DOCSLIB.ORG

A Narrative Account of Argumentation Khamaiel Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Narrative Account of Argumentation Khamaiel Al A NARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF ARGUMENTATION KHAMAIEL AL TAMIMI A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO DECEMBER 2017 © Khamaiel Al Tamimi, 2017 ABSTRACT In this dissertation I attempt to accomplish three goals. The first goal is to develop a narrative account of argumentation. I show that storytelling serves as a legitimate mode of argumentation. Further, I develop an account of narrative argument based on generalized features of narrative and a conception of argument that is rhetorical and in line with Charles Willard’s notion of argument as an interaction (1989). I identify features of narrative argument that enable narrative to function as an argument and thus to provide reasons for a claim in the context of disagreement. As a result, I synthesize literatures on narrative and argumentation to provide a definition of narrative argument. The second goal of the dissertation is to argue for maintaining the narrative as a process without reconstructing the narrative into the dominant model of argument, the Critical-Logical Model. In this part of the dissertation, I further elaborate on the definition of narrative argument and argue that narrative argument must be understood as a process, and not as a product of argument. While the product view focuses on the form and structure of an argument as being linear, explicit, and containing premises and a conclusion, and thus treats arguments as things, the process view focuses on the whole act of arguing, thus highlighting the importance of the context of argumentation and the people involved. In support of this thesis, I show that reducing the narrative into premises and a conclusion is problematic because it deprives it of some of its persuasive force. As such, I argue against the reductionist approach to narrative argument that seeks to extract premises and a conclusion from a narrative, because I contend that the whole act of storytelling is an argument. Reducing the narrative into a product removes the real argument— part of which is implicit—from its context, its unique situation, and its complex social setting. The third goal of this dissertation is to develop an account of argument evaluation that is suitable for narrative argument understood as a process. I offer an account of how to evaluate narratives using ‘the virtuous audience,’ a novel evaluative method that combines theories of virtue argumentation and rhetorical audiences. In sum, this dissertation provides a definition of narrative argument, stipulates the conditions of narrative arguments that make them successful, and offers ways of evaluating the narrative while maintaining its form as a process. ii DEDICATION This is dedicated to my loving parents, Najiah Altamimi and Aoda Wahib Altamimi for all the opportunities you have given me, and most of all for having faith in me. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Michael Gilbert, without whom this project would not have been possible. I came across Professor Michael Gilbert’s works while completing my master’s degree, and ever since then his work and philosophy have had a huge impact not only on my research, but also on me as a person. Michael’s work on coalescent argumentation and multimodal theories influenced my interest in narrative arguments. Reading his influential book, Coalescent Argumentation, has forever changed the way I perceive argument and I am grateful for that. His extensive knowledge and expertise in this area has enriched my understanding and development of my dissertation. I am forever indebted to his extensive guidance, support, and encouragement. My sincere thanks to my other dissertation committee members, Professors Idil Boran and David Jopling, for their guidance and feedback on this dissertation. I am especially grateful to Idil for her valuable advice. I would like to thank my dissertation examining committee, Professor Moira Howes and Professor Liette Gilbert for taking the time out of their busy schedule to read and provide helpful comments on my dissertation. And thank you to Professor Duff Waring for agreeing to serve as the Dean’s Representative for this project. A special thank you goes out to York’s Philosophy department for the financial assistance they have provided me. I am also grateful to the Province of Ontario for the Ontario Graduate Scholarship funding throughout the years. And thank you to the Philosophy department staff especially Emma Posca for her kindness and help. I would also like to thank the philosophy department at the University of Windsor for their support and guidance and special thanks goes to professor Cate Hundleby for her mentorship and to professor Robert Pinto for igniting in me the love of philosophy. Thank you to everyone who has taken part in editing and revising this dissertation including Zeinab McHeimech, Michelle Ciurria and Jason Horn. I am deeply grateful for Michelle and Zeinab for being great friends and for always pushing and encouraging me. Thank you for taking the time to edit endless drafts of my work and for providing valuable and helpful feedback. Your comments and edits have made this possible. Thank you to all my friends, including Daniel, Olivia, Nizar, Amir, Chen and Dina for their friendship and support throughout the years. Special thank you goes to Christalina for always supporting and caring for me. Thank you to Mohammed for his continuous patience, love, support and encouragement through the years. I wish to extend a special thanks to Evelyn Ciurria. It is really impossible to thank you enough for what you have done for me and for the kindness and generosity you have shown me. I am forever indebted to my family for supporting, encouraging and believing in me. Thank you to my father, Aoda, and mother, Najiah, for giving me the opportunity to study in Canada and for their unfaltering support and belief in me. Your resilience and fortitude has given me the strength, persistence and motivation to never give up. Thank you to my brothers, Abeer, Afaq, Sinan, Fahad, Alaa and to my sisters: Luma, Ashtar, Jadial and especially Rawa whose strength and bravery inspires me every day. Thank you to my nephews especially Laith and Ali for your love and humor and thank you to Shehed, Faith and Meriam for your unconditional love. