IS GLOBALIZATION INEVITABLE?

IS GLOBALIZATION INEVITABLE?

To continue with this blog’s presentation of a unit of study development, this posting will begin with a list of more relevant factoids.  These following facts are offered because the developer judges them pertinent to the topic, foreign trade and that trade’s effect on job availability in the US.  Overall, this demonstration, which is in real time, is an attempt to share with the reader what a teacher would do to be able to present lessons that bring to the classroom content that is logically derived from the principles of federation theory.

          As suggested in the last posting, this instruction could be augmented by listing these facts on some visible area of the classroom, e.g., black/white board or on an overhead projector.  Another option would be to pass out, on a sheet of paper, each day – like a daily newsletter – a batch of information notices.  The last posting began this list, here are some more information points:

·        A 2016 Pew Research Center report stated that 203 of the 229 major U.S. metropolitan areas it surveyed between 2000 and 2014 showed a decline in the number of middle-class families. This results from families either moving up the socioeconomic ladder due to securing work in more specialized jobs paying higher income or them falling into a lower-income bracket often due to losing a middle-class income jobs such as in manufacturing.[1]

·        Middle-class households’ income has nominally risen modestly, but in inflation-adjusted basis are stagnant during the years from 2000 to 2014.  This reflects what has been going on for decades stretching back to the 1960s.  That is, when factoring in the effects of inflation over 50 years (1964-2014), real wages grew by less than 8% – this is a yearly rate of 0.16% and is considered stagnant growth.[2]

·        Certain costs, that are relatively important to quality of life, have been facing inflationary growth.  Specifically, college costs and medical care costs outpaced Consumer Price Index (CPI) between 2005 and 2015 except for one of those years.  For example, between 1978 and 2008, college tuition rose 1,120%.  Of course, a college education is even more important when manufacturing jobs are going abroad.  Medical care is essential for good health and, in turn, to allow for a person to be competitive in a job market.[3]

·        The debt levels of the average middle-class household are significantly high.  For example, in 2013 it is nearly twice as high as it was in 1989 at a rate of 122% of annual household income.  High debt levels make it more difficult to save for retirement.  Also, a loss of a job and/or a downturn in the economy would be more detrimental with a high debt level to satisfy.[4]

This posting will now return to the other path this development is taking; that is, identifying relevant insights and lesson ideas that informs or otherwise engages the student to reflect on the significance of the insight.  To this point, the development has identified three insights (in the last posting) with accompany lesson ideas.  Here is a fourth:

The economic shortfalls to certain groups of workers in the US is not due to globalization – the overall policy set that encourages and enables foreign trade activities – but the inability or aversion of the US government to adjust to the newer economic realities attached to globalization.  One can argue that given the technological advancements that facilitates foreign trade and the aspirations of poorer countries – with their supply of cheaper labor – one can say, globalization was inevitable.[5]

A lesson could begin by holding a question and answer session with the class that begins by the teacher asking students to imagine they are an owner of a business that meets a payroll.  The teacher basically poses the following questions:  Would they do X if by doing so they would drastically lower a cost of production?

Would they do X if it means their present employees will lose their jobs?

If they do not do X and their competitors do X, allowing the competitors to drastically lower the price by which they sell their goods, would that further encourage them to do X? 

The point of this q & a is to see how overwhelming the argument is to move a business to another country – or to at least move the manufacturing element of their business – when the other country has large numbers of people willing to work for a mere fraction of what American workers earn.  In the underdeveloped nations of the world there are many workers who are willing to work for these lower wages.

For example, a country where many products today are produced that were produced by US plants in the past is China.  Recently, China’s wages have experienced healthy increases, but as late as 2015, the average yearly salary among 32 major cities in China was 6,070 yuan which equates to $922.64.  Stated another way, based on a 40-hour week and a year with 250 days of work (50 weeks x 5 days a week), that rate of pay equals less than ten cents an hour.[6]

The teacher can also point out that modern technologies – mainly all the activities that the computer allows business people to perform today – the whole prospect of shifting one’s manufacturing needs to far off lands has become relatively easy and cheap.  Of course, this insight further makes the case that global trade and its proliferation in the years since the early 1970s was inevitable.

With that lesson idea, this posting will now shift gears and offer a conceptualization lesson idea.  There are three key ideas or concepts a study of international trade needs to operationally define.  They are comparative advantage, productivity, and balance of trade/payments.  Each of these ideas is a sub idea of a more encompassing idea. 

