Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, nd 2 Edition Part I Professor David Zarefsky THE TEACHING COMPANY ® David Zarefsky, Ph.D. Professor of Argumentation and Debate, Professor of Communication Studies, Northwestern University David Zarefsky received his B.S. (with highest distinction) from Northwestern University and earned his master’s and doctoral degrees also from Northwestern. He has taught at Northwestern for more than 30 years. From 1988 through 2000, he was dean of the School of Speech. Currently, he is Owen L. Coon Professor of Argumentation and Debate and Professor of Communication Studies. Dr. Zarefsky has served as president of the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the nation’s oldest and largest professional organizations for scholars, teachers, and practitioners in communication and performance studies. He also has been president of the Rhetoric Society of America (RSA), an interdisciplinary society of scholars interested in studying public discourse. He has held a number of other leadership positions in NCA and other professional associations and is a former editor of the journal Argumentation and Advocacy. A prolific writer, Dr. Zarefsky has written five books and edited three more and has an impressive list of scholarly articles and reviews to his credit. He received the 1986 NCA Winans-Wichelns Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Rhetoric and Public Address for his book President Johnson’s War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History. He won the same award in 1991 for Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate. He is one of only three people to have received this prestigious award twice. A nationally recognized authority on rhetoric, argumentation, and forensics, Dr. Zarefsky maintains a busy schedule as a member of external review committees for departments of communication studies, as well as of speech communication, at various universities. At Northwestern, Dr. Zarefsky teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in the history of American public discourse, argumentation theory and practice, and rhetorical analysis and criticism. He has been elected to Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government Honor Roll for Teaching on 13 occasions. ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership i Table of Contents Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition Part I Professor Biography............................................................................................i Course Scope.......................................................................................................1 Lecture One Introducing Argumentation and Rhetoric..................5 Lecture Two Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation..............9 Lecture Three Formal and Informal Argumentation.......................13 Lecture Four History of Argumentation Studies...........................17 Lecture Five Argument Analysis and Diagramming....................21 Lecture Six Complex Structures of Argument............................26 Lecture Seven Case ConstructionRequirements and Options.....32 Lecture Eight StasisThe Heart of the Controversy.....................36 Lecture Nine Attack and Defense I...............................................40 Lecture Ten Attack and Defense II..............................................43 Lecture Eleven Language and Style in Argument............................46 Lecture Twelve Evaluating Evidence................................................49 Glossary.............................................................................................................53 Biographical Notes............................................................................................60 Bibliography......................................................................................................63 ii ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition Course Scope: This series of 24 lectures examines a common but understudied aspect of human communication: argumentation. Far from the stereotypes of contentiousness or quarrelsomeness, argumentation is the study of reasons given by people to justify their acts or beliefs and to influence the thought or action of others. It is concerned with communication that seeks to persuade others through reasoned judgment. The course is introductory in that it does not presume any prior study of argumentation. Because all of us practice argumentation, however, the course is also sophisticated in that it offers a systematic analysis, a precise vocabulary, and a philosophical foundation for what all too often is an activity that we conduct intuitively and unconsciously. The first four lectures provide the necessary intellectual background. Lecture One defines argumentation and situates it among a family of terms: rhetoric, logic, and dialectic. Unfortunately, these terms either have acquired negative stereotypes in contemporary culture or they have fallen into disuse; therefore, it is necessary to understand them in their classical context. Each term is defined, and the terms are related to one another. Lecture Two then identifies a series of assumptions that undergird the practice of argumentation: the importance of an audience, the regulation of uncertainty, the difference between justification and proof, the cooperative nature of the enterprise, and the acceptance of risk. These assumptions provide the philosophical base for understanding what it means to argue as a means of reaching decisions. Much of the contemporary revival of argumentation has emphasized its informal character and, hence, the inapplicability of formal logic as a model. Lecture Three thus is devoted to the differences between formal and informal reasoning. The main patterns of formal deduction—categorical, conditional, and disjunctive reasoning— are described and illustrated. The lecture identifies the limitations of formal reasoning as a prototype and explains how informal reasoning is fundamentally different. Although the emphasis on informal reasoning