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).