So, for example, comparative advantage is a sub idea of the idea, trade.  Starting with the “larger” idea, like trade, the teacher writes the verbal symbol of the idea on the board (e.g., writes “trade” on the board) and begins asking students a series of questions that are meant to have them conceptualize the larger idea by using inductive reasoning.

With the verbal symbol on the board the teacher first asks:  what do you know about this larger idea (trade)?  The teacher writes on the board what the students suggest – perhaps he/she uses short hand to advance the process.  Using his/her judgement, the teacher ends this phase and then asks:  which of these ideas go together?  The teacher should remember, the aim is to get the students to identify and define the sub idea that is the purpose of the lesson.  In terms of trade, that can be comparative advantage or balance of trade/payments.

After the group of ideas are formed – each can be considered attributes of the larger idea – the teacher can ask:  how would you label each group?  The label identifies a title for the attribute.  Then take the attribute that comes closest to the targeted sub idea – relative advantage, balance of trade/payments, or productivity – and through directed questions arrive at a definition for each.

To make this a bit clearer, here are a definition for each: 

·        Comparative advantage is that advantage in a trade exchange when the degree to which a product or service is more advantageous to the customer(s) than a competing asset or product. 

·        Productivity is a measure of the value of a production process relative to the costs or depletion of assets used to produce a good or service in question.  It can also include the same measure for collective production, e.g., the productivity level of a nation’s economy.  An added concern with productivity is that since labor usually accounts for businesses highest cost factor, cutting labor costs most significantly raises productivity assuming the same amount of goods are produced.

·        And balance of trade/payments is the difference in value – money amounts – of goods and/or services that are exported (a positive amount) and imported goods and/or services (a negative amount).  This is usually applied to the balance of trade for a nation’s economy.

These definitions can be a bit sophisticated for a high school class.  To give them a more understandable language, a short story type example for each can be helpful.  In terms of comparative advantage, for example, the teacher can provide the following:  suppose there is a highly skilled physician who can also type 130 words a minute.  Should he/she hire a typist, who probably types at a rate of say 70 words a minute, to type out his/her reports? 

This was better example before word processing came about, but it probably still stands.  The answer to the above question, using comparative advantage, is no.  Why?  Because to do his/her own typing, the doctor would have to sacrifice time in which he/she can make a lot more money than he/she would spend hiring a typist to do the typing.

Therefore, in terms of the typist, he/she has a comparative advantage over the doctor in terms of typing.  This is true even though the doctor has an absolute advantage over the typist in terms of typing – 70 words a minute vs. 130 words a minute.

This idea is important in international trade in that it helps to explain why some countries that have absolute advantages in the production of some goods, will import those products from countries that have a lower level of absolute advantage in the production of those products. 

The question or concern becomes:  what does the one country give up – opportunity costs – in producing that good?  In the conceptualizing exercise described above, perhaps the teacher can use the doctor/typist example to guide the student to this realization and gain further understanding of the idea, comparative advantage.

This posting is getting a bit long, so this demonstration will be picked up in the next posting.

---

[1] Sean Williams, “7 Reasons the Middle-Class Is in Serious Trouble,” The Motley Fool, September 22, 2016, accessed September 28, 2016, http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/17/7-reasons-the-middle-class-is-in-serious-trouble.aspx .

 [2] Ibid.  In nominal (unadjusted for inflation) terms, wages rose over 700% during the years between 1964 and 2014.  This finding is based on statistics offered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 [3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

 [5] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2016).

[6] Wu Yan, “Average Salary in Major Chinese Cities Is $900 and Growing,” China Daily, accessed September 7, 2017, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-01/21/content_23183484.htm .

PROBLEMATIC CONSEQUENCES

This blog is presently reporting on the writer’s attempt to develop a unit of study.  The topic for this unit is foreign trade and that trade’s effect on the availability of jobs in the US economy.  In the last posting, as a first step, the writer/developer identified three insights.  This posting will take up each of the insights and describe a corresponding lesson “idea” that will later, if chosen, be situated with the other lesson ideas to formulate a series of lessons that will make up the unit. 

Now, the lessons are merely tentative and each will not necessarily be part of the unit.  The developer needs to see all of them listed and proceed to evaluate them.  It should be remembered this is being done in real time so the reader can get a good sense of what a teacher goes through in developing his/her lesson plans. The lesson ideas can be further tweaked or eliminated.  If a lesson idea survives that process, then they will be arranged according to a presentation order and converted into formal lesson plans. 

