Date post: | 13-Jul-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | laert-velia |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
WARRANTSFrom The Craft of Research by Booth, Colomb, and Williams
WARRANTS Warrant: the logical relationship between a
circumstance and its consequence. “The Proverb” A true statement of a general
condition and result that explains why a specific condition can lead to a specific result.
When X, then Y. Extra: Enthymemes and Logic
In formal logic, all the premises and conclusions should be laid out
We often don’t mention assumed premises in spoken and written language
Enthymemes: logical formulas missing a step or two Yet formal writing should include clear logic
EXAMPLE Russia faces a falling standard of living
because its birthrate is only 1.17 and men’s life expectancy has dropped to about 58 years.
What is the logic? Reader may not understand if the logic is not
explained.
DIAGRAM OF A WARRANT’S LOGIC
General Circumstance Implies General Consequence
When a nation’s labor force shrinks,
Specific Circumstance Specific Consequence
its economic future is grim.
Russia faces a falling standard of living.
Russia’s birthrate is only 1.17 and men’s life expectancy has dropped to about 58
years
Then
Therefore
Let us infer
TESTING THE RELIABILITY OF A WARRANT Is the warrant basically true? Is it prudently limited? Can your warrant be trumped? Is your warrant appropriate to the reader’s
community? Are your reason and claim good instances of
the General Warrant?
IS YOUR WARRANT BASICALLY TRUE? Will readers believe the truth of your warrant? If not, treat the warrant as a claim that needs
its own reasons and evidence. Example:
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, valuable objects were listed in wills, so when a will failed to mention such a valuable object, the person did not own one. (warrant/claim)
Watson (1989) confirmed that to be the case. (reason)
IN a study of 1,356 wills filed in Cumberland County between 1750 and 1825, he found . . . (evidence)
IS YOUR WARRANT PRUDENTLY LIMITED? A warrant might be need to be limited to be
believed. Example:
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, most household objects considered valuable by their owners were usually listed in wills.
(Problem: “most” and “usually” are vague terms)
CAN YOUR WARRANT BE TRUMPED? Can a competing warrant be used to trump
yours? Why is your warrant better than alternatives?
Examples: “Out of sight, out of mind.” “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” When a group wants to express political views, it
has a constitutional right to do so. When a group does not unanimously agree, its
leaders should not express their own opinion in the name of the group.
You may need to recognize and respond to competing warrants.
IS YOUR WARRANT APPROPRIATE TO YOUR READER’S COMMUNITY? Some fields of research may reject a warrant
you think is obvious: Example:
Law Obvious: When a person is wronged, the law should
correct it. Law: When one ignores legal obligations, even
inadvertently, one must suffer the consequences. Thus, in law: When elderly home owners forget to pay
real estate taxes, others can buy their houses for back taxes and evict them.
ARE YOUR REASON AND CLAIM GOOD INSTANCES OF THE GENERAL WARRANT?
General Circumstance Implies General Consequence
When you aren’t safe,
Specific Circumstance Specific Consequence
You should be able to protect yourself.
You should buy a gun.If you live alone,
Then
Then
Let us infer
ARE YOUR REASON AND CLAIM GOOD INSTANCES OF THE GENERAL WARRANT?
General Circumstance Implies General Consequence
When children are constantly exposed to
images of sadistic violence,
Specific Circumstance Specific Consequence
They are influenced for the worse.
TV is a destructive influence on children.
Violence among children 12-16 is rising faster than among any
other age group
Then
Therefore
Let us infer
ARE YOUR REASON AND CLAIM GOOD INSTANCES OF THE GENERAL WARRANT?
General Circumstance Implies General Consequence
When children are constantly exposed to
images of sadistic violence,
Specific Circumstance Specific Consequence
They are influenced for the worse.
TV is a destructive influence on children.
TV is a major source of children’s images of
violence
Then
Therefore
Let us infer
WHEN TO STATE A WARRANT Warrants are often not stated because they are
implicitly understood in a research community. Yet you may need to make the warrant clear
when: Readers are outside your field You use a warrant that is new or contested in your
field You make a claim that readers will resist because
they just don’t want it to be true It helps to state the warrant before your
evidence and reason. Stating warrants shows readers courtesy
CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS It is difficult to challenge warrants that others
hold Challenging Warrants Based on Experience
Some may believe a warrant based on their own experience or on reports they’ve heard
To challenge these you must Challenge the reliability of the experience Find counter-examples that cannot be dismissed as
special cases
CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging Warrants Based on Authority
Some may say: When authority A says B, B must be true.
You may respond: Authority A does not have complete information on B. Authority A is not really an authority. Authority C is a better authority because of E, F, and G.
Authority C says H because of I, J, and K. Thus H is a reasonable thing to believe is true.
CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging Warrants Based on Systems of
Knowledge Examples:
Mathematics: When we add two odd numbers, we get an even one.
Law: When we disobey the law, we should be punished.
It is difficult to challenge such warrants. We must either challenge the entire system of knowledge or show that the example does not apply to the warrant.
CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging General Cultural Warrants
Examples: Out of sight, out of mind An insult demands retaliation A black cat is bad luck
Warrants may be challenged through scientific analysis and reasoning
Cultural warrants tend to change slowly
CHALLENGING METHODOLOGICAL WARRANTS “Meta-warrants” that guide our thinking.
Examples: Generalization: “When every known case of X has
quality Y, then all X’s probably have quality Y. (See one, see them all.)
Analogy: When X is like Y in most respects, then X will be like Y in other respects. (Like father, like son.)
Sign: When Y regularly occurs before, during or after x, Y is a sign of X. (Cold hands, warm heart.)
Challenge: show that the warrant was applied wrongly or that there are exceptions that invalidate the warrant.
CHALLENGING OTHERS’ WARRANTS Challenging Warrants Based on Articles of
Faith Examples:
We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal…
When a claim is experienced as revealed truth, it must be true.
When a claim is based on divine teaching, it must be true.
Can argue that the reasons for the article of faith are not valid, but may lead to difficulties and tensions.
WARRANTS THAT AVOID THE QUESTION Often used in politics:
Example: Reporter: “Senator, do you support measures to cut
greenhouse gases?” Senator: “I support all sound ideas aimed at correcting
serious problems.” Meaning: “I haven’t decided if measures to cut
greenhouses gases are sound or if global warming is a serious problem, but if so, then I will support such measures.”
Or: “I don’t think measures to cut greenhouse gases are sound, nor is global warming a serious problem, but I don’t want to offend you, so I will answer with a warrant.”
Or: “I reject the limitations of your question and wish to express the general policy I use when I make decisions on individual cases.”
TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTS Deductive (based on a warrant and reason)
All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal
Inductive (based on observed or gathered evidence) Water has always quenched my thirst. Therefore water will most likely quench my thirst
in the future. Many researchers prefer the second type,
although formulated as “claim, reason, evidence, claim.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and
Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.