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Dedication iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v General Introduction Introduction 1 Preliminary definitions 2 Chapter breakdown 4 Chapter One: Chapter One: History Of Argumentation Theory Introduction 7 History Of Argumentation Theory 7 Stephen Toulmin 8 Chaim Perelman 9 Informal Logic 12 Pragma Dialectics 15 Rhetoric and Communication studies 18 Narrative Argumentation 23 Recent Development Of Narrative Arguments 25 Rejecting Narrative As Arguments 29 Issues With Narrative Arguments 30 Walter Fisher And Narrative Rationality 32 Conclusion 33 Chapter Two: Feminist Critiques Of Traditional Argumentation Introduction 35 Adversariality Of Argumentation 35 Gendered Reasoning 44 Language, Credibility And Power 46 Feminism And Fallacies 51 Feminists Critiques Of Rationality And The Maleness Of Reason 52 Oppressive Frameworks 58 Narrow Conceptions Of Argument 60 Michael Gilbert: Coalescent Argumentation 61 Narrative Argument And Feminism 63 Chapter Three: Defining Narrative Argumentation Introduction 66 Definition Of Narrative 69 v Action/Event 70 Time And Space 71 Teller (Narrator) And Audience 72 The Act Of Narrative And The Product Of Narrative 73 Context 74 Definition Of Argument 74 Definition Of Narrative Argument 79 Story 82 Mutual Attribution Of Intention 82 Dissensus, Disagreement Or Opposition 83 Context 83 Reasons 85 Arguer 85 Narrative argument as process not product 85 Audience 86 Examples Of Narrative Arguments 87 Example One 87 Example Two 89 Example Three 91 Example Four 92 Objections and Response 93 Chapter Four: Narrative Argument, A Process Account Introduction 95 Why Narrative Should Remain A Process 98 Nature Of Narrative Argument 99 Narrative Arguments: Multimodal And Contextual Elements 100 Narrative Arguments: A Co-Creation Of The Arguer And The Audience 103 Cognitive And Psychological Aspects And Process Of Persuasion 105 Narrative Argument As Complex Message Design And Reception 108 Translation And A Single, Limited Perspective 109 Distortion And Misinterpretation 110 Objections And Response 112 Objection One: Clarity And Meaningfulness 112 Objection Two: Evaluation Of Arguments 116 Chapter Five: The Evaluation of Narrative Arguments and the Virtuous Audience Introduction 121 Preliminaries 121 Dominant Account Of Argument Evaluation 123 The Virtuous Audience 127 Argumentation Adapted To The Virtuous Audience 127 Virtuous Audience As Interactive 131 Virtuous Audience As The Measure Of Argument 132 Virtue Argumentation 138 vi Virtues Of Argumentation 141 Objections And Response To The Virtuous Audience 145 Objection One 145 Objection Two 146 Objection Three 150 Virtuous Consensus 154 Believability And Good Stories 161 Conclusion 169 Conclusion 170 References 173 vii General Introduction Introduction This dissertation defends narratives and storytelling as a legitimate mode of argumentation by showing how narrative can function as an argument and provide reasons for a claim. This account is by no means complete, but it provides the starting point for thinking about narrative arguments. Although narrative arguments are an integral component of argumentation theory, they have not received serious attention. As it stands, standard accounts of argumentation reject narrative reasoning. That is, the traditional and standard model of argumentation only accepts claims, premises and conclusions set out in an explicit and linear fashion as an argument. Adding to Michael Gilbert’s view that there is a dominant accepted mode of speaking (the logical mode) which is exclusive of the different modes people use when arguing, such as the emotional, visceral, and kisceral, I argue that in addition to these modes of reasoning there is a fifth excluded mode of argumentation: narrative.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Informal Logic 25 Years Later the First International Symposium On
    Informal logic 25 years later The First International Symposium on Informal Logic, held on this campus on June 26 to 28, 1978, was a rise to self-consciousness of a newly distinguished sub-field of philosophy. This sub-field differentiated itself through the belief of some philosophy instructors in North American colleges and universities that the traditional introductory logic course was not much good at helping to improve students’ abilities to deal with the arguments they encountered in everyday life and in academic contexts. Courses centred on formal systems–whether the systems of categorical syllogistic and propositional logic done by truth tables or the more comprehensive and up-to-date system of first-order logic–had no relevance to the highly charged debates of the late 1960s and early 1970s about such issues as American military action in Vietnam and the position of women in society. In response, a new kind of textbook began to emerge, often focussed on the informal fallacies, which had been a neglected backwater of the traditional introductory logic course. A pioneer among these textbooks was Howard Kahane’s Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, subtitled “The Use of Reason in Everyday Life”, the first edition of which was published in 1971 (Kahane 1971); it is now in its ninth edition. Kahane, who gave a paper at the First International Symposium on Informal Logic entitled “The Nature and Classification of Fallacies” (Kahane 1980), died two years ago, on May 2, 2001. The notice of his death in the Proceedings And Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (Hausman et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    CHAPTER 2. PIONEERING INFORMAL LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION STUDIES ANTHONY J. BLAIR Abstract: This paper traces, in a first-person account, my journey from an assistant professor teaching ethics and political philosophy, through (together with Ralph Johnson) teaching “applied logic”, authoring Logical Self-Defense, organizing the first-ever symposium on informal logic, editing the proceedings, publishing and editing the Informal Logic Newsletter and later the journal Informal Logic, organizing later Windsor conferences, revising Logical Self-Defense; then meeting van Eemeren and Grootendorst, serving on the board of ISSA, and more – during the emergence of informal logic and argumentation theory as scholarly fields. PREFACE The following is an account of my participation in some of the signal developments in the infrastructure supporting the emer- gence of informal logic and argumentation theory in the last quarter of the 20th century. PIONEERING INFORMAL LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION STUDIES 35 1. BEGINNINGS On September 1st 1967, two months after Canada’s centennial celebrations, I began a 39-year appointment in the University of Windsor philosophy department in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. I was hired out of a doctoral program at the nearby University of Michigan, to teach principally philosophical ethics and political theory (which I did teach, among several other things, through- out). Shortly before the start of the 1972-73 academic year, I was asked to help out with a new course, which my colleague Ralph Johnson had created the previous year that had proven so pop- ular the enrolment had doubled—from 20 to 40, as I recol- lect—causing the opening of a second section (those were the days!).
    [Show full text]
  • Part/Whole Fallacies
    11 If a person dislikes someone else it's ciousness that may be involved in such argu­ lLkely that he will want to have nothing to ments is to be found in the fact that people do. not only with him, but also with the sorts are inclined to consider thoughts and ideas as of things that the other person likes. For being like personal possessions. And since example if Jones dislikes Smith and Smith many people want to distance themselves from sports a moustache and likes to wear tweed the personal posseSSions of those they dislike 'ackets, chances are that Jones will avoid and surround themselves with possessions simi­ ~weed jackets and moustaches. Not only will lar to the possessions of those that they people distance themselves from the sorts of admire, they also want to distance themselves th~ngs their enemies like they will also dis­ from the beliefs (any belief) of those they tance themselves from their thoughts and ideas. dislike and accept the beliefs of those they If 3mith is in favour of capital punishment admire. And of course if anyone were to ig­ for murder and a champion of free enterprise, nore or accept a belief for this sort of rea­ chances are that Jones will be opposed to son he would be reasoning (to the extent that cap~tal punishment and to free enterprise. he could be said to be reasoning) fallaciously . ...'Co FOOTNOTE ~" The same is also true of groups. Fascists were inclined to wear black shirts and cut II.M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (5th their hair short while Communists were in­ ed.), f.1acmillan, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation
    PROBLEMS IN ARGUMENT ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION Windsor Studies in Argumentation Volume 6 TRUDY GOVIER Windsor Studies in Argumentation Windsor Ontario Canada Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation by Trudy Govier & Windsor Studies in Argumentation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Copyright Trudy Govier and Windsor Studies in Argumentation ISBN 978-0-920233-83-2 CONTENTS WSIA Editors v WSIA Editors' Introduction vii Preface viii 1. Rigor and Reality 1 2. Is a Theory of Argument Possible 20 3. The Great Divide 56 4. Two Unreceived Views about Reasoning and 84 Argument 5. The Problem of Missing Premises 123 6. A Dialogic Exercise 161 7. A New Approach to Charity 203 8. Reasons Why Arguments and Explanations are 242 Different 9. Four Reasons There are No Fallacies? 271 10. Formalism and Informalism in Theories of 311 Reasoning and Argument 11. Critical Thinking in the Armchair, the Classroom, 349 and the Lab 12. Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking Tests 377 13. The Social Epistemology of Argument 413 WSIA EDITORS Editors in Chief Leo Groarke (Trent University) Christopher Tindale (University of Windsor) Board of Editors Mark Battersby (Capilano University) Camille Cameron (Dalhousie University) Emmanuelle Danblon (Université libre de Bruxelles) Ian Dove (University of Nevada Las Vegas) Bart Garssen (University of Amsterdam) Michael Gilbert (York University) David Godden (Michigan State University) Jean Goodwin (North Carolina State University) Hans V. Hansen (University of Windsor) Gabrijela Kišiček (University of Zagreb) Marcin Koszowy (University of Białystok) Marcin Lewiński (New University of Lisbon) Catherine H. Palczewski (University of Northern Iowa) Chris Reed (University of Dundee) Andrea Rocci (University of Lugano) Paul van den Hoven (Tilburg University) Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Diego Portales University) Igor Ž.
