Logical “OOPS”—Reading for English 1001
The following is a selection from a chapter in Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing,
Volume 1, a peer-reviewed open textbook series for the writing
classroom, and is published through Parlor Press.
The full volume and individual chapter downloads are available for
free from the following sites:
• Writing Spaces: http://writingspaces.org/essays
• Parlor Press: http://parlorpress.com/writingspaces
• WAC Clearinghouse: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/
Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic? by Rebecca Jones
What follows is an adaptation of Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst,
and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans’ “violations of the rules for
critical engagement” from their book Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation,
Presentation (109). Rather than discuss rhetorical fallacies in a
list (ad hominem, straw man, equivocation, etc.), they argue that there
should be rules for proper argument to ensure fairness, logic, and a
solution to the problem being addressed. Violating these rules causes a
fallacious argument and can result in a standoff rather than a solution.
While fallacious arguments, if purposeful, pose real ethical problems,
most people do not realize they are committing fallacies when
they create an argument. To purposely attack someone’s character
rather than their argument (ad hominem) is not only unethical, but
demonstrates lazy argumentation. However, confusing cause and effect
might simply be a misstep that needs fixing. It is important to
admit that many fallacies, though making an argument somewhat unsound,
can be rhetorically savvy. While we know that appeals to pity
(or going overboard on the emotional appeal) can often demonstrate
a lack of knowledge or evidence, they often work. As such, these rules
present argumentation as it would play out in a utopian world where
everyone is calm and logical, where everyone cares about resolving the
argument at hand, rather than winning the battle, and where everyone
plays by the rules. Despite the utopian nature of the list, it offers valuable
insight into argument flaws and offers hope for better methods of
deliberation.
What follows is an adaptation of the approach to argumentation
found in Chapters 7 and 8 of Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation
(Eemeren, et al. 109-54). The rule is listed first, followed by an example of how
the rule is often violated.
1. The Freedom Rule
“Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints
or casting doubt on standpoints” (110).
There are many ways to stop an individual from giving her own
argument. This can come in the form of a physical threat but most
often takes the form of a misplaced critique. Instead of focusing on
the argument, the focus is shifted to the character of the writer or
speaker (ad hominem) or to making the argument (or author) seem absurd
(straw man) rather than addressing its actual components. In the
past decade, “Bush is stupid” became a common ad hominem attack
that allowed policy to go unaddressed. To steer clear of the real issues
of global warming, someone might claim “Only a fool would believe
global warming is real” or “Trying to suck all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere
with giant greenhouse gas machines is mere science fiction,
so we should look at abandoning all this green house gas nonsense.”
2. The Burden-of-Proof Rule
“A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked
to do so” (113).
This is one of my favorites. It is clear and simple. If you make an
argument, you have to provide evidence to back it up. During the
2008 Presidential debates, Americans watched as all the candidates
fumbled over the following question about healthcare: “How will this
plan actually work?” If you are presenting a written argument, this
requirement can be accommodated through quality, researched evidence
applied to your standpoint.
3. The Standpoint Rule
“A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has
indeed been advanced by the other party” (116).
Your standpoint is simply your claim, your basic argument in a nutshell.
If you disagree with another person’s argument or they disagree
with yours, the actual standpoint and not some related but more easily
attacked issue must be addressed. For example, one person might
argue that the rhetoric of global warming has created a multi-million
dollar green industry benefiting from fears over climate change. This
is an argument about the effects of global warming rhetoric, not global
warming itself. It would break the standpoint rule to argue that the
writer/speaker does not believe in global warming. This is not the issue
at hand.
4. The Relevance Rule
“A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation
related to that standpoint” (119).
Similar to #3, this rule assures that the evidence you use must actually
relate to your standpoint. Let’s stick with same argument: global
warming has created a green industry benefiting from fears over climate
change. Under this rule, your evidence would need to offer examples
of the rhetoric and the resulting businesses that have developed
since the introduction of green industries. It would break the rules to
simply offer attacks on businesses who sell “eco-friendly” products.
5. The Unexpressed Premise Rule
“A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been
left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has
left implicit” (121).
This one sounds a bit complex, though it happens nearly every day.