Such plans spell out the instructional steps the teacher will take in presenting the lesson to the students and they will also identify the following:  what the expected actions students will perform, the timing of the activities, the materials needed, and any further assignments the students will be given. 

The lesson will first identify the objective of the lesson and it will be stated in as specific a language as possible.  For example:  Given a set of relevant statistics, the student will identify a social/economic condition that offends federalist values.  This form for an objective not only identifies what the student will be able to do, but to what standard he/she will be evaluated.  The reader should remember that this blog has presented a federalist moral code with a list of values; these are the values referred to in this objective.

The last element of the objective points out that its corresponding lesson is situated within a civics course in which federalist values have been derived.  That is, students should have already become aware of what the essence of federalism is and have either been instructed what a list of federalist values are or have actively formulated a list of values that logically are derived from federalist principles.

With that, one can begin the process of developing appropriate lessons.  The first insight, identified in the last posting, is: 

Displaced workers who have lost their jobs to workers of other countries cannot follow those jobs to those other countries.  There are three reasons for this inability.  There are language barriers, cultural barriers, and, compared to what their lifestyles demand, depressed wages.

What occurs to the developer is that the last presidential election entertained this condition.  So, the use of an account of the rhetoric of that campaign would probably highlight the initial conditions that motivated that rhetoric.  The developer recalls an article that reported on the disaffection by displaced workers which was written by George Packer for The New Yorker.[1]

          A roughly stated objective for a lesson using this article could be:  given the information contained in the Packer article, “The Unconnected,” the student will identify the problems American workers have in securing employment in an age of globalization.  Perhaps a small group of students (three to five) can be assigned to read an edited version of the article and report to the class their summary of its contents or their answers to questions handed them to guide their attention.

The second insight is:

Along with competition emanating from imported goods and foreign producers, there is also competition factors relating to technology that further add to the disadvantages of US workers.  Specifically, the introduction of computers and all related technologies have proven to further assist shifting jobs abroad and to introduce automation domestically.  While both are hurtful to US workers, it is foreign competition that is most detrimental in that it physically takes jobs away.

This insight focuses directly with the loss of manufacturing jobs, but adds another factor, technology, for consideration.  This other factor is important in that it both helps explain what is happening to the job market domestically and how it augments or makes possible the loss of jobs to foreign sites. 

Again, a small group, one working simultaneously with but apart from the group working on the “The Unconnected” article, can read a report to the class what the article states.  This article is available online – accessed on 9/4/17 – https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/ and entitled, “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs.”

The third insight is:

Agreements among nations that have very detrimental effects on the availability of jobs in the US have been the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Currently, another potential agreement is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  NAFTA was agreed to in 1993 and WTO in 2003.  TPP is still under negotiation and President Trump has drawn the US out of what, to date, had been agreed.  In addition, NAFTA is presently under renegotiation talks. 

The supporters of these agreements have argued they create new jobs; lead to higher wages; and will make available greater diversity of consumer goods.  Opponents argue that they send good paying jobs elsewhere; decrease wages; and increase inequality.  The developer would add another benefit; these agreements have led to lower consumer prices.

Another small group can look at the effect international agreements have had on job availability in the US.  For this group the article entitled, "NAFTA’s Impact on U. S. Workers," can be helpful; it is published by Economic Policy Institute.  This article is available online – accessed on 9/4/17 – http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/ .  In addition, students can be encouraged to look up the WTO and TPP.

An ongoing feature of the unit is a listing of factoids or statistics that can be featured somewhere in the class.  To begin, the following statistics can be posted:

·        In 2013, the gap between America’s upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level on record.  The median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30 years when the Federal Reserve began collecting data.[2]

·        The median income – median meaning half of those measured fall above and half below – for the middle fifth of income earning households rose a mere 13% between 1970 and 2014 – an average rise per year of just under 0.3% – and a lot of that increase was due to the influx of women workers into the workforce during those years.[3] 

·        Overall median income rose 0.3% between 2000 and 2004, while those of Canada and Great Britain rose circa 20% during those same years.[4]

·        Since the mid-1980s, inequality of income in the US has grown faster than any other advanced economy; it's higher than any other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries except for Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.[5]

·        In the years since the mid-1980s, the US has had the fastest rate of growth of people living in poverty than any other OECD country except for Israel and near last in economic mobility and the percentage of working aged individuals with a job.[6]

This is first batch of lesson ideas.  The following postings will identify further insights to be possibly used and the lesson idea together.  In addition, the next posting will review a concept forming activity that can be conducted to have students conceptualize three ideas:  productivity, balance of trade/payments, and relative advantage.