    [Show full text]
  • LIBROS SOBRE ASPECTOS MÉDICOS Y MATEMÁTICOS DEL HOMO SAPIENS- AUTORES PROF
    LIBROS SOBRE ASPECTOS MÉDICOS y MATEMÁTICOS DEL HOMO SAPIENS- AUTORES PROF. DR. ENRIQUE BARMAIMON Y PROF. JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ R.- 3 TOMOS - AÑO 2019.8- -TOMO I- - LIBROS SOBRE ASPECTOS MÉDICOS Y MATEMÁTICOS DEL HOMO SAPIENS- -AUTORES: PROF. DR. ENRIQUE BARMAIMON Y PROF. MATEMÁTICAS JAVIER FERNANDEZ R. - 3 TOMOS - AÑO 2019.8 - - TOMO I - -AÑO 2019- 1ª Edición Virtual: ( AÑO 2019. 7)- - MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY.- 1 LIBROS SOBRE ASPECTOS MÉDICOS y MATEMÁTICOS DEL HOMO SAPIENS- AUTORES PROF. DR. ENRIQUE BARMAIMON Y PROF. JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ R.- 3 TOMOS - AÑO 2019.8- -TOMO I- - Queda terminantemente prohibido reproducir este libro en forma escrita y virtual, total o parcialmente, por cualquier medio, sin la autorización previa del autor. - Derechos reservados. 1ª Edición. Año 2019. Impresión [email protected]. - email: [email protected].; [email protected]. -Montevideo, 15 de agosto de 2019. - Biblioteca Virtual de Salud del S. M.U. 2 LIBROS SOBRE ASPECTOS MÉDICOS y MATEMÁTICOS DEL HOMO SAPIENS- AUTORES PROF. DR. ENRIQUE BARMAIMON Y PROF. JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ R.- 3 TOMOS - AÑO 2019.8- -TOMO I- - TOMO I - 3 LIBROS SOBRE ASPECTOS MÉDICOS y MATEMÁTICOS DEL HOMO SAPIENS- AUTORES PROF. DR. ENRIQUE BARMAIMON Y PROF. JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ R.- 3 TOMOS - AÑO 2019.8- -TOMO I- - ÍNDICE. - TOMO I - - PROLOGO - INTRODUCCIÓN. - TOMO III - -- CAPÍTULO I: -1)- ANTROPOLOGÍA. -1.1)- Generalidades . -1.2)- Antecedentes -1.3)- Historia. -1.4)- El Objeto de Estudio Antropológico. -1.5)- Campos de Acción de la Antropología . -1.6)- Ramas y Subramas. -1.7)- El Origen de la Pregunta Antropológica. -1-7.1)- Antropología Moderna -1.8)- Historia de la Antropología -1.8.1)- Nacimiento Institucional de la Antropología.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fallacy of Composition and Meta-Argumentation" (2013)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM - May 25th, 5:00 PM The fallacy of composition and meta- argumentation Maurice A. Finocchiaro University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Philosophy Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Finocchiaro, Maurice A., "The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation" (2013). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation MAURICE A. FINOCCHIARO Department of Philosophy University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 89154-5028 USA [email protected] ABSTRACT: Although the fallacy of composition is little studied and trivially illustrated, some view it as ubiquitous and paramount. Furthermore, although definitions regard the concept as unproblematic, it contains three distinct elements, often confused. And although some scholars apparently claim that fallacies are figments of a critic’s imagination, they are really proposing to study fallacies in the context of meta-argumentation. Guided by these ideas, I discuss the important historical example of Michels’s iron law of oligarchy. KEYWORDS: democracy, economic fallacies, fallacy of composition, logical theory, meta- argumentation, oligarchy, parts vs.
