ED4001 Argumentation: Why we need it and how it’s structured

Howard GibsonDarren Garside

Cute Little Kids Arguing.avi

We argue

But argument is not • shouting at the enemy• saying the opposite • being (just) logical (like Spock)• a rude substitute for just being

‘nice’

But why can’t we simply be nice and avoid argument?• Because the world isn’t a fair place yet.• Because argument is concerned with injustice, illuminates the unseen,

reveals solutions, can in principle resolve conflicts, humans need it.• Because argument is part of the intellectual and moral makeup of human

beings, an inescapable part of ‘negating the negation’, overcoming ‘natural’ and ‘unhappy consciousness’ (G.W.F. Hegel)

Nice people often confuse the interpersonal with the philosophical• But can’t argument be devastating AND polite?• ‘Be more tolerant’ means….what? Tolerant of the person or their idea?

Philosophically we need arguments

John Stuart Mill (1858) On Liberty

There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.

Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action: and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

Jurgen Habermas (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action

Argumentation insures that all concerned in principle take part, freely and equally, in a cooperative search for truth, where nothing coerces anyone except the force of better argument.

How is argument structured?

1. Aristotle 2. Stephen Toulmin 3. David Kaufer & Cheryl Geisler

1. Aristotle C4th BCE

RhetoricEthos: the credibility of the source - the speaker or author’s authority Logos: the logic used to support a claim via induction and deduction - and the facts and data used to help support the argumentPathos: the emotional or motivational appeals - vivid and emotional language, sensory and empathetic details

Or, in Aristotelian terms, not enough Logos?

Or, in Aristotelian terms, pathetic defects?

2. Stephen Toulmin

a claim states the standpoint/conclusion Bikes are better than cars

the data or the facts and opinions upon which the claim is based They are good for the environment and keep people healthy

the warrant provides the justification for using the data as support The environment is a real worry these days

sometimes a backing provides specific information to support the warrant Some immoral, selfish people don’t care about the environment

a qualifier can add a degree of certainty to the conclusion, an element of qualification to appear more reasonable or less dogmatic Cars are, of course, occasionally necessary

exceptions to the claim are acknowledged and explicitly rebutted Cars may go faster and keep you drier, but they are sources of pollution and ego-mania and of danger to cyclists

If you ever are required to write an essay or prepare a spoken argument for a seminar, the next slide may be of some use

3. David Kaufer & Cheryl GeislerMain Path ‘set of claims’; conjoined, cumulative and directional

Faulty Paths ‘organise claims and support that fall outside the author’s perspective’

Return Paths ‘opportunity to summarize… what lessons they will take with them from the rejected position to incorporate into their own’; ‘help readers see the limitations in faulty-path claims and must help them ‘return’ from these paths, putting them securely back on course’

Such models will help you construct powerful arguments

But beware We’re subject to powerful cultural magnets

(a) psychological/epistemological confusion

be more tolerantbe less critical

(b) non-judgementalism‘The ethos of circle time is positive, encouraging and non-judgemental’ (Bliss & Tetley)‘Aim: To discuss how remaining non-judgemental and open-minded is an important mentoring quality’ (Teachernet.gov.uk)‘Listen carefully to what everyone has to say valuing all contributions non-judgementally so that young people from different financial background are able to contribute to discussions on an equal footing and with equal confidence’ (DfEE)

(c) instrumentalismcritical thinking skills v. argued substantive judgementsconsider Fagin teaching Oliver the skills of stealing (‘nimbleness’ ‘retreating from sight when closing upon a victim’ ‘extraordinary rapidity of movement’ ‘the knack of accurate timing’ ‘the manner of accidental stumbling’) but NEVER the substantive issue – the value - of stealingconsider the National Standards for Headteachers (‘maintaining effective partnerships’ ‘shaping the future’ ‘create a productive learning community’ ‘ensuring that the school moves forward’ ‘carry the vision forward’ ‘the pursuit of excellence’ ‘develop and maintain effective strategies’)‘Substance-free’ argument is common but what does it hide?

And remember, even knowing all there is to know about argument…

One further point:

Will you put the ‘I’ back into your argument?‘It has been argued that…’ OR ‘I will argue that…’

This has nothing to do with ‘Personally I believe/think…’

Gunter Kress

‘Academic writing, professional writing of various kinds, official writing, all were marked by a strict observation of this difference. The use of the agentless passive – ‘it has been claimed that…’ – was one such marker in academic writing; another was the use of highly complex sentence syntax. All these are now beginning to disappear, at different pace in different domains. So, for example, in some disciplines, and in some universities in the English-speaking world, it is no longer required to write theses or academic articles using such forms.’

Deborah Cameron

‘Consider the text you are reading now. From the moment I began to compose it, it was shaped by all kinds of rules and norms: the rules of standard English grammar and spelling, the norms of appropriate diction and tone, as well as ideas about style that go beyond correctness or appropriateness to a more aesthetic sphere of ‘elegance’ (e.g. be brief, be specific, avoid jargon and cliché). I cannot claim I always observe all the relevant prescriptions, and sometime indeed I deliberately flout them (for instance, as this paragraph shows, I have little time for the traditional rule ‘avoid the first person singular’). But when I make this sort of choice I am aware I may be called to account for it.’

Richard Andrews

‘There is often debate about whether the personal pronoun ‘I’ can be used in an assignment of whether it is best to use the passive voice and avoid any personal reference altogether. My own view is that the use of the first person pronoun is acceptable in most cases, especially if a personal view is included or called for in the assignment… Having said that the first person pronoun is acceptable in some circumstances, it ought to be said that clear and uncluttered expression of what is to be said is a helpful stylistic quality. Some students’ writing is overlaid with adjectives that convey enthusiasm or some other feeling; it is often useful to go through the draft of such an essay and think hard about whether these adjectives are necessary.’ (2010) Argumentation in Higher Education

And so:

1. Don’t confuse the interpersonal aspect of arguing with the philosophical/academic need for it

2. Consider building your argument on a model like Toulmin’s or Kaufer & Geisler’s

3. Don’t avoid the value aspects of your argument. If you can’t see clearly where the values are it’ll loose direction and become overly ‘descriptive’

4. Will you / Dare you (ask your tutor!) put the ‘I’ back into your argument?