Lecture 1: Basic concepts Flashcards
What is logic concerned with?
Identification, analysis, evaluation
What questions does logic help answering?
What are the inferences?
How do they support the conclusion?
And if they’re true, do they give us sufficient reason to support the conclusion?
What questions is dialectic concerned with?
What type of dialogue is taking place?
What are the rules of this type dialogue?
Do the participants observe the rules?
What does dialectic help with?
The evaluation of arguments
What is rhetoric concerned with?
Means of persuasion, not strong arguments
2 aspects of rhetoric
Credibility, audience expectation
Logic looks at
Texts with inferences
Logic uses concepts like
Inconsistency, syllogism, argumentation schemes
Logic evaluates
Validity, strength
Dialectic looks at
Dialogues: parties playing certain roles, making certain moves
Dialectic uses concepts like
Types of dialogue, commitment, rules
Dialectic evaluates
Observing rules
Rhetoric looks at
Influencer: devices employed to persuade
Rhetoric uses concepts like
Credibility, audience expectation
Rhetoric evaluates
Effectiveness
What is an argument made out of?
Claim + reason for it
What is the claim in an argument?
The conclusion
What is the reason in an argument?
Set of premises
If conclusion follows from premises, then the premises constitute a good reason for…
The conclusion
If there are premises, then they transmit their truth to the conclusion through…
Inferential connection
How can we pick out premises and conclusions?
With premise/conclusion indicators
Examples for premise indicators:
Since, for, because, given that, for the reason that, seeing that
Examples for conclusion indicators:
Therefore, so, hence, consequently, thus, we may conclude that, it follows that, accordingly
What are arguments for?
To convince another party who doesn’t accept the claim
Arguments can also be used for purposes like:
Thinking through an issue, e.g. in group decision making, giving instructions
Arguments and explanations both rely on inferential connections, but…
Use them differently
When we argue, the statement the inference points to is…
Open to doubt
In case of arguments, the inferential connection is supposed to show that…
Inference statements is true
When we explain something, the statement the inference points to is…
Known to be true
In case of explanations, the inferential connection is supposed to show how…
The inference statement became true
Typical features of dialogues containing. arguments
Opposing viewpoints
Civility
Characteristics of opposing viewpoints in arguments
Oppositions define the issue
Oppositions may be of varying strength
In case of full agreement there is no need for arguments
Characteristics of civility
Participants take turns to speak their truth: they make characteristic moves when doing so and they don’t try to prevent others from speaking
What is a speech act?
What we do when pronouncing a sentence in given situation
Moves performed in argumentative dialogues are viewed as…
Speech acts
Arguments are usually given by
Assertions
By making an assertion, you commit yourself to statement (preposition) which is…
True or false
Assertions incur a burden of proof, which is an…
Obligation to provide an argument when requested
Characteristics of concession
If you don’t want to challenge an assertion, you may concede it
Has weaker commitment than assertion
Doesn’t include burden of proof
May be retracted later on
Focuses on discussion: only conceded things should be argued about
Supports cooperation: suggests that I am not an enemy that is determined to reject everything, but rather a partner in collaborative effort to explore issue
What are questions in arguments?
Rarely show up, but usually used to criticise claims, are backed up by assertion
Questions indicate the presence of … and following assertion gives the reason. for …
Doubt … Legitimacy of doubt
Questions like this must be answered, and they must indicate the reason why…
They’re unjustified
What are rhetorical questions?
Interrogative sentences, which are used as assertions
Rhetorical questions differ from questions, bc…
They don’t call for an answer
Similarity between assertions and rhetorical questions
One may respond by denying them
What is persuasion dialogue?
Paradigmatic argumentative dialogue, which has both cooperation and fight
Initial state of persuasion dialogue
Conflict of opinions
Goal of participants in persuasion dialogue
To persuade other party
Goal of persuasion dialogue
Resolve conflict and clarify issue
Key aspect of cooperation in persuasion dialogue
Openness to the other side’s argument: listen to them, evaluate them objectively, be willing to change your position if they are strong enough
(Consequences of persuasive arguments) 1. There is little chance of coming to an agreement if participants share only…
A few premises
(Consequences of persuasive arguments) 2. Winning the argument doesn’t guarantee the truth, because
Persuasive agreements require shared premises, not true premises, and false premises may lead to false conclusions
(Consequences of persuasive arguments) 3. Having a better view (closer to the truth/more probable/better justified) doesn’t guarantee winning the debate, because…
Outcome depends on how good participants are at finding premises their opponents accept and building good arguments on them
(Consequences of persuasive arguments) 4. If participants are equally knowledgeable and smart about the issue the… is more likely to win
Better view
2 ways to criticize arguments
- Attack the premises
- Attack the inference
‘Attack the premises’ critique’s characteristics
If one of the premises are false, you’re entitled to reject the conclusion
Other side may put out a new argument to protect the premise in question
‘Attack the inference’ critique’s characteristics
You may reject the conclusion if it doesn’t follow from the premises (whether or not the premises are true)
Argumentative tasks in a debate (4)
- Argue for your position
- Refute the other side’s objections
- Refute the other side’s position
- Refute the other side’s arguments for their position
Advice for debates
The other side (+audience) needs to understand what you’re currently doing: so if it is not exactly clear, say explicitly which task you’re seeking to accomplish
What are asymmetric debates?
In asymmetric battles, one party doesn’t have to have a position, they just have to challenge the other party’s position
Example for asymmetric debates
In criminal trials: prosecution has to prove that defendant is guilty, but the defense doesn’t have to prove that they’re innocent, they only have show that the prosecution’s proof is unsatisfactory
Application of argumentative tasks in asymmetric debates (criminal trials)
- Argue for your position (applies only to the party with a position - prosecution)
- Refute the other side’s objections (applies only to the party with a position - prosecution)
- Refute the other side’s position (applies to neither)
- Refute the other side’s arguments for their position (applies only to the party without a position - defense)
Who should you persuade during a debate?
- Other side
- Audience, e.g., presidential candidate debates (main goal is that audience accepts your premises, not other side)
- Virtual audience e.g., YouTube video, scientific paper (an asymmetric debate w/ an imagined party contesting our position, w/out having a position of their own, you must rely on widely accepted premises)
When does a persuasion dialogue fail between 2 parties?
If one of them is not willing to cooperate
Signs of failure in persuasion dialogues
- Anger, bitterness, insults, accusations, ridicule (gúny)
- Intransigence/Inflexibility: unwillingness to sincerely try to understand the other side, keep repeating one’s points, ignoring the other side’s concerns
- Lack of focus: subject keeps changing, more and more points of disagreement emerge