---

[1] George Packer, “The Unconnected,” The New Yorker 92, no. 35 (2016):  48-61.

 [2] Richard Fry and Rakesh Kochhar, “America’s Wealth Gap between Middle-Income and Upper-Income Is Widest on Record,” Fact Tank, December 17, 2014, accessed on August 31, 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/ .

[3] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2016).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

BEGINNING A PLANNING SESSION

In the last posting, this blog reviewed a list of fallacies that are used in rhetorical efforts.  They are not necessarily used every time a speaker engages in rhetoric, but experience shows the temptation, on the part of politicians, salespeople, lawyers, or other persuaders, to use them is formidable. 

The list consists of appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion, association fallacy, attacking the person, begging the question, circular argument, false causation fallacy, false dilemma/dichotomy, illogical conclusion, slippery slope, and syllogism fallacy.  Each was described and an example of each was given.

          There are other fallacy types.  They include overstate one’s premise of a position as the determining factor of the case and lay the burden of proof on those who are questioning a policy position.  Some of these types are similar one to another, but each can be distinguished from the others.

          And with that, this writer will begin a promised set of postings in which he will, in real time, report on an attempt to develop a unit of study.  The topic for that unit is foreign trade and that trade’s effect on employment opportunities.  This is a legitimate topic under the concerns of the mental construct (or social philosophy), federation theory – the construct promoted by this blog. 

This inclusion is justified by the fact that foreign trade since the 1970s has had much to do with the elimination of high paying manufacturing jobs that has stricken what is generally described as the “rust belt” and other manufacturing centers around the country.  This has affected those workers in that their status as economic actors or as political entities within the polity have been highly compromised.  For many, the changes have taken place at a time in life that disallows them to improve their statuses.  This is a genuine equality issue.

Beyond the conditions at the individual level, what has also developed is a shifting of national income away from workers toward the entrepreneur class or to those who have high levels of capital accumulation.[1]  In addition, that trend has accelerated:

A new Pew Research Center analysis of wealth finds the gap between America’s upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level on record.  In 2013, the median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30 years when the Federal Reserve began collecting data.[2]

While this quote refers to wealth, the gap reflects the shifting of income toward the upper-class.  Here are a few more statistics:  the median income – median meaning half of those measured fall above and half below – for the middle fifth of income earning households rose a mere 13% between 1970 and 2014 – an average rise per year of just under 0.3% – and a lot of that increase was due to the influx of women workers during those years.  Overall median income rose 0.3% between 2000 and 2004, while those of Canada and Great Britain rose circa 20% during those same years.[3]

Therefore, the current condition offends federalist values as described and explained in this blog.  In turn, foreign trade with its consequences has been a significant contributing factor.[4]

          Hopefully, the reader agrees with this short rationale.  Assuming he/she does, this posting continues with the planning process.  As a reminder, the writer – henceforth referred to as the developer – has identified the solo source of information he is using in this demonstration.  That is Edward Alden’s book cited above.  He will augment this by using readily available sources of information such as Wikipedia.

          The planning begins with identifying an insight that can be derived from a reputable source such as a book by a legitimate writer like Alden, from news accounts from legitimate news sources like the New York Times, or from a legitimate study such as those developed the Pew Research Center. 

          Once identified, the insight is thought of and a lesson is imagined that instructs the essence of the insight.  Insights are deemed worthy for consideration by evaluating its power (the numbers of people affected), its meaningfulness (the quality of its effect on people’s lives), and its relevancy given the students being taught.  The developer will make comment on these qualities as he introduces each insight. 

Instruction for given lesson can be didactic (dispensing of information) or interactive in which students engage in a discovery activity.  The latter will be favored.  Each insight – during this development – will not be introduced in any given order, but as they become known to the developer.  Remember, this account is shared on a “real time” basis and the developer presently does not know how this effort will work out. 

The attempt here will be to give the non-teacher reader a sense of what a teacher does when preparing a lesson plan – a lesson plan that goes beyond just reviewing what the textbook offers next.  In addition, this demonstration is to introduce an instructional approach to civics which this blog has entitled historic-based dialogue.

          The first insight is as follows:  Displaced workers who have lost their jobs to workers of other countries cannot follow those jobs to those other countries.  There are three reasons for this inability.  There are language barriers, cultural barriers, and, compared to what their lifestyles demand, depressed wages.