may seem new, it actually has a long tradition, and Lecture Four surveys, in broad-brush fashion, how the study of argumentation has evolved from classical times to the present. Originally, argumentation was the heart and soul of rhetorical studies, and rhetoric was regarded as one of the seven basic liberal arts. During the intervening centuries, rhetoric was separated from its most intellectual elements, argumentation was taken over by philosophy, and formal logic (especially symbolic or mathematical logic) was regarded as the prototype for all reasoning. The lecture summarizes consequences of these trends and includes a discussion of several late-20th-century efforts to refocus argumentation studies. The next seven lectures, Five through Eleven, examine aspects of argumentation strategies and tactics. Lecture Five begins this series by considering how controversies arise and how the most basic element of argument is the claim. It then defines the major components of an argument (a claim, evidence, an inference linking the evidence to the claim, and a warrant authorizing the inference) and describes how these components can be represented diagrammatically. Lecture Six moves from simple arguments to examine the structure of more complex arguments. Multiple, coordinative, and subordinative structures illustrate the patterns by which parts of complex arguments are brought together. We will explore how the choices among these patterns make a difference to the understanding of the overall argument. The structures exposed in Lecture Six can be thought of as ways to map an arguer’s case, that is, the set of arguments that he or she brings forward to support or oppose a claim. Lecture Seven considers the arguer’s responsibility to speak to all the relevant issues in the assembly of the case. This consideration will lead into a discussion of the nature of issues, means of identifying issues in a specific case, and why addressing the issues meets the initial burden of proof. The lecture then shifts from responsibilities to choices and focuses on the arguer’s options with respect to selection and arrangement of arguments. Lectures Eight through Ten concern the processes of attacking and defending arguments, processes that collectively are known as refutation. We begin by considering the key concept of stasis. This concept refers to the focal point of the argument, which is created by the confrontation of assertion and denial. The first step in responding to an argument, then, is to identify the desired stasis. This lecture explores how different choices about stasis affect argument, both in the legal setting in which it was originally devised and in nonlegal arguments as well. ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership 1 Lecture Nine introduces the processes of attack and defense, pointing out that, despite the military metaphor, these are cooperative activities. Choices regarding the selection of arguments for attack and the development of the attack are considered in some detail. Lecture Ten completes the discussion of attacks, then examines the process of defending and rebuilding arguments, in which the choices available to the advocate are far fewer. The lecture concludes with general techniques of refutation that can be used both by the attack and by the defense. The treatment of argument strategy and tactics concludes with Lecture Eleven, which is devoted entirely to the role of language in argument. By considering the role of definitions, figures of speech, precision, and intensity, the lecture establishes that language is integral to argument, not ornamentation that is added to language-free content. In the next set of seven lectures, Lectures Twelve through Eighteen, the focus shifts from argument strategy and tactics to the more microscopic level, in which specific components of the individual argument are the units of analysis, and the goals are to examine how the components are used and which factors of each component may strengthen or undermine the argument in which it is used. A single lecture examines evidence, which is discussed with reference to examples, statistical measures, objective data and historical documents, and testimony. Then six lectures address different kinds of inferences and warrants. These are especially important because they are the most complex parts of the argument and designate different argument schemes. Six different inferential patterns are examined carefully—example, analogy, sign, cause, commonplaces, and form. In each case, the lectures explain that the inference depends on probability rather than certainty. The basic pattern of the inference is described, its uses are considered, and tests are offered that help to determine whether the inference is likely to be sound. Unlike deductive reasoning, in which the soundness of an argument is a purely formal question, in argumentation the soundness of an inference is governed heavily by context and experience. After presentation of these six basic patterns of inductive inference, several hybrid inferential patterns are considered in Lecture Eighteen—reasoning with rules, reasoning about values, and dissociations. Because the goal in constructing arguments is to have not only some sort of reasoning structure but one that will influence critical listeners, the appraisal of arguments becomes the focus of Lectures Nineteen and Twenty. These lectures offer different approaches to the question, “What makes an argument valid?” Lecture Nineteen introduces the concept of validity by reference to formal argument, then considers what errors in each of the six informal inference patterns will make an argument invalid, and finally considers general errors of vacuity that result in “empty” arguments. Lecture Twenty resumes consideration of general fallacies by considering fallacies of clarity (the use of unclear or equivocal language) and fallacies of relevance (drawing inferences from factors having nothing to do with the relationship between evidence and claim). It then circles back on the concept of fallacy by showing that supposedly fallacious inferences