violence

Then

Therefore

Let us infer

WHEN TO STATE A WARRANT Warrants are often not stated because they are

implicitly understood in a research community. Yet you may need to make the warrant clear

when: Readers are outside your field You use a warrant that is new or contested in your

field You make a claim that readers will resist because

they just don’t want it to be true It helps to state the warrant before your

evidence and reason. Stating warrants shows readers courtesy

CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS It is difficult to challenge warrants that others

hold Challenging Warrants Based on Experience

Some may believe a warrant based on their own experience or on reports they’ve heard

To challenge these you must Challenge the reliability of the experience Find counter-examples that cannot be dismissed as

special cases

CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging Warrants Based on Authority

Some may say: When authority A says B, B must be true.

You may respond: Authority A does not have complete information on B. Authority A is not really an authority. Authority C is a better authority because of E, F, and G.

Authority C says H because of I, J, and K. Thus H is a reasonable thing to believe is true.

CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging Warrants Based on Systems of

Knowledge Examples:

Mathematics: When we add two odd numbers, we get an even one.

Law: When we disobey the law, we should be punished.

It is difficult to challenge such warrants. We must either challenge the entire system of knowledge or show that the example does not apply to the warrant.

CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging General Cultural Warrants

Examples: Out of sight, out of mind An insult demands retaliation A black cat is bad luck

Warrants may be challenged through scientific analysis and reasoning

Cultural warrants tend to change slowly

CHALLENGING METHODOLOGICAL WARRANTS “Meta-warrants” that guide our thinking.

Examples: Generalization: “When every known case of X has

quality Y, then all X’s probably have quality Y. (See one, see them all.)

Analogy: When X is like Y in most respects, then X will be like Y in other respects. (Like father, like son.)

Sign: When Y regularly occurs before, during or after x, Y is a sign of X. (Cold hands, warm heart.)

Challenge: show that the warrant was applied wrongly or that there are exceptions that invalidate the warrant.

CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging Warrants Based on Articles of

Faith Examples:

We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal…

When a claim is experienced as revealed truth, it must be true.

When a claim is based on divine teaching, it must be true.

Can argue that the reasons for the article of faith are not valid, but may lead to difficulties and tensions.

WARRANTS THAT AVOID THE QUESTION Often used in politics:

Example: Reporter: “Senator, do you support measures to cut

greenhouse gases?” Senator: “I support all sound ideas aimed at correcting

serious problems.” Meaning: “I haven’t decided if measures to cut

greenhouses gases are sound or if global warming is a serious problem, but if so, then I will support such measures.”

Or: “I don’t think measures to cut greenhouse gases are sound, nor is global warming a serious problem, but I don’t want to offend you, so I will answer with a warrant.”

Or: “I reject the limitations of your question and wish to express the general policy I use when I make decisions on individual cases.”

TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTS Deductive (based on a warrant and reason)

All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal

Inductive (based on observed or gathered evidence) Water has always quenched my thirst. Therefore water will most likely quench my thirst

in the future. Many researchers prefer the second type,

although formulated as “claim, reason, evidence, claim.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and

Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Documents

CR11 Warrants