          A second insight is:  Along with competition emanating from imported goods and foreign producers, there is also competition factors relating to technology that further add to the disadvantages of US workers.  Specifically, the introduction of computers and all related technologies have proven to further assist shifting jobs abroad and to introduce automation domestically.  While both are hurtful to US workers, it is foreign competition that is most detrimental in that it physically takes jobs away.

          A third insight is:  Agreements among nations that have very detrimental effects on the availability of jobs in the US have been the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Currently, another potential agreement is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  NAFTA was agreed to in 1993 and WTO in 2003.  TPP is still under negotiation and President Trump has drawn the US out of what, to date, had been agreed.  In addition, NAFTA is presently under renegotiation talks. 

The supporters of these agreements have argued they create new jobs; lead to higher wages; and will make available greater diversity of consumer goods.  Opponents argue that they send jobs elsewhere; decrease wages; and increase inequality.  The developer would add another benefit; these agreements have led to lower consumer prices.

          To start the thought process in developing daily lesson plans, the next posting will take up this first set of insights and begin formulating a lesson for each that determines what students will be instructed and what they will be called upon to do.  This will be a short paragraph or two that summarizes what each lesson will be.

---

[1] Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2014).

[2] Richard Fry and Rakesh Kochhar, “America’s Wealth Gap between Middle-Income and Upper-Income Is Widest on Record,” Fact Tank, December 17, 2014, accessed on August 31, 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/ .

[3] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2016).

[4] Ibid.

FALLACY TYPES

This promises to be a short posting.  It is the last entry regarding logical argument.  The last posting reviewed sources of faulty argumentation which relate to rhetoric.  This was introduced by describing three sources of misleading rhetoric often intentionally employed to convince an audience of a point, but which falls short of logical argument.  The three are ethos (based on good reputation), pathos (based on good feelings), and logos (based on insufficient evidence).  These three sources lead to recurring forms or types of fallacies.

          They are so common that logicians have been able to classify them and this posting reports on twelve types of fallacies.  They are:  appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion, association fallacy, attacking the person, begging the question, circular argument, false causation fallacy, false dilemma/dichotomy, illogical conclusion, slippery slope, and syllogism fallacy.

          Each can be defined and illustrated as follows:

·        Appeal to ignorance – Since the listener cannot prove something does not exist, it is therefore true.  Example:  Since one cannot “see” whether organic life exists on the side of the moon facing away from the earth, there is organic life on that side of the moon.

·        Appeal to authority – Also known as “argumentum verecundia” (argument from modesty); if someone of respect for their knowledge believes/believed in some conclusion, it must be true.  Since the genius, Einstein, rejected the unpredictability of quantum mechanics, it must not be true.

·        Appeal to public opinion – Since something is generally believed by the public, it must be true.  Example:  Since football (American style) is so popular, it should not be regulated in terms of its alleged effect on brain damage.

·        Association fallacy – Also known as “guilt by affiliation;” something is wrong, untrue, or immoral because an unsavory person believes or ascribes to it.  Example:  Since our political adversaries want this law, it must be awful and we would be wise to reject it.  Or, since my political opponent is backed by the leader of the opposition, voters should reject him/her.

·        Attacking the person – Also known as “ad hominem;” it is backing a position by insulting the person or group espousing it.  Example:  Why would anyone listen to a proposition offered by that jerk?

·        Begging the question – Posing a conclusion that is contained in the inquiry such as an attempt to sell it by restating it in other words.  Example – Since taking a day off every so often is healthy, it must be good for a person to take a vacation once a year.

·        Circular argument – Also known as “circulus in probando;” argument that uses an element of the argument to back up its conclusion instead of going outside the argument for such backing.  Example:  Since rainy days are soothing, the sight of rain mellows one’s day.

·        False causation fallacy – Also known as “cum hoc ergo propter hoc;” stating something is the cause of something else only because it proceeded the second event.  Often considered a superstition.  Example:  Every time I wear pink shoe laces, the Tigers win.  Or, they moved to Baltimore and, six months later, they are getting a divorce.  Baltimore ruined their marriage.

·        False dilemma/dichotomy – Also known as “bifurcation;” narrowing an argument to only two false options.  Example:  If you don’t accept this proposal, you must be actively seeking the bankruptcy of this business.

·        Illogical conclusion – Making a conclusion that simply does not logically follow from the evidence offered or previously established conclusions.  All loyal Americans believe in democracy, and Jane is not an American, therefore, Jane does not believe in democracy.