    [Show full text]
  • DISSOCIATION in REASONING and ARGUMENTATION by Takuzo
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt DISSOCIATION IN REASONING AND ARGUMENTATION by Takuzo Konishi BA in Literature, Waseda University, 1994 Master of Arts in Communication, Wayne State University, 1999 Master of Arts in Philosophy, University of Windsor, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communication University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Takuzo Konishi It was defended on February 20, 2014 and approved by John Lyne, Professor, Department of Communication E. Johanna Hartelius, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Nicholas Rescher, Professor, Department of Philosophy Merrilee H. Salmon, Emeritus Professor, Department of Philosophy Dissertation Advisor: Gordon R. Mitchell, Associate Professor, Department of Communication ii Copyright © by Takuzo Konishi 2014 iii DISSOCIATION IN REASONING AND ARGUMENTATION Takuzo Konishi, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 This dissertation inquires into the nature of dissociation – a maneuver through which a single entity is subdivided and arranged according to a hierarchy – as proposed by Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Drawing on their New Rhetoric Project, Perelman’s regressive philosophy, and research on argumentation schemes, I develop ways of conceptualizing, analyzing, and appraising dissociation as it is utilized in reasoning and argument in natural language. I first examine Chaim Perelman’s regressive philosophy to better situate argumentation in relation to demonstration, then delineate the Project’s framework of argumentation as constituted by a speaker, an audience, and an argumentative discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric the Use of Reason in Everyday Life 12Th Edition Pdf
    FREE LOGIC AND CONTEMPORARY RHETORIC THE USE OF REASON IN EVERYDAY LIFE 12TH EDITION PDF Nancy M Cavender | 9781133942283 | | | | | Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life by Nancy M. Cavender Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Cavender. Howard Kahane. This classic text has introduced tens of thousands of students to sound reasoning using a wealth of current, relevant, and stimulating examples all put together and explained in a witty and invigorating writing style. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric The Use of Reason in Everyday Life 12th edition text not only brings the concepts to life for students but also puts critical-thinking skills into a context that students will retain and use throughout their lives. Get A Copy. Paperbackpages. Published January 1st by Cengage Learning first published February 9th More Details Other Editions 4. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Logic and Contemporary Rhetoricplease sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. All Languages. More filters. Sort order. April Pastis rated
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Logic: a 'Canadian' Approach to Argument
    Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument INFORMAL LOGIC: A 'CANADIAN' APPROACH TO ARGUMENT FEDERIC O PUPPO Windsor Studies in Argumentation Windsor, ON Editorial and formatting assistance provided by Tamilyn Mulvaney. Cover Image “School of Fish” by Thomas Quine was generously made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:School_of_fish_(29627924482).jpg) Permission to reproduce previously published works has been obtained from the rights holder(s). Please refer to the Acknowledgements section of each chapter for more details. Copyright (2019) Windsor Studies in Argumentation & the original authors, unless otherwise noted. Windsor Studies In Argumentation Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric University of Windsor 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Digital Edition of this book are available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License. ISBN: 978-0-920233-91-7 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 Federico Puppo 2. Pioneering Informal Logic and Argumentation 35 Studies Anthony J. Blair 3. Formal Models 61 John Woods 4. The Problem of Missing Premisses 104 David Hitchcock 5. Are There Methods of Informal Logic? 130 Hans V. Hansen 6. Duets, Cartoons, and Tragedies: Struggles with 153 the Fallacy of Composition Trudy Govier 7. The Dialectical Tier Revisited 176 Ralph H. Johnson 8. How the Context of Dialogue of an Argument 196 Influences its Evaluation Douglas Walton 9. Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Criti- 234 cal Thinking Sharon Bailin and Mark Battersby 10. Argumentation and the Force of Reasons 251 Robert C. Pinto 11. Aggression, Politeness, and Abstract Adversaries 287 Catherine Hundleby 12. MULTI-MODAL 2010: Multi-Modal Argumenta- 313 tion 20 Years Later Michael A.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Formal Logic Is Essential for Critical Thinking}
