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).
No comments:
Post a Comment