If you have been talking to another person and feel the need to say,
“That’s NOT what I meant,” then you have experienced a violation of
the unexpressed premise rule. Overall, the rule attempts to keep the
argument on track and not let it stray into irrelevant territory. The
first violation of the rule, to falsely present what has been left unexpressed,
is to rephrase someone’s standpoint in a way that redirects the
argument. One person might argue, “I love to go to the beach,” and
another might respond by saying “So you don’t have any appreciation
for mountain living.” The other aspect of this rule is to camouflage
an unpopular idea and deny that it is part of your argument. For example,
you might argue that “I have nothing against my neighbors. I
just think that there should be a noise ordinance in this part of town
to help cut down on crime.” This clearly shows that the writer does
believe her neighbors to be criminals but won’t admit it.
6. The Starting Point Rule
“No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point,
or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point” (128).
Part of quality argumentation is to agree on the opening standpoint.
According to this theory, argument is pointless without this
kind of agreement. It is well known that arguing about abortion is
nearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights of the
unborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two different
starting points.
7. The Argument Scheme Rule
“A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defense
does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme
that is correctly applied” (130).
This rule is about argument strategy. Argument schemes could take
up another paper altogether. Suffice it to say that schemes are ways of
approaching an argument, your primary strategy. For example, you
might choose emotional rather than logical appeals to present your
position. This rule highlights the fact that some argument strategies
are simply better than others. For example, if you choose to create an
argument based largely on attacking the character of your opponent
rather than the issues at hand, the argument is moot.
Argument by analogy is a popular and well worn argument strategy
(or scheme). Essentially, you compare your position to a more
commonly known one and make your argument through the comparison.
For example, in the “Trust No One” argument above, the
author equates the Watergate and Monica Lewinsky scandals. Since it
is common knowledge that Watergate was a serious scandal, including
Monica Lewinsky in the list offers a strong argument by analogy: the
Lewinsky scandal did as much damage as Watergate. To break this
rule, you might make an analogy that does not hold up, such as
comparing a minor scandal involving a local school board to Watergate.
This would be an exaggeration, in most cases.
8. The Validity Rule
“The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must
be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed
premises” (132).
This rule is about traditional logics. Violating this rule means that
the parts of your argument do not match up. For example, your cause
and effect might be off: If you swim in the ocean today you will get
stung by a jelly fish and need medical care. Joe went to the doctor
today. He must have been stung by a jelly fish. While this example is
obvious (we do not know that Joe went swimming), many argument
problems are caused by violating this rule.
9. The Closure Rule
“A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting
the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result
in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts” (134).
This seems the most obvious rule, yet it is one that most public
arguments ignore. If your argument does not cut it, admit the faults
and move on. If another writer/speaker offers a rebuttal and you clearly
counter it, admit that the original argument is sound. Seems simple,
but it’s not in our public culture. This would mean that George W.
Bush would have to have a press conference and say, “My apologies, I
was wrong about WMD,” or for someone who argued fervently that
Americans want a single payer option for healthcare to instead argue
something like, “The polls show that American’s want to change
healthcare, but not through the single payer option. My argument was
based on my opinion that single payer is the best way and not on public
opinion.” Academics are more accustomed to retraction because
our arguments are explicitly part of particular conversations. Rebuttals
and renegotiations are the norm. That does not make them any easier
to stomach in an “argument is war” culture.
10. The Usage Rule
“Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or
confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of
the other party as carefully and accurately as possible” (136).
While academics are perhaps the worst violators of this rule, it is
an important one to discuss. Be clear. I notice in both student and
professional academic writing that a confusing concept often means
confusing prose, longer sentences, and more letters in a word. If you
cannot say it/write it clearly, the concept might not yet be clear to you.
Keep working. Ethical violations of this rule happen when someone
is purposefully ambiguous so as to confuse the issue. We can see this
on all the “law” shows on television or though deliberate propaganda.
Activity:
1. Find examples that violate three (3) of the rules above. Present the example, either by copying it, if it is something written, or by describing it, if it is verbal from TV, radio, movie, music, etc..
2. Explain WHY it violates the rule.
3. Suggest a way to correct the flaw in the logic of each example.
0 comments