are sometimes valid, depending on the context, and by suggesting that validity may be more a matter of procedure than of form. In this view, valid arguments are those that enhance the purpose of resolving disagreement. Examples are offered of normative standards for arguments that follow from this position. The final group of lectures moves to an even more macro level and considers the practice of argumentation in society. Lecture Twenty-One presents the concept of argument spheres in which different expectations shape the culture of arguing. It then addresses the nature of argumentation in the personal sphere. Lecture Twenty-Two is devoted to the technical sphere, where argumentation takes place in specialized fields. The concept of argument field is presented, and examples are drawn from the fields of law, science, management, ethics, and religion. Lecture Twenty-Three deals with the public sphere, in which matters of general interest are discussed, and the public participates in its capacity as citizenry. This lecture also explores the relationship between a robust public sphere and a healthy democracy. Finally, Lecture Twenty-Four returns to the level of generality with which the series began and considers how arguments terminate and then explores the larger goals served by argumentation as a process of human interaction. Most significantly, argumentation is a means of collective judgment and decision making, and hence of governance. It also is a way of knowing and a means to the achievement of the goals of democratic life. As the conclusion notes, although it is sometimes thought fashionable to demean an argument culture as inimical to harmony and civil peace, a culture of argumentation is actually something to be embraced in a world in which important decisions must be made under conditions of uncertainty. 2 ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership Lecture One Introducing Argumentation and Rhetoric Scope: In everyday usage, argumentation often has negative connotations, suggesting quarrelsomeness and unpleasantness. We must put this stereotype aside and examine argumentation in its classical sense—as the study of effective reasoning. This introductory lecture will explain just what this idea means. It also will relate argumentation to the field of rhetoric. Rhetoric is another term that has taken on pejorative connotations but that has a rich history as the study of how messages influence people. Argumentation is also related to two other fields, logic and dialectic, that will be explained in this lecture. We also will consider the question of how argumentation is ethical. With a clear understanding of these basic terms, we will be ready to launch our study, and the lecture will preview the directions we will take. Outline I. Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning. A. Popular conceptions of argumentation as unpleasant and quarrelsome need to be set aside. B. Arguing is reason giving. 1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. 2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. 3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command. C. To talk about effective reasoning is to imply concern for an audience. 1. Arguments are not offered in a vacuum. 2. Success ultimately depends on the assent of an audience. 3. Assent is based on audience acceptance of the reasoning. 4. Hence argumentation is one way in which we attempt to persuade. D. It is possible, though, to conduct an argument with oneself. II. Argumentation is a common but imperiled activity. A. It is sometimes thought that, because everyone does it, argumentation does not require careful study. 1. Argumentation indeed is pervasive in daily life. 2. It occurs everywhere from informal encounters between people to the formally structured debate. B. A recent newspaper column suggests, however, that argumentation may be a lost art. 1. People increasingly interact only with those who agree with them. 2. Differences of opinion are treated as unbridgeable. 3. The result is to weaken opportunities for compromise, deliberation, and mutual understanding. 4. Argumentation is the antidote. C. The difference between productive arguments and destructive quarrels often is in the understanding of principles. III. Argumentation is both a product and a process. A. Sometimes our focus is on messages, the products of argumentation. 1. Messages are both explicit and implicit. 2. They are capable of being cast into language. 3. They are capable of analysis and appraisal. B. Sometimes our focus is on interaction, the process of argumentation. 1. Argumentation is an interaction in which people maintain what they think are mutually exclusive positions, and they seek to resolve their disagreement. 2. They seek to convince each other, but at the same time they are open to influence themselves. 3. We study how they go about convincing others and how their efforts might be more productive. IV. Argumentation is the field of study in which rhetoric, logic, and dialectic meet. A. From rhetoric we derive our concern with the audience. ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership 3 1. Today, rhetoric often has negative connotations, including insincerity, vacuity, bombast, and ornamentation. 2. The classical understanding of rhetoric is the study of how messages influence people; it focuses on the development and communication of knowledge between speakers and listeners. 3. “Thinking rhetorically” means reasoning with audience predispositions in mind. B. From logic we derive our concern with form and structures of reasoning. 1. Today, logic is often mistakenly seen as encompassing only formal symbolic and mathematical reasoning. 2. Informal logic, from which argumentation borrows, is grounded in ordinary language and describes reasoning patterns that lack the certainty of mathematics. C. From dialectic we derive our concern with deliberation. 1. Today, dialectic is often understood as the grand sweep of opposing historical forces, such as the clash between capitalism and communism. 