    Why Formal Logic is Essential for Critical Thinking} DONALD HATCHER Baker University Abstract: After critiquing the arguments Resume: Je critique les arguments against using formal logic to teach critical avances contre I'usage de la logique thinking, this paper argues that for theoreti­ formelle dans la formation de la pensee cal, practical, and empirical reasons, instruc­ critique. Ensuite j'avance des raisons tion in the fundamentals of formal logic is theoriques, pratiques et empiriques pour essential for critical thinking, and so should montrer que I' enseignement des rudiments be included in every class that purports to de la logique formelle est essen tiel a une teach critical thinking. telle formation, et que ceux-ci devraient donc s'enseigner dans tous les cours censes de former la pensee critique. Keywords: critical thinking, formal logic, informal logic, composition, critical writing, critical thinking assessment, critical thinking pedagogy 1. Introduction In a time when the nature and value of rationality have come into question, when minds, both young and old, appear to be ruled more by the forces of media manipulation or political rhetoric than by rational reflection, and when, according to a survey by the National Science Foundation, more Americans believe in as­ trology than in evolution, the critical thinking movement appeared to be the long­ awaited voice of sanity crying in a wilderness of irrationality. The very idea that large numbers of educators from across the disciplines were unabashedly claim­ ing that students
    [Show full text]
  • Channels of Propaganda. INSTITUTION ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Bloomington, IN
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 372 461 CS 508 673 AUTHOR Sproule, J. Michael TITLE Channels of Propaganda. INSTITUTION ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Bloomington, IN. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. REPORT NO ISBN-0-927516-61-6 PUB DATE 94 CONTRACT RR93002011 NOTE 391p.; Published with EDINFO Press. AVAILABLE FROM ERIC/EDINFO Press, Indiana University, P.O. Box 5953, Bloomington, IN 47407 (paperback: ISBN-0-927516-61-6; $24.95; clothbound: ISBN-0-927516-34-9, $39.95; 10% shipping/handling; Indiana residents add 5% state sales tax). shipping/handling; Indiana residents add 57. states sales tax). PUB TYPE Information Analyses ERIC Clearinghouse Products (071) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120) -- Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC16 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Business; Democratic Values; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Government; Higher Education; Information Sources; *Mass Media Role; *Mass Media Use; *Persuasive Discourse; Political Attitudes; *Political Issues; *Propaganda; Public Opinion; Public Relations; Religious Factors IDENTIFIERS Educational Issues; Media Government Relationship; Propaganda Analysis; Public Interest; Researcher Role; Rhetorical Strategies; Special Interest Groups ABSTRACT Defining propaganda as "efforts by special interests to win over the public covertly by infiltrating messages into various channels of public expression ordinarily viewed as politically neutral," this book argues that propaganda has become pervasive in American Life. Pcinting out that the 1990s society is inundated with propaganda from numerous sources (including government, business, researchers, religious groups, the news media, educators, and the entertainment industry) the book exposes these channels of propaganda and the cumulative effect they have on public opinion and the functioning of American democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses John Nolt's Inductive Reasoning Test
    30 responses John Nolt's Inductive Reasoning Test Howard Kahane University of Maryland Baltimore County It seems to me that John Nolt is right in his re­ But consider another sort of inductive reasoning: marks concerning teaching informal logic students about deductive validity/invalidity through the no­ All crows examined so far have been black. tions of valid and invalid deductive forms: that ••• All crows whatsoever are black. doesn't work very well. And I think he's right that a better way to teach about deductive validity is to Using Nolt's possible worlds method, we must con­ get students to "regard an argument as valid just clude that this inference is quite weak, since its in case the simultaneous truth of its premises and conclusion is false in a large percentage of the logic­ falsity of its conclusion cannot coherently be con­ ally possible worlds in which its premise is true. ceived." (I intend to make the 5th edition of my own Yet intuitively, the inference is quite strong. (How text conform to his insight.) strong depends on things like the size of our sample, etc., but not on the number of logically possible But Nolt's ideas about assessing the various worlds that are one way or another.) strengths of inductive reasonings, while very inter­ esting, and effective for some kinds of inductive arguments, do not work correctly in generaL' Nolt illustrates his theory by a one premise argu­ ment. Roughly, his method is to take the percentage Note of logically possible worlds in which the premise is true and the conclusion also is true, compare this to all the possible worlds in which the premise is true, and consider the percentage obtained in this way to 'The reason is related, interestingly, to disputes be the strength of the inductive reasoning.
    [Show full text]