·        Slippery slope – If one allows an event to happen, it will lead to more serious and detrimental events to happen.  Example:  If a few illegal immigrants commits a serious crime, then being lenient on illegal immigration will lead to uncontrollable crime rates.

·        Syllogism fallacy – A conclusion derived from a syllogistically formed argument that is illogical.  Example:  All homing pigeons are white, the bird in my cage is white, therefore, it is a homing pigeon.

These forms of fallacy are common in our political discourse.  They usually are subtler than the examples offered above; that is, they sound more persuasive.  One should remember that illogical arguments can be true, it is just that the argument as presented does not make the case that it is. 

And one can guess that if a logical argument is available to a reasonably intelligent advocate, the fact that it was not used, perhaps he/she is attempting to employ illogical rhetoric to convince without having logical reasons to promote the position being argued.  If national politicians trying to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment, cite some examples of illegal actions by a few immigrants to argue they are responsible for heightened crime rates, one is tempted to question the motivation of such argumentation.

These concerns are so central to the instructional approach this blog is promoting that a teacher would be well-served to begin each lesson with an example of an illogical argument – using one of the types just reviewed – and hold a quick contest as to which student can first identify the type it is.  Perhaps, that student can earn some extra credit.  If done at the beginning of each lesson, students in the class can get a significant amount of practice in detecting illogical arguments.

KEEPING AN ARGUMENT ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW

What is the aim of political speeches?  To convince.  In every case, politicians exercise rhetoric.  Their statements are not primarily meant to share truth.  Oh, they might be based on truth claims – they might not be – but truth sharing is not their primary purpose. 

They are attempts at exhortation and/or dissuasion as is the case in political debate.  Arguments might be based on out and out lies.  But, in the age of the internet and the ability to check whether a claim is true or not, lies are more difficult to promulgate; although it still happens. 

Another strategy is not to lie, per se, but to engage in illogical argumentation. That observation is reflected in the notes on rhetoric by Richard A. Lanham.[1]  In this posting, this writer, with this strategy in mind, wants to ask a couple of questions regarding an argument:  what is the underlying process upon which that argument is developed?  And does the process advance logical or illogical argumentation?

The process revolves around two sub-concerns:  one, the argument’s main support and, two, its reliance on the mental operation it uses to arrive at its conclusion(s).  In this posting, it first looks at the use of supports and, then below, it addresses mental operations.

A teacher can ask civics students to determine what support a politician uses to convince his/her audience.  Supports come in two classifications:  real and synthetic.  Real support refers to evidence such as eyewitness accounts, documents, scientific reports or analysis, and laws.  They are factually based claims about reality; what Toulmin calls datum statements.  Usually, any one datum statement does not prove the conclusion, but when added to other testimony, it can support the conclusion, perhaps even prove it.

On the other hand, there is synthetic support.  By using the term synthetic, the writer is not saying this type of support is necessarily untrue or unreal.  It is a statement of reality not logically supportive of the conclusion or it does not sufficiently, despite its claim, support the conclusion.  In our Paolo example, from the last posting, if I say that he is Catholic because Mr. X says so and Mr. X is of good reputation or good character, then this argument is based on a synthetic support.  It is supportive, but not sufficiently so.

Argument based on the good name of its advocate is what the Greeks called “ethos.”  There is also “pathos” which is support emanating from being seduced by a pleasant mood or positive feelings.  One is encouraged to believe Paolo is Catholic because one is Catholic and one likes Paolo and one would like to believe his afterlife is more secure if he is Catholic.  A use of good feeling can be within the content of the argument increase the likelihood of its acceptance. 

Then there is the argument that sounds like it is based on a logical proof but does not meet the requirements of a logical argument:  One knows Paolo is Catholic because one saw him attend a Catholic mass.  This is a synthetic support known as logos; that is, while the proof here is based on a real support statement – Paolo attended a mass – it is not enough to make the logical conclusion that he is Catholic and therefore, the overall support is synthetic and deemed illogical if offered as the sole proof. 

Any time an argument strives to be accepted by sounding logical but falling short, the rhetorical device of logos is being used.  Again, a rhetorical device does not make the conclusion false, but if the device is synthetic, it is illogical, artificial, or incomplete argumentation.  Yet while illogical or insufficient, the use of ethos, pathos, and logos are all used to convince the listener of the conclusion and not to necessarily share a truthful and or logical argument. 

To emphasize, the use of rhetoric does not necessarily mean the conclusion is invalid; it simply means the use of it is aimed at logically or illogically securing support.  At times, the conclusion can be valid; at times, it can be invalid, but whether it is or isn’t is not its author’s main concern.  The main concern is persuasion.