2. In fact, the term refers to a process of discovering and testing knowledge through questions and answers. 3. Although Plato’s dialogues are the models of dialectic, any conversation that is a critical discussion will qualify. V. Ethical considerations figure prominently in argumentation. A. Any attempt to influence other people raises ethical issues. 1. It is a limitation on freedom of choice. 2. It is the application of superior to inferior force. B. But argumentation seeks to achieve ethical influence. 1. It does not influence people against their will but seeks their free assent. 2. Without influence, the conditions of society and community are not possible. 3. Argumentation respects different ways of thinking and reasoning. VI. This series of lectures will explore the nature of argumentation. A. We will try to accomplish several goals. 1. We will learn a vocabulary that helps us to recognize and describe argumentation. 2. We will become aware of the significance of choice and will broaden our understanding of the choices available to arguers. 3. We will develop standards for appraising arguments and explaining what will make them better. 4. We will examine a variety of historical and contemporary arguments as examples. 5. We should improve our abilities both as analysts and as makers of arguments. B. We will follow an organizational plan. 1. We will begin by reviewing the assumptions underlying argumentation and the historical development of the field. 2. We then will explore strategies and tactics of argument construction, attack, and defense. 3. We will consider the components of argument in more detail and consider how they work. 4. We will investigate the concept of validity and consider fallacies in argumentation. 5. Finally, we will investigate how argumentation functions in society—in the personal, technical, and public spheres. Essential Reading: “Argumentation,” in Thomas O. Sloane, ed., Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, pp. 33–37. Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, pp. 1–20. 4 ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership Supplementary Reading: Daniel J. O’Keefe, “The Concepts of Argument and Arguing,” in J. Robert Cox and Charles Arthur Willard, eds., Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, pp. 3–23. James A. Herrick, Argumentation: Understanding and Shaping Arguments, pp. 49–60. Frans H. van Eemeren et al., Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, pp. 1–26, 98–102. Questions to Consider: 1. How has the pejorative connotation of argumentation limited our understanding of the field of study? 2. If the audience ultimately is the judge of argument, how can we avoid equating sound argument with whatever happens to persuade a particular audience? ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership 5 Lecture Two Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation Scope: Argumentation is a means of decision-making, and there are several key assumptions that we make when we use it. This lecture will focus on five key assumptions. First, argumentation takes place with an audience in mind, and the audience is the ultimate judge of success or failure. Second, argumentation occurs only under conditions of uncertainty, about matters that could be otherwise. Third, argumentation involves justification (rather than proof) of ideas and beliefs, and the difference between justification and proof is crucial. Fourth, despite its seemingly adversarial character, argumentation is basically cooperative. Fifth, arguers accept risks, and their nature and significance will be explained. Outline I. Argumentation takes place with an audience in mind, and the audience is the ultimate judge of success or failure. A. Historical examples establish the significance of the audience. 1. The Federalist Papers were written to influence a particular audience. 2. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were conducted for a particular audience. B. These examples suggest that the claims being advanced are not universal truths but are subject to the acceptance of actual listeners. C. The particulars of an audience’s situation will affect its values, priorities, and methods of judgment. D. The audience for argumentation consists of the people the arguer wants to influence—not necessarily those who are immediately present. E. Recognizing differences in audience beliefs does not entail accepting the idea that any belief is as good as any other. II. Argumentation takes place under conditions of uncertainty. A. We do not argue about things that are certainalthough even the notion of certainty is audience- dependent. B. Things that are uncertain are potentially controversial. 1. The Federalist Papers offer a historical example. 2. The Lincoln-Douglas debates offer a historical example. 3. Controversies involve genuine differences of opinion that matter to the participants and which they wish to see resolved. C. Controversies have multiple dimensions. 1. They may be explicit (recognized by the participants) or implicit (recognized by an analyst). 2. They may be unmixed (only one arguer maintains a position) or mixed (multiple arguers do so). 3. They may be single (relating only to one claim) or multiple (relating to more than one claim). D. Uncertainty implies that things could be otherwise; the outcome is not known for sure. 1. Therefore, there is an inferential leap in the argument, from the known to the unknown. 2. The audience is asked to accept this leap. III. Argumentation involves justification for claims. A. Arguers offer a rationale for accepting an uncertain claim. 1. The rationale represents reasons for making the inferential leap. 2. The reasons are acceptable, if they can convince a reasonable person who is exercising critical judgment. 3. If so, we say that the claim is justified. B. The competing narratives in the Lincoln-Douglas debates provide a historical example. C. To say that claims are justified entails certain implications. 1. Justification is different from proof; it is subjective and dependent upon a particular audience. 6 ©2005 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership