Argumentation: Critical Thinking in Action.
David Lapakko Ph.D. “Argumentation: Critical Thinking In Action.” iUniverse, 2009-10-29. iBooks.

Claims

Factual

can be verified

Is it true or false?

May not be true.

some factual claims are predictive in nature.
though they can't be verified now, they can be in the future.

value

deal with the issue "Is it good or bad, right or wrong?"

cannot be objectively verified

also value claims connected to ethics or morals

it helps to develop criteria or standards to evaluate a value claim

policy

deal with the question " What should we do?"

“The issue always is, what is the purpose or function of the claim?)”

often has the word 'should' in it, but not always.

policy claims are by nature broader than factual and value claims

“Policy issues are actually made up of a variety of “sub-issues” that relate to facts and values”

Data

the evidence supporting the claim

four types of evidence

examples

Statistics

testimony

objects

Assumptions or a reasoning process

every claim is based on evidence and reasoning /assumptions are made

five types of reasoning

inductive

deductive

analogy

sign reasoning

casual reasoning

“critical thinking as “a set of conceptual tools with associated intellectual skills and strategies useful for making reasonable decisions about what to do or believe”
“(Rudinow and Barry, 2008, 11)”

“the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about the truth of a claim or a recommendation to act in a certain way” (Reichenbach, 2001, 19).”

Blooms taxonomy

6 skills

knowledge

the ability to know facts, definitions, and other basic types of information.

regurgitation

comprehension

understanding things

being able to explain things

showing you have a grasp of what they mean

application

being able to use the information you have in someway

being able to take ideas and plug them in to a situation

analysis

being able to take a complex problem and break it down to its component parts.

synthesis

involves how you put things together to make a new whole or to develop new insights.

creative process that allows a critical thinker to pull various ideas together into a new formulation

evaluation

involves some sort of judgement. What is the best model, the most sensible conclusion?

to render a judgement the reflects good awareness of the issues involved.

Traits

Intellectual Humility vs. Intellectual Arrogance

we don't have all the answers

other points of view have merit

no one likes a know-it-all

Intellectual Courage vs. Intellectual Cowardice

have the courage of our convictions

call it like you see it vs. fitting in

Intellectual Perseverance vs. Intellectual Laziness

careful and extensive research vs. short cuts

carefully reading and thinking

Fairmindedness vs. Intellectual Unfairness

be aware of our biases

consider alternate POV

keep our reactions in check to opposing ideas

Obstacles

Confusing Labels with Reality

labels may not describe accurately

Giving Meaning to Unrelated Events

two things happening in time does not mean they are related

Wishful Thinking

people see what they want to see

our personal wishes and desires can cloud our judgement

Either Or Thinking

dualistic thinking
black and white orientation

ignores the many complexities of an issue

can lead to the fallacy of false dilemma

Unconscious Assumptions and Biases

fish discover water last

this is why opposing POVs are important

Ethical Issues

Emotional appeals

“arguments can play into a variety of human needs, drives, and emotions—for example, our desires for physical safety, emotional security, social approval, self-esteem, and achievement.”

scare tactics play off of people's irrational fears

One sided messages

“dealing with competing views to yours, because not talking about them won’t make them magically go away.”

Use of Ambiguity

“arguers will often be intentionally ambiguous for strategic reasons—that is, they know that if they are “too clear,” people might find their ideas or their proposal to be a little too controversial.”

Free Speech Issues

“people are still responsible for the consequences of their words.”

Obligation to be Knowledgable

“that may not mean that it’s ethical for any person to try to influence others without some understanding of the issue.”

Authorship Issues

“Although there are cultural differences with respect to what constitutes “plagiarism,” you should be aware that in U.S. culture, “stealing” words, phrases, or ideas from other sources without proper attribution is a “big no-no”

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

after this, therefore because of thisOne falsely assumes that if B follows A, then B was caused by A.

Hasty Generalization

fallacy of converse accidentan inductive generalization made on basis of of too few cases.

Fallacy of Composition

involves how we move from specific to general.we falsely assume what is true for each part is true for the whole.

Fallacy of Division

the opposite of fallacy of composition.falsely assuming what is true of the whole is true of the individual parts.

False Dilemma

involves presenting two possible alternatives in a way that is inappropriate or misleading.

there are often more than two alternatives

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

ignoring Burden of Proof in one of two ways

a. assuming something is TRUE because it has not been proven FALSE.

b. assuming that something is FALSE because it has not been proven TRUE.

begging the question

At the heart of Begging the Question is "proving" an assertion by simply repeating it or rephrasing it.

non sequitur

does not followthe data and the claim just don't seem to connect

Argumentum ad hominem

to the personyou hope to discredit a person's idea by throwing rhetorical mud at them.

Argumentum ad populum

to the peoplejust because the majority believes or does something, that doesn't make it right or true.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

a. inappropriate appeal to tradition

b. inappropriate appeal to authority

Argumentum ad misericordiam

involves an inappropriate appeal to pity

Argumentum ad baculum

inappropriate appeals to force or the threat of force

Argumentum ad crumenum

falsely assures that there is a direct relationship between cost and quality.

