Let me share with you a simple argument. It is not a particularly good argument, but
it will demonstrate the elements of a sound one. In doing so, the illustration will point out
certain skills one should develop if one aspires to construct and express a
defensible argument. It goes as follows:
Since Johnny 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 and reported on Wikipedia (81.2%), unless Johnny
happens to be in the twenty percent of the population that is non Catholic and
assuming Johnny is a human being and not, say, a cat or a dog.
Here’s another one:
Jane smokes marijuana; therefore she will end up being
addicted to serious drugs such as heroin because the vast majority of 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.
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 has to do with the reasonableness of inclusion 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 Johnny 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. For example, how many hard drug-takers drank
milk or soda pop before taking hard drugs?
Probably as many, if not more, than smoked marijuana. Yet no one would argue that drinking milk or
soda leads to a heroin addiction. But we
have all heard this argument – linking marijuana smoking and hard drug use – and
without much reflection, we have accepted the conclusion that marijuana smoking
will result in acquiring a hard drug addiction.
So, there are skills in building a sound and meaningful
argument. 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, one needs to develop certain skills. What are these skills? A dissection of a sound argument reveals what
those skills are. Therefore, let’s use
the above, albeit meaningless, sound argument to point out those skills.
Stephen Toulmin[1] provides
a model for argument structure that is helpful in this endeavor. The first argument begins with a factual
statement: Johnny 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 actually 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, Johnny is a Roman Catholic is deduced
from the fact that Johnny was born in Italy.
Using syllogistic reasoning, the fact – Italian born – would be a minor
premise (such as the standard example:
Socrates is a man). In Toulmin’s
model, the fact leads to a conclusion:
Johnny 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 my 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).
I should add here that in both syllogistic argument and in using Toulmin’s
model, major premises and warrant statements are called for whereas in everyday
arguing they are mostly assumed. This
assumption leads to faulty dialogue – see my last posting. In addition, the conclusion, in Toulmin’s model,
is qualified by the use of an “unless” statement (Johnny is part of the 20%
that is non Catholic) and a reservation (assuming Johnny is human and not a
dog, for example). All of these elements
add richness to the argument and make the argument complete and more apt to be
truthful. But adding all of 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
of the conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment