The Virtues of Argument - Florida Institute of Technologymy.fit.edu › ~aberdein ›...

The Virtues of Argument

Andrew Aberdein

Florida Institute of Technologyaberdein@fit.edu

my.fit.edu/~aberdein

Joint Session, University of Bristol, 8th July 2007

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Aristotle’s Moral Virtues

Irascibility←− Gentleness −→ SpiritlessnessRashness←− Courage −→ Cowardice

Shamelessness←− Modesty −→ DiffidenceProfligacy←− Temperance −→ Insensitiveness

Envy←− Righteous Indignation −→ [Malice]Profit←− The Just −→ Loss

Prodigality←− Liberality −→ MeannessBoastfulness←− Sincerity −→ Self-depreciation

Flattery←− Friendliness −→ SurlinessSubservience←− Dignity −→ Stubbornness

Luxuriousness←− Hardiness −→ EnduranceVanity←− Greatness of Spirit −→ Smallness of Spirit

Extravagance←− Magnificence −→ ShabbinessRascality←− Wisdom −→ Simpleness

Eudemian Ethics 1220b–1221a.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Aristotle’s Intellectual Virtues:

knowledge;art;prudence;intuition;wisdom.

Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Modern Virtue Epistemology:

Sosa/Greco/Goldman:sight;hearing;introspection;memory;deduction;induction.

Heather Battaly, 2000, ‘What is Virtue Epistemology?’ In Proceedings of theTwentieth World Congress of Philosophy.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Zagzebski’s Intellectual Virtues:

the ability to recognize the salient facts;

sensitivity to detail;

open-mindedness in collecting and appraising evidence;

fairness in evaluating the arguments of others;

intellectual humility;

intellectual perseverance, diligence, care and thoroughness;

adaptability of intellect;

the detective’s virtues: thinking of coherent explanations of the facts;

being able to recognize reliable authority;

insight into persons, problems, theories;

the teaching virtues: the social virtues of being communicative,including intellectual candour and knowing your audience and how theyrespond;

intellectual courage, autonomy, boldness, creativity, and inventiveness.

Linda Zagzebski, 1996, Virtues of the Mind, pp. 114, 220, 225.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Universality

Brahma Viharas (Divine abiding practices) of Buddhism:

metta (loving-kindness);karuna (compassion);muddita (appreciative joy);uppeka (equanimity).

Two worries:1 Incommensurability?2 ‘Local’ virtues?

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Universality

Brahma Viharas (Divine abiding practices) of Buddhism:

metta (loving-kindness);karuna (compassion);muddita (appreciative joy);uppeka (equanimity).

Two worries:1 Incommensurability?2 ‘Local’ virtues?

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Applicability

When I started off my career in defended divorce cases I greatly admired thesmooth and elegant advocacy of Lord Salmon, who . . . seemed to me to winhis cases with all the noise and bluster of a perfectly tuned Rolls-Roycecoasting down hill. Cyril Salmon would take out his more valuablepossessions, his gold watch and chain, his heavy gold key-ring and cigarette-lighter, and place them on the bench in front of him. Then he would . . .plunge his hands deep into his trouser pockets and stroll negligently up anddown the front bench lobbing faultlessly accurate questions over his shoulderat the witness-box. Here, I thought, was a style to imitate. For my earlycross-examinations I would . . . take off my battered Timex watch, lug out mybundle of keys held together with a piece of frayed string and pace up anddown firing off what I hope were appropriate questions backwards. Icontinued with this technique until an unsympathetic Judge said, ‘Do try andkeep still Mr Mortimer. It’s like watching ping-pong.’

John Mortimer, 1984, Clinging to the Wreckage, p. 96.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Status of Arguments

Must agent-based appraisal of argumentation commit the adhominem fallacy?

Ad Hominem Arguments

consist in bringing alleged facts about Jones to bear in anattempt to influence hearers’ attitudes toward Jones’sadvocacy-of-P

Alan Brinton, 1995, ‘The ad hominem’, in Hansen & Pinto, Fallacies, p. 214.

But are all instances of ad hominem necessarily fallacious?

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Status of Arguments

Must agent-based appraisal of argumentation commit the adhominem fallacy?

Ad Hominem Arguments

consist in bringing alleged facts about Jones to bear in anattempt to influence hearers’ attitudes toward Jones’sadvocacy-of-P

Alan Brinton, 1995, ‘The ad hominem’, in Hansen & Pinto, Fallacies, p. 214.

But are all instances of ad hominem necessarily fallacious?

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Status of Arguments

Must agent-based appraisal of argumentation commit the adhominem fallacy?