Argumentum ad lazarum

assuming that something is necessarily a better value because it cost less.

Reductio ad absurdum

involves taking an opponents idea to an extreme, to an absurd level in a way that is inappropriate or misleading.

"Straw man" argument

an arguer misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to attack.

Equivocation

using the same word in two different ways so as to mislead.

The line drawing fallacy or argument of the beard

involves the notion that if it is difficult to draw a line between two things, then one simply shouldn't draw a line.

Slippery slope argument

one undesirable action will lead to a worse action, then a worse one still, all the way down the slippery slope.

two wrongs make a right fallacytu quoque "you also"

someone defends a wrong by pointing out that others or an opponent, have acted in the same (equally bad) way.

Perfect solution fallacy

occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

Historian's Fallacy

occurs when it is assumed that decision makers in the past could see things from the same perspective and with the same information when later discussing the decisions.

hindsight is 20/20

Gambler's fallacy

if a coin is flipped 5 times and it comes up heads every time, they might bet the farm that the 6th time it will come up tails.

Red herring

involves bringing in a clearly irrelevant point to distract people from the real issue.

presumption

starting point

Status Quo

current situation

applicable in 3 different situations

1. There is a presumption in favor of traditional values and beliefs

2. There is a presumption in favor of majority opinion

3. There is a presumption in favor of existing institutions

artificial

innocent til proven guilty

a made-up rule

still a good idea

natural

a commonsensical idea

still a good idea

means we should keep what we have for now until someone clearly states otherwise

not everyone agrees on where presumption lies - that too can become a focal point for argument

burden of proof

to overcome presumption one must meet a burden of proof

refers to one wanting to change the status quo needing to make a convincing case

prima facie case - on first hearing is strong enough to require a response

Issues

are specific to a particular topic

Stock Issues

are not unique, but, generic

can be used in any situation against any controversy

stock issues for policy propositions

Ill or Significance

is there even a problem in the first place

if it ain't broke don't fix it

Blame or Inherency

one must demonstrate that the problem is inherent to the status quo

structural barriers

something in the status quo (law,regulation,policy) prevents the status quo from dealing with the problem

attitudinal barriers

Profit motive

competition

the law of supply and demand

human nature

etc...

Cure or Solvency

will the proposed solution actually work

Cost or Desirability

At what price?

Is it worth the trade off?

Stock Issues for value propositions

1. By what set of criteria is the object of the proposition best evaluated?

2. Do the value criteria truly support the claim being made?

Stock issues for Factual propositions

What does the proposition mean?

Is there sufficient evidence to support the proposition?

Toulmin's Model of argument

it's very flexible.

It describes, it does not evaluate.

Components of the model will appear in deferent sequences.

Not all six elements of the model are necessary or even relevant.

Some interpretation on the part of the critic may be involved.

components

Data

Claim

Warrant

Backing

Qualifier

Reservations

General Categories of Evidence

Specific Types of Evidence

General tests for all types of evidence

1. Not all concepts can be readily quantified.

VALIDITY

are you measuring what you claim to be measuring?

2. A more precise number is not necessarily a better number.

precise numbers maybe seductive, but question them

3.Survey results must be truly representative

Are the samples skewed?
If so the data maybe unreliable.

a large sample does not compensate for an unrepresentative sample

There are three different ways to define average.

Mean

add up the numbers and divide by how many numbers there are.

expresses central tendency

Mode

The most common number in the numbers list

Subtopic

Median

the middle number, half of the numbers are above it and half of the numbers are below it.

big outliers won't affect it

Outliers are numbers that are not representative, they pull the average out of whack.

advantages of advocating change

there are indeed lots of perceived problems in the world.

we usually don't debate issues when things are just great.

someone proposing change may be perceived as trying to make the world a better place.

Advantages of Opposing Change

have the advantage of presumption

don't let go of what you have until you get something better to replace it.

there are often good reasons for doing what we currently do.

It's easier to demonstrate there are problems than to demonstrate there are workable desirable solutions.

realism vs. idealism

be mindful of which side you are on. if you are hopelessly idealistic you need to convince others you are not pie the sky. If you are more realistic, you may need to demonstrate you are not a cynical, contrary person, but want a better world as well.

The Issue of "should" vs. "would"

Organizational Formats

topical Organization

Problem-Solution Organization

Causal Organization

Comparative Advantage Organization

Method of Residue

Criteria-Based

The "Motivated Sequence"

The Need to Structure the Solution

1.	Words have no intrinsic meaning. They only mean what people think they mean. That makes communication more difficult.

2. There is more than one way to define a word and the "dictionary definition" isn't always the best way"

3. Language is not static. the meaning of words changes over time.

4. Sometimes arguers will try to be clear about their use of words; but sometimes they will intentionally be vague or unclear.

5. Sometimes arguers use words that are designed to get us emotionally worked up. Sometimes they will use words designed to calm us down.

6. There are a variety of types of language that can be regarded as misleading or loaded.

7. Language can be more concrete or more abstract; arguers and critical thinkers must be mindful of the difference.

8. Metaphors raise some of the most interesting issues and the affect the way we think.