Why We Argue, Second Edition Is a Timely and Important Book

“Why We Argue, Second Edition is a timely and important book. The inability to have productive discussions on matters on which we deeply disagree poses a threat to our democracy, and it can affect our mental health as citizens as well. In their wide-ranging discussion, Aiken and Talisse characterize the nature of the challenges involved, and they make useful suggests as to how we might go about addressing them. I highly recommend their book.” Sanford Goldberg, Northwestern University, USA This page intentionally left blank Why We Argue (And How We Should) Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason presents an accessible and engaging introduction to the theory of argument, with special emphasis on the way argument works in public political debate. The authors develop a view according to which proper argument is necessary for one’s individual cognitive health; this insight is then expanded to the collective health of one’s society. Proper argumentation, then, is seen to play a central role in a well-functioning democracy. Written in a lively style and filled with examples drawn from the real world of contemporary politics, and questions following each chapter to encourage discussion, Why We Argue (And How We Should) reads like a guide for the participation in, and maintenance of, modern democracy. An excellent student resource for courses in critical thinking, political philosophy, and related fields, Why We Argue (And How We Should) is an important contribution to reasoned debate. What’s New in the Second Edition: Updated examples throughout the book, including examples from the 2016 U.S. election and first years of the Trump presidency; Expanded coverage of dialectical fallacies, including coverage of new types of fallacies and of sites where such fallacies thrive (e.g., cable news, social media); Revised For Further Thought questions and definitions of Key Terms, included at the end of each chapter; The addition of five new chapters: o Deep Disagreements o Arguments by Analogy o Argumentation Between the Ads o The Owl of Minerva Problem o Argumentative Responsibility and Argument Repair. Scott F. Aikin is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt Uni- versity. His previous books include Evidentialism and the Will to Believe (2014) and Epistemology and the Regress Problem (Routledge 2011). Robert B. Talisse is W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of five books, including Engaging Political Philosophy (Routledge 2016), Plural- ism and Liberal Politics (Routledge 2011), and Democracy and Moral Conflict (2009). For Professor Talisse and Aikin’s frequently-updated observations of contemporary arguments and other matters related to Why We Argue (And How We Should), follow them on Twitter at: @WhyWeArgue Why We Argue (And How We Should) A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason Second Edition Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse Second edition published 2019 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published 2014 by Routledge Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-08741-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-08742-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-11049-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books For our friends, colleagues, and students at Vanderbilt University This page intentionally left blank Contents Praise for the First Edition xi Preface to the Second Edition xii Preface to the First Edition xvii Introduction xix PART I A Conception of Argument 1 1 Why Do We Argue? 3 2 Why Argument Matters 16 3 Public Argument in a Democratic Society 35 4 Deep Disagreements 53 PART II Case Studies in Public Argument 65 5 The Simple Truth Thesis 67 6 Pushovers 77 7 Tone of Voice 93 8 The Surprising Truth about Hypocrisy 109 9 Arguments by Analogy 124 10 Argumentation Between the Ads 133 11 Language, Spin, and Framing 141 12 Argument Online 155 x Contents PART III Repairing Public Argument 175 13 The Owl of Minerva Problem 177 14 Argumentative Responsibility and Argument Repair 188 15 Civility in Argument 208 Index 213 Praise for the First Edition “Why We Argue is a superb book for students of philosophy, politics, and argumentation. Moreover it is a necessary read for anyone seeking a clear introduction to the ethical importance of well-reasoned public argument. In my ideal world, this text would be required reading for college students and politicians alike.” Lawrence Torcello, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA “Aikin and Talisse offer a guide to political disagreement and argument that takes seriously both the cognitive health of the individual arguer and the collective health of democratic society. Their clear prose and theoretically engaged analyses of current case studies effectively skewer the argumentative foibles of both the political left and the political right. This lively and engaging book effectively connects the epistemology of argument quality with the political demands of decent democratic life.” Harvey Siegel, University of Miami, USA “Why We Argue makes a compelling case for the significance of argument in our everyday lives, but what sets this book apart is the insistence on the importance of what we owe to others when we are arguing. This emphasis on the social aspects is an important contribution to the literature on teaching the nature and purpose of argument.” Emily Esch, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University, USA Preface to the Second Edition Times change. The first edition of Why We Argue (And How We Should) was published in 2014; we wrote the book in the midst of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Now we are writing this Preface in the wake not only of the 2016 presidential election in the U.S., but also of the Brexit Refer- endum in the UK and several European elections where populist and nationalist candidates who did not win office nonetheless enjoyed dis- concertingly high levels of support. What’s more, the communicative landscape of democracy seems to have changed dramatically in only a few years. The current U.S. president communicates to the world primarily by way of Twitter, and we are only now coming to realize the full impact on the U.S. election of foreign agents acting strategically on social media. Further, the vernacular of democratic politics now features terms like “fake news,”“alternative facts,” and “post-truth.” Naturally, all signs point to amplified levels of distrust among democratic citizens. In light of these developments, the vision of democratic citizenship driving this book is likely to seem quaint, a relic of a freshly bygone age. We defend the idea that democracy is centrally, though certainly not exclusively, the epistemological proposal that intelligent and responsible persons who sincerely disagree about fundamental moral, social, and political questions can nonetheless regard each other as fellow citizens who, despite the depth and severity of their disagreements, have something to contribute to the collective cognitive well-being of society. The recurring metaphor is that of cognitive health, and the core argument of the book is that if we wish to maintain our own cognitive health, we need to interact with others who are also cognitively healthy; in order to maintain our collective cognitive health, we need a suitably functioning cognitive environment. Maintaining a proper cognitive environment is a collective project, and we all must pitch-in. Doing our part in this endeavor requires us to try to argue well, and this in turn calls us to develop the skills and virtues of argumentation. Why We Argue (And How We Should) diagnoses some of the ways in which we can fall short and offers some guidance on how we can improve. Central to our account is the idea that argumentation fails when inter- locutors are insufficiently dialectical. Dialecticality is a complex collection Preface to the Second Edition xiii of norms, and is discussed at length in Chapter 14. In this preliminary context, however, dialecticality has two main components. First, it has to do with an arguer’s ability to connect their reasons with their opponent, rather than with, for example, a caricature thereof. Second, it has to do with an arguer’s rational engagement with their opposition rather than with an onlooking audience. This latter feature of dialecticality forms the crucial interface between proper argumentation and proper democracy. In a democracy, a good deal of argumentation is engaged in the presence of an audience. What’s more, these argumentative exchanges frequently are engaged for the sake of the onlookers. Political candidates debate each other on stage so that an audience can evaluate their command of the issues; tel- evision news centrally features segments where political commentators dis- cuss the latest stories so that the viewing audience can witness the clash of opinion and thereby become informed.

Load more