The second concern is over the mental operations the argument demands to follow its “proof.”  Here we are on more familiar ground.  There are two mental operations:  inductive and deductive reasoning.  By relying on datum statements, one’s main concern in inductive reasoning is to ask whether there are enough datum statements to account for all the incidents relevant to the conclusion or is it based on a partial – insufficient – number of incidents. 

This is an inductive reasoning issue and is associated with pathos described above.  Maria is Italian and Catholic; Carlo is Italian and Catholic; are those enough cases to logically prove the case that Paolo is Catholic since he was born in Italy?  Obviously not, but that is the concern when thinking inductively.

In terms of deduction, the concern is whether the warrant statement – the claim that establishes the relevance of the datum statements to the conclusion – is conclusive or only probable in its assertion.  Careful:  the reference here is to the warrant statement, not datum statements or to a conclusion statement. 

The claim, for example, that all Italians are Catholic is a generalization – linking the fact that Paolo is Italian with the conclusion he is Catholic.  As stated, the assertion – the warrant statement – is conclusive (but not true).  Offering an alternative warrant claim, the overwhelming number of Italians are Catholic, is a qualified generalization which makes the conclusion probable – Paolo is probably Catholic – and true.  These are the determinations one looks for when analyzing deductive reasoning.

For each of these elements, at least one analyzing question is suggested and teachers can devise them so that students can analyze the rhetorical quality of politicians’ speeches and of others’ statements.  They can also be used for any political argumentation. 

For example, one hears today that the Confederate flag is a symbol of the tradition and heritage of the South and not a symbol of hatred or of the belief that whites are superior to blacks.  A question is:  what datum statements can such an argument use to support this conclusion? 

The press is reporting many in the South believe in this conclusion, but one is hard pressed to hear any datum statements to back it up.  One can readily hear of documented evidence that it does represent, to the extent it represents the Confederate States of America, the belief that whites are superior to blacks. 

One is constantly faced with argumentation of all kinds.  Political argumentation makes up much of what is reported on the news.  Hopefully, these ideas on rhetoric will help students study these rhetorical arguments and form judgments as to their viability and veracity.  To further assist in this endeavor, this blog will provide a listing of illogical arguments – fallacy types – that seem to reoccur in common speech, the media, and in political rhetoric.  That will be the topic of the next posting.

---

[1] Richard A. Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms:  A Guide for Students of English Literature (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1969).

TOULMIN’S ELEMENTS OF A LOGICAL ARGUMENT

The instructional approach being promoted in this blog depends on argumentation.  To be effective, a teacher needs to be informed on what constitutes a sound argument; and, in turn, he/she needs to develop certain skills.  Such development is assisted by looking at arguments; here is one that can be useful.  It is not a particularly good argument, but it will demonstrate the elements of a sound one. 

It goes as follows:

Since Paolo was born in Italy, he is therefore a Roman Catholic because eighty percent of Italians belong to the Catholic religion according to the latest census reported on Wikipedia (81.2%), unless Paolo happens to be in the roughly twenty percent of the population that is non-Catholic and assuming Paolo is a human being and not, say, a cat or a dog.

Here’s another one:

Since Jane smokes marijuana, she will therefore end up being addicted to serious drugs such as heroin because most addicted people at one-time smoked marijuana as numerous surveys of addicted people reveal, unless Jane does not live to “graduate” to harder drugs and supposing that she is not subject to arrest or a drug rehabilitation program before an addiction is formed.

The first argument is sound, but does not convey anything meaningful.  The second is not sound, but does convey a meaningful message.  The soundness of each relates to how reasonable its inclusion of factors is within the structure of the argument.  Training in syllogistic reasoning assists one in seeing this inclusion.  So, by stating that 80% of the population of Italy is Catholic and qualifying the argument that Paolo could be part of the 20% that is non-Catholic, therefore the entire population of Italy is included. 

But in the second argument, when one states that just about all hard drug-takers began his or her use of illicit drugs by consuming marijuana, one is not totally inclusive – not in terms of establishing a causal relationship.  For example, how many marijuana smokers have never tried hard drugs?  Probably many more than have tried them. 

