Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss
the time.
It may sound strange to suggest that we argue all the time. That conjures an image of everyone disagreeing with everyone else, without cessation. “Nice day,” someone says. “You think so, prove it,” comes the response.
When we say we argue all the time, we mean that the disposition to assess claims rationally (with evidence and justification) is always with us during our waking hours (and perhaps even while we are dreaming). Thinking, speaking, and writing are part of a continuum of intellectual activity that goes on in us all the time. We are always working out what is the rational response to the situation, whether or not we choose to act in accordance with that response. The smoker knows every good reason not to smoke (he’s worked it out argumentatively). The student knows the night before an exam may not be the best time to drink (but might do so anyway). Before going into a meeting with her boss, a young executive is rehearsing in her mind all the arguments she will use in asking for a raise.
To the extent that we are nearly always considering the reasons to do this or that, choosing among alternative paths and building a case to support the choice… to that extent our lives are filled with rational arguments.
Projects and Thought Experiments
1.Are you more like Lee or Bailey when it comes to how you view argument? Have you ever lost a dispute where your logic and evidence were superior? Why? Could you have won by anticipating the other factors?
2.What is your conception of rationality? What kind of thing is logic? Is it learned and culture specific? Or is it natural to the human nervous system?
3.Think of a movie you have seen in which argument played a vital role in resolving the story. Explain how.
4.Will argument be more or less valued in the future? Why?
5.Does the Internet provide a good forum for argumentation? How does it suffer in comparison with traditional forms of argument?
Chapter 2: Terms, Roles, and Responsibilities
Like any formalized academic discipline, argumentation has a distinctive vocabulary. Much of its language is shared with other disciplines in which making arguments--and defending claims--is central. Philosophy, and in particular its subspecialty Logic, uses much of the terminology; law, as a both a profession and a subject, is loaded with terms that debaters and advocates use outside of the courtroom.
Rhetoric, a subject that examines the rationale for all sorts of persuasive discourse, dovetails significantly with the field of argumentation. English composition, in both its argumentative and expository dimensions, is a sister study to argumentation, in that writers must incorporate aspects of argumentation theory in the development of formal, written arguments. Almost all of the humanities and social sciences incorporate, respectively, linguistic and logical strategies that are the hallmark of argumentative studies. Even scientific disciplines are argumentative communities; the way in which scientists argue will occupy a significant portion of a later chapter.
Our goal in this chapter is to discuss how the field of argumentation describes itself. In the process, we clear up some misconceptions about argument.
The Starting Point for Argument
Amy has been offered a new job. The job has a higher salary than her current position. Amy is in debt, and welcomes the opportunity to earn more money. As she contemplates the move, a number of questions begin to trouble her:
•Does the new job involve more hours?
•Is the new job more stressful?
•Will her commute be longer?
•Are the benefits as good?
•Is there opportunity for advancement?
•Will the salary increase really make a dent in conquering her debt?
•Will the job be interesting, perhaps even enjoyable?
•Would the job put a strain on her personal life?
By posing these questions, Amy has begun the process of analyzing a proposition for argument. Amy is asking questions that--if they are answered thoroughly and accurately—will inform and guide her decision-making. Amy would probably make a list in which she compared the pros and cons of changing jobs versus maintaining her current situation. This process—forming a claim or proposition and assessing its merits and demerits-- is the starting point for argumentation, the entry into a rational decision-making scheme.
Before we proceed, though, two observations:
First, we realize that not all decisions are made analytically or logically. Amy might decide to switch jobs simply because she can’t stand her boss—only to find out later that her new boss is even more distasteful to her.
Second, not all arguments are about alternative courses of action. Some arguments—such as esthetic arguments about the value of a work of art--are about intellectual preferences, opinions, beliefs.
Nevertheless, the activity that Amy is likely to enter into is the essential argumentative stance: The attempt to formulate in language, and with reasons, the justification for an action. In this rational, argumentative stance, the thorough formulation of answers to Amy’s questions (among others) should be the basis of her decision-making. Even more important, the process could be undertaken by someone other than Amy, because of the inherently public nature of argument. The reasons that would underlie her decision could be assessed by anyone. Although the decision affects her personally, Amy has no special qualifications to judge the decision.
This is not to suggest that every reasonable person would reach the same conclusion as Amy. But it does mean that everyone with ordinary intelligence has the ability to judge the worth of a rationally adduced claim. To say that arguers are rational doesn’t mean that they all see a situation or act on it the same way. Rather it means that we possess the intellectual apparatus to go down the path of an informed and deliberate decision-maker.
The import of this discussion is straightforward: Argument assumes--as a standpoint—rationality. The assumption of rationality demands standards of reasonableness--and the presentation of reasons—to establish adherence to a claim. And establishing adherence to a claim requires positing those who judge the argument as central to its formulation. We create arguments to be judged, and we are all capable of judging arguments.
Again, in this text, argument is defined as the rational process of advancing claims, with both logical and evidentiary support, in anticipation of judgment. In addition, since arguments are “made” (that is, created, analyzed, organized, stylized, presented), we will further define argumentation as designing and launching arguments to be judged in a public setting. The setting can be the most general of sorts, or it can be specialized, such as a law court or a scientific journal, for example.
This conception of argument and argumentation is illustrated in the two cases below:
John has been accused of a crime. He hires a respected defense attorney. The trial begins, and the prosecutor presents the case against John. The case includes evidence and testimony, of experts and witnesses, all alleging John’s guilt. Upon the conclusion of the presentation of the case, the prosecutor proclaims: “the prosecution rests.” This is tantamount to saying: “the prosecution believes it has proved its case.” The defense attorney stands up and says: “The defense rests.” John’s jaw drops. “Have I hired the right attorney,” he wonders. “Is my attorney not going to present a defense? Am I going to jail?”
While it might not be good strategy to offer no defense (or at least offer witnesses and evidence independent of what the prosecutor has presented), a defense attorney can indeed choose not to say a word in defense of his/her client. The reason for this is