Download Nature of Argument PPT

NATURE OF
ARGUMENT
What is argument?
 Monty Python
sketch: “I’d like to
have an argument”
definition
 “Argumentation is a form of instrumental
communication relying on reasoning and
proof to influence belief or behavior
through the use of spoken or written
messages” (Rybacki & Rybacki, 2008, p.
3).
“…a form of instrumental
communication…”
 arguing is usually a means to an end,
not the end itself
 other types of interactions have
terminal value, e.g., the conversation is
the goal.
“…relying on reasoning
and proof…”
 the essence of argument is
reason-giving
 an arguer can’t simply make an
assertion; she or he must offer a
reason or proof
“…to influence belief or
behavior…”
 arguing is a form of influence or
persuasion
 emphasis is on rational rather than
emotional appeals
 emphasis is on central rather than
peripheral processing
central versus peripheral
processing
 Central processing:
actively thinking about
ideas and processing
available information
 reflective, analytical
decision making
 reading product reviews
 looking up consumer
ratings
 seeking out objective,
expert opinions
 Peripheral processing:
using mental shortcuts,
“heuristic” cues.
 habitual, reflexive decision
making
 relying on celebrity
endorsements
 giving in to brand loyalty
 basing a decision on “bells
and whistels”
focus is on disagreement
 Arguing focuses on
disagreement,
controversy
 people usually only
argue if one of them
is uncertain of the
outcome
 if a conclusion is
certain, inescapable,
there is no need to
argue
argument is audiencecentered
 arguing is audience-centered
 we fashion arguments with specific
listeners in mind
 effective arguments are geared to the
receiver’s frame of reference
 an argument that appeals to one
audience may not appeal to another
argumentation is
probabilistic
 arguing is always “iffy” because there
is no guarantee the other person(s) will
agree
 in argument, success is usually a
matter of degree
 the other person might convince us
instead
argument is rule-governed
 Conventions for arguing
are based on formal and
informal rules
 formal rules in legal
argument: admissibility of
evidence, exclusionary rule
 formal rules in social science
argument: p < .05 level of
significance, scale reliability,
replication
 NFL challenges and instant
replay
 Informal rules in
everyday argument
 turn-taking,
interruptions
 fairness
 requirements for
evidence
 ad hominem attacks
 availability condition
Three perspectives of
argument
 Rhetorical perspective:
 views arguments as being audiencecentered
 arguing is strategic: arguments must be
adapted to the listener’s frame of reference
• standards for evaluating arguments are
person-specific, situation dependent
Three perspectivescontinued
 Dialectical perspective:
 views argument as a back and forth, give
and take process
 arguments are multilateral, they evolve,
change, and develop over time
 involves testing arguments in the
“marketplace of ideas,” assumes the
strongest arguments will prevail
Three perspectives
 Logical perspective:
 presumes there are objective, universal
standards for evaluating arguments
 arguments are unilateral, complete, selfcontained
 based upon formal logic, standards for
determining validity/invalidity
Ethical standards for
argument
 Teleological ethics: focuses on
consequences
 the outcome is what matters
 greatest good for the greatest number
 example: lying is sometimes necessary and
even desirable, abortion is justified under
certain circumstances
Ethical standards for
argument
 Deontological ethics: based on moral
absolutes
 principles don’t change due to situations,
circumstances
 based on a priori moral standards
 example: torture is morally wrong,
abortion is murder, eating meat is
immoral
Ethical standards for
arguing
 Clarity: making arguments clear and concise,
avoiding purposeful ambiguity
 Honesty: being candid, not relying on deceit,
distortion, misrepresentation
 Efficiency: involving the audience, making the
form and content of the argument effective
 Relevance: adapting arguments to the
listener’s frame of reference
Pro-social view of
argument
 Arguing is a key ingredient in decision
making and problem solving
 Arguing gets issues out in the open; lets
people know where they stand
 Arguing is a peaceful means of conflict
resolution