We will examine argumentation in its classical sense—as the study of effective reasoning. This introductory lecture will relate argumentation to the field of rhetoric and consider how argumentation is ethical. With a clear understanding of basic terms, we will preview the directions we will take in the course.
Argumentation is a means of decision-making, and there are several assumptions that we make when we use it. This lecture will focus on five key assumptions.
This lecture will review the defining features of deduction and induction and will summarize three major forms of deductive reasoning: categorical, conditional, and disjunctive. The lecture will conclude by emphasizing why informal reasoning is involved in contemporary study of argumentation.
The study of informal argumentation can be traced to the beginnings of rhetoric in ancient Greece. During the Renaissance, the subject matter of rhetoric was divided, with argumentation assigned to philosophy. Formal logic was held to be the highest form of reasoning, and argumentation tried to imitate it. Since the mid-20th century, theorists have identified weaknesses in the formal-logic model and have revitalized the study of argumentation.
This lecture examines how controversies begin and how the process of arguing produces individual arguments. It will consider the claim as the most basic part of the argument and identify types of claims. Then it will present the structure of an argument: a claim, evidence for it, an inference linking the evidence to the claim, and a warrant justifying that inference.
The diagram presented in Lecture 5 will help us understand a simple argument structure, but most arguments are embedded in complex structures. A claim in one part of the argument may be evidence in another, and subsidiary claims are joined to support a main claim or resolution. Mapping and analyzing these structures offers considerable advantages, and these will be reviewed.
The complex structure of argument discussed in Lecture 6 can be termed a case: the pattern of arguments used to support a claim. In assembling a case, arguers must be sure to address all the issues raised by the claim in the particular situation. Addressing the issues will satisfy an initial burden of proof. In meeting these requirements, arguers have choices about what arguments to use and how to arrange them.
Stasis refers to the focal point of dispute, the point at which contending positions meet. It is determined by the choices that advocates make about what to stipulate and what to contest. The first decision to be made in responding to a case is what the point of stasis will be. This lecture will illustrate the concept, which is drawn from ancient theories of rhetoric. Finally, using the concept of stasis will be shown as useful for both the arguer and the analyst of argument.
This lecture and the next will consider the processes of refuting and rebuilding cases. Attacks on a case achieve the best possible resolution of a controversy. Decisions to be made in planning an attack include which arguments to attack, at which parts of the argument to focus the attack, and what type of attack to develop. These choices can be understood best if they are examined systematically.
This lecture continues the discussion of attacking arguments by focusing on a second set of choices: those related to the arrangement and presentation of the attacks, then the focus shifts to defending and rebuilding arguments. The lecture will consider the basic strategic options of the defense, and highlight the most significant choices. The lecture also will consider methods of refutation and how the pattern of attacks helps to move the dispute forward.
This lecture completes a series that addresses the development of arguments into cases and the dynamics of controversy created by the presentation of a case. Here, the specific concern is with choices related to language and presentational style, how language is a factor, and how the presentation of an argument is part of its content.
With this lecture we turn to argument appraisal and focus on individual arguments. We begin with the evidence supporting an argument. It must be agreed to by the arguers for a meaningful discussion to proceed. Evidence can be categorized in many ways, but we will focus on examples, statistics, tangible objects, testimony, and social consensus.
The next six lectures focus on inferences, the most complex parts of an argument, and how they determine the argument scheme to be used. Six common inference patterns will be reviewed. This lecture considers inferences from example, which are used to relate specific cases to general claims and to apply general statements to specific cases. The lecture will also identify common errors.
A common form of inference is that like things should be treated alike. This is reasoning from analogy. This lecture describes types of analogies and tests for this reasoning with comparisons. It will consider why logicians often consider analogy the weakest type of inference, while rhetoricians often consider it the strongest. We will address two uses of the argument from analogy: the judicial analogy and the argument a fortiori, sometimes called a ""super-analogy.""
The focus of this lecture is on inferences from sign. Sign inferences establish the relationship between two factors so one can be predicted from knowledge of the other. Sign arguments are used to infer the unknown from the known, to predict outcomes, and to rely on the judgment of expert authorities. The lecture concludes with pitfalls to avoid in making sign inferences.
Causal inferences assert that one factor has influence over another. Influence must be inferred because it cannot be observed. The lecture will consider meanings of the concept of causation, purposes for which causal arguments are used, and methods that have been used to infer the existence of causal influence. The lecture will conclude by discussing factors that can undermine a causal inference.
This lecture considers inferences based on social knowledge and inferences that resemble deductions but are not. Commonplaces are beliefs or judgments that an audience generally accepts as being true. Often these come in pairs of seemingly opposed terms with each term sometimes being preferred. Dilemmas, arguments from hypothesis, and arguments from probabilities are examples of inferences that are not deductive but gain their power from a form that resembles deduction.
This lecture will examine three hybrid patterns: reasoning with rules, reasoning about values, and dissociation.
The central question of this and the next lecture is: What makes a good argument? The answer is validity. In formal reasoning, validity is a matter of structure unrelated to content. In informal reasoning, it means following patterns that have led to good results and avoided fallacies. This lecture examines errors specific to each pattern of inference, and then considers errors of vacuity (""empty"" arguments).
This lecture continues the discussion of general errors in reasoning that was begun in Lecture 19 with the treatment of vacuity. We examine deficiencies in relevance and discuss fallacies. The lecture concludes by reviewing two challenges to understanding fallacies. One suggests that arguments are valid or fallacious depending on their context; the other suggests that fallacies should be understood as errors of procedure rather than form.
The final group of lectures moves into examining the practice of argumentation in society. The organizing principle is the concept of spheres of argument, sets of expectations that provide contexts for arguing. This lecture concerns the personal sphere. Dialogue is the mode of discourse, and participants seek to resolve their own disagreements. The ideal of a critical discussion is proposed. Practices that diverge from the ideal are noted and possibilities for repair are considered.
Argumentation takes place where there are field-specific patterns of inference or appraisal. Argument fields can be defined by subject matter, orientation, or worldview. Drawing on examples from law, science, management, ethics, and religion, this lecture considers how the nature of argumentation is affected by the field in which it takes place. The lecture also considers interfield disputes and how they can proceed toward resolution.
The public sphere is the place for arguments about matters of interest to people as citizens, for example, deliberations about public policy. There are several ways to devise arguments that can appeal simultaneously to different political presumptions. A robust public sphere to negotiate tensions inherent in democratic argument is crucially important, and this lecture speculates on the current state of the public sphere.
This lecture considers two meanings of the term ""end."" It re-examines, from Lecture 5, how controversies begin by studying the conditions under which they end, but most of the lecture concerns ""end"" in the sense of the larger purposes that are served by the process of argumentation. Argumentation helps achieve the goals of a democratic society by cultivating the skills of critical thinking, reflective judgment, and active participation that are vital to the maintenance of a robust public sphere.