Ad Hominem Arguments

consist in bringing alleged facts about Jones to bear in anattempt to influence hearers’ attitudes toward Jones’sadvocacy-of-P

Alan Brinton, 1995, ‘The ad hominem’, in Hansen & Pinto, Fallacies, p. 214.

But are all instances of ad hominem necessarily fallacious?

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Ad Hominem: An Experiment

Here is an open conjecture:

Conjecture. Somewhere in the decimal expansion of π thereare one million sevens in a row.

Here is a heuristic argument about the claim:

. . .

After having read this argument please say to what extent youare persuaded by it:

not persuaded 1 2 3 4 5 totally persuaded

Matthew Inglis & Juan Pablo Mejia-Ramos, 2006, ‘Is it ever appropriate tojudge an argument by its author?’, Proceedings of the British Society for

Research into Learning Mathematics 26(2), p. 44.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Ad Hominem: An Experiment

Here is an open conjecture:

Conjecture. Somewhere in the decimal expansion of π thereare one million sevens in a row.

Here is a heuristic argument about the claim (taken from a talkby Prof. Timothy Gowers, University of Cambridge):

. . .

After having read this argument please say to what extent youare persuaded by it:

not persuaded 1 2 3 4 5 totally persuaded

Matthew Inglis & Juan Pablo Mejia-Ramos, 2006, ‘Is it ever appropriate tojudge an argument by its author?’, Proceedings of the British Society for

Research into Learning Mathematics 26(2), p. 44.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Zagzebski’s Intellectual Virtues:

the ability to recognize the salient facts;

sensitivity to detail;

open-mindedness in collecting and appraising evidence;

fairness in evaluating the arguments of others;

intellectual humility;

intellectual perseverance, diligence, care and thoroughness;

adaptability of intellect;

the detective’s virtues: thinking of coherent explanations of the facts;

being able to recognize reliable authority;

insight into persons, problems, theories;

the teaching virtues: the social virtues of being communicative,including intellectual candour and knowing your audience and how theyrespond;

intellectual courage, autonomy, boldness, creativity, and inventiveness.

Linda Zagzebski, 1996, Virtues of the Mind, pp. 114, 220, 225.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Daniel Cohen’s Argumentational Virtues

Deaf dogmatist Eager Believer [Quietism]↑ ↑ ↑

Willingness to Willingness to Willingness toListen Question Engage↓ ↓ ↓

Concessionaire Unassuring ArgumentAssurer Provocateur

Daniel Cohen, 2005, ‘Arguments that backfire’, in Hitchcock & Farr, The Usesof Argument.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Virtues vs. Skills

An Aristotelian Distinction . . .In the matter of arts and skills, they say, voluntary error ispreferable to involuntary error, while in the matter of virtues . . .it is the reverse.

Philippa Foot, 1978, Virtues and Vices, p. 7.

. . . Applied to Argument

Virtue : Skill :: Sophism : Paralogism

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Virtues vs. Skills

An Aristotelian Distinction . . .In the matter of arts and skills, they say, voluntary error ispreferable to involuntary error, while in the matter of virtues . . .it is the reverse.

Philippa Foot, 1978, Virtues and Vices, p. 7.

. . . Applied to Argument

Virtue : Skill :: Sophism : Paralogism

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Summary

Virtue theory is a potentially fruitful methodology forinformal logic;Addresses recurring problems at least as satisfactorily asother virtue theories;Exploits under-utilized virtue/skill distinction.

Future work:Analyses of individual virtues;Systematic basis for appeals to moral obligations inreasoning.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Summary

Virtue theory is a potentially fruitful methodology forinformal logic;Addresses recurring problems at least as satisfactorily asother virtue theories;Exploits under-utilized virtue/skill distinction.

Future work:Analyses of individual virtues;Systematic basis for appeals to moral obligations inreasoning.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Summary

Virtue theory is a potentially fruitful methodology forinformal logic;Addresses recurring problems at least as satisfactorily asother virtue theories;Exploits under-utilized virtue/skill distinction.

Future work:Analyses of individual virtues;Systematic basis for appeals to moral obligations inreasoning.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Summary

Virtue theory is a potentially fruitful methodology forinformal logic;Addresses recurring problems at least as satisfactorily asother virtue theories;Exploits under-utilized virtue/skill distinction.

Future work:Analyses of individual virtues;Systematic basis for appeals to moral obligations inreasoning.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument

Summary

Virtue theory is a potentially fruitful methodology forinformal logic;Addresses recurring problems at least as satisfactorily asother virtue theories;Exploits under-utilized virtue/skill distinction.

Future work:Analyses of individual virtues;Systematic basis for appeals to moral obligations inreasoning.

Andrew Aberdein The Virtues of Argument