Yet, most people have heard this argument – linking marijuana smoking and hard drug use – and without much reflection, many have accepted the conclusion that marijuana smoking will result in acquiring a hard-drug addiction.  While there is a correlation among those who are suffering from a hard drug addiction and earlier use of marijuana, a more telling statistic would be how many marijuana users eventually “graduate” to hard drugs.  In that, the numbers are small and, therefore, it is difficult to conclude that marijuana leads to hard drug use.[1] 

One can make a more useful argument.  For example, the more meaningful factor could be attitudinal:  how disposed is a person to breaking the law or irresponsibly seeking experiences that defy social norms.  These “rebels” are apt to look for ways to counter any standards that society considers moral or responsible behavior.  Such people are readily known by most other people as individuals that “live on the wild side.”

To construct a good, sound argument entails performing certain skills.  And if one not only wants to convince others of a point of view, but also to assure oneself and others that the point of view is true or responsible, one needs to develop those skills.  What are these skills?  A dissection of a sound argument reveals what those skills are.  Therefore, one can use the above, albeit meaningless, sound argument – the one about Paolo – to point out what those skills are.

Stephen Toulmin[2] provides a model for argument structure that is helpful in this endeavor.  The first argument begins with a factual statement:  Paolo was born in Italy.  Toulmin calls this a datum statement.  The skill involved with this first stage is to make sure that the statement is true. 

Journalists work with factual statements all the time.  These statements are the what, when, where, how, and how many statements.  Before accepting a factual claim, they need to hear it from two separate sources unless the substance of the claim is personally viewed or otherwise perceived by the journalist.  This viewing can be from some recording device that is judged to be free from tampering.  Whether that is sufficient or not is a matter of judgment, but as a requirement, it demonstrates a concern over the truthfulness of any such claims.

Using reason, facts can lead to some conclusions.  For example, Paolo is a Roman Catholic is deduced from the fact that Paolo was born in Italy.  Using syllogistic reasoning, the fact – Italian born – would be a minor premise (such as in the standard example:  Socrates is a man).  In Toulmin’s model, the fact leads to a conclusion:  Paolo is Catholic. 

But that’s a big jump; one needs some connector statement to make such a conclusion reasonable.  Toulmin calls that sort of statement a warrant statement (in a syllogism it would be a major premise).  In this simple argument, that would be 80% of Italians are Catholic (in the standard example:  All men are mortal). 

The reasoning of inclusion from the syllogistic model goes as follows:  All men are mortal (major premise), Socrates is a man (minor premise); therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).  But Toulmin’s model arranges the argument in a different order and adds a few more elements. 

To begin with, the warrant statement (or major premise) is supported with backing statements (according to the latest census and reported on Wikipedia).  It should be added here that in both syllogistic arguments and in using Toulmin’s model, major premises and warrant statements are called for whereas in everyday arguing they are mostly assumed and go unstated.

This assumption leads to faulty dialogue – see the last posting.  In addition, the conclusion, in Toulmin’s model, is qualified using an “unless” statement (Paolo is part of the 20% that is non-Catholic) and a reservation (assuming Paolo is human and not a dog, for example).  These elements add richness to the argument or nuance and make the argument complete and more apt to be truthful.

But adding these elements is the result of someone exerting effort and employing skills: 

·        the skills of finding truthful factual statements,

·        the skill of deducing from the facts a logical and meaningful conclusion,

·        the skill of tying the facts to the conclusion with a powerful enough warrant that justifies the connection between the facts and conclusion,

·        the skill of identifying the backing information that validates the warrant statement,

·        and the skill of including the necessary qualifiers and reservations that prevent an overstatement – unjustified inclusion – beyond the parameters established by the supporting facts.

If one applies such skills to the issue addressed in the second argument above, perhaps one can more meaningfully derive the conclusions that would help resolve the drug problems of this nation.  Such argumentation is not easy, especially when one is not merely attempting persuasion, but is attempting to derive the truth.  One intervening factor in being able to develop and successfully promote sound arguments are existing biases which often are supported by emotional attachments.

What remains before developing the unit of instruction, promised several postings ago, is to look at how arguments go astray; i.e., end up being illogical.  This will be addressed with a distinction being made:  the difference between sound argumentation that can be both aimed at truth sharing and being persuasive and arguments that are only meant to be persuasive that might include unsound or illogical arguments. 

Persuasive arguments are called rhetoric and people who engage in rhetoric – and we all do – has been known to employ logical arguments, but also illogical arguments.  This blog will share a list of illogical argument types.  They are common in everyday speech and in political rhetoric.  As such, good citizens should be aware of them as they review their own thinking or speech and that of others.

---

[1] National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?, accessed on August 21, 2017, https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug .

[2] Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London, England:  Cambridge University Press, 1969).