Arguing with People

Arguing With People

By Michael A. GilbertProfessor of Philosophy

York UniversityCanada

Broadview Press2014

Arguing with People

Part 1All About Arguments

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 3

Product and Process

Argument as product when an argument is a thing, an object. As a product it is something that you can examine, take

apart; an object has components such as reasons (or premisses) and a claim (or conclusion).

Argument as process

When argument is an interaction, a dynamic exchange between two or more people.

Means, for example, that people were “having an argument.” Argument is a process that takes place between people who are concerned with a disagreement.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 4

Argument1 & Argument2

An argument1 is a single thing that can be examined and analyzed by itself, in other words, a product.

An argument2 happens between two people and is a process.

An argument2 usually contains arguments1 as objects: people who are in the process of arguing offer each other arguments.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 5

Three Perspectives

Argument as product relies on logic, argument diagrams, and relations between premises and conclusions.

Argument as process is essentially rhetorical and involves everything that is intended to make an argument more attractive and persuasive.

Argument as procedure refers to the dialectical models geared to finding truth by relying on rules and models designed to encourage fairness and discovery of the truth.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 6

Truth

How can we know if we have the truth? It doesn’t shine a special light.There’s no book of truths.

The truth is not manifest: i.e., we can never be sure if we do or do not have the truth.

This makes argument and Critical Thinking extremely important.

Arguing with People

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 7

Rhetoric

Rhetoric has had bad press for years and years.The problem been that it appears to be focused

on results, namely persuasion, rather than on getting at the truth of the matter.

But a great deal is rhetorical: including context, word choice, intonation, and background; this means we can never get away from it.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 8

Emotion

Emotion is an integral part of every argument. If not, then why argue? Important for decision making.

Extreme emotion is what scares people.Leads to quarrels and fights

Some Critical Thinking scholars eschew emotion.This is the critical-logical model, and is both

extremely ritualised and extremely rare.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 9

Clinical to Emotional

Clinical arguments, are low in emotion, very orderly. Have careful

turn-taking and no interrupting.People mean what they say, are as literal as

possible, and what they say has no hidden meaning.

Emotional arguments,may be excited, involve interruptions, and can

involve the expression of feelings.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 10

Orderly to Chaotic

Orderly arguments, Involve turn-taking, listening, staying on topic, and

being considerate.Chaotic arguments,

Often involve interruptions, side arguments, and may go so far as mocking and name-calling.

Chaotic arguments can sometimes be brought under control by requesting a summary of the positions involved.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 11

The Stages of Argument

Introduced by the Amsterdam School of pragma-dialecticsFirst stage – confrontationSecond stage – openingThird stage – argumentationFourth stage - concluding

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 12

Confrontation Stage

An assertion is made, and an interlocutor disagrees with it.First, do you want to argue? Is the context impinging on your ability? If the argument is about facts, might be better to

do research than argue.Think before you argue.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 13

Opening Stage

This stage concerns the rules and procedures to be used.You may never have noticed it.Mostly you argue with people you know, and the

rules have been already set.BUT, if something surprising happens the stage

may have to be re-visited.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 14

Argumentation Stage

This is the stage where argument occurs.Much more detail later on, as well as in your

Critical Thinking course or workshop.You may have to go back to an earlier stage.• “Oh, that’s what you meant. Well I have no problem

with that.” Back to confrontation stage.• Father says, “Don’t argue with your mother!” Back to

opening stage.• And so on.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 15

Concluding Stage

The stage in which the argument ends.Argument may end by someone agreeing the

other is right.• Jack may agree that he was wrong and Jill was right.• Jill and Jack may reach a conclusion neither held but

they both accept.The argument may be suspended either

temporarily or permanently.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 16

Kinds of Arguments

We can identify arguments1 and unpack them and analyze them. Identify premises and conclusions.Look for premise strength and connections, and so

on.Arguments2 can be examined for how they

follow rules and procedures.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 17

Three Kinds of Argument

Inquiry In ideal form, pure and dedicated to finding best

answer. No vested interests or emotion allowed.Negotiation

Each party wants to maximize benefits to themselves. Truth not an issue.

PersuasionOne arguer aims to have the other arguer adopt

her position.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 18

Heuristic

A process is heuristic when it involves trying to discover the truth or best solution.From the OED: “Of, relating to, or enabling

discovery or problem-solving.” In AWP an argument is heuristic when those

involved are trying to cooperate in reaching an agreement or solving a problem.

The opposite is eristic, when arguer only cares about winning and getting her or his way.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 19

Heuristic Inquiry

Pure inquiry is very rare.Arguers always have a vested interest, goals

and/or objectives.When the arguers in an inquiry have the

intention of cooperating, being open and honest, then we say they are having a heuristic inquiry. Heuristic inquiries can come in degrees from sort-

of heuristic to highly heuristic.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 20

Negotiation

Partners in a negotiation have different goals.Nonetheless, the best negotiations leave all

parties feeling satisfied.Negotiators can be cooperative and as honest as

possible while still being strategic.This is a heuristic attitude and builds a foundation

for the future.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 21

Persuasion

Persuasion dialogues occur when one arguer want the other to adopt a particular position, goal or belief.When an arguer has no intention of changing her

mind, the dialogue is eristic.When the persuader is open to being persuaded

herself, then the argument is heuristic.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 22

Dialogue Shifts

It is not uncommon for the type of dialogue to change during the argument. We might be having an inquiry and need to

negotiate a point.We might be negotiating but need to put our

heads together in an inquiry to settle a problem. Jack might be trying to persuade Jill, when he

suddenly lets go and they move into an inquiry.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 23

Polemics vs. Arguments

The arguments we have been discussing here are those where there are two or maybe three people involved. In most cases those arguing are willing to change their minds, consider alternatives and take the goals of others into account.

Polemics happen when an arguer is talking to a group, an audience, and is not considering their point of view, goals or beliefs. It is highly eristic and you should watch out for it.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 24

Critical Thinking

The Critical Thinking course or training workshop you are taking, whether in school or business, is supplying you with extremely important tools and techniques.

It is providing you with an important awareness of problems, fallacies, and faulty reasoning. That is your greatest protection against polemics.

Arguing with People

© M.A. Gilbert 2014 25

End of Part One