A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, May 15, 2015

THE STRUCTURE OF AN ARGUMENT OR TWO

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.

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 us 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.




[1] Toulmin, Stephen.  (1969).  The uses of argument.  London:  Cambridge University Press.

No comments:

Post a Comment