Arguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well

Robert Gass, John Seiter

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351242479
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Filología
• Categoria: Estudios de comunicación

Arguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well offers an engaging and accessible introduction to argumentation and critical thinking. With a pro-social focus, the volume encourages readers to value civility when engaged in arguing and reasoning. Authors Gass and Seiter, renowned for their friendly writing style, include real-world examples, hypothetical dialogues, and editorial cartoons to invite readers in. The text includes a full chapter devoted to the ethics of argument, as well as content on refutation and formal logic. It is designed for students in argumentation and critical thinking courses in communication, philosophy, and psychology departments, and is suitable for students and general education courses across the curriculum.

Chapter 1

Why Study Argument?

“Kiddie” Arguments

One of the authors was enjoying a cheeseburger at a local fast food chain when two toddlers, accompanied by their parents, took a seat in a nearby booth. It wasn’t long before an argument broke out:

“Yes, you did.”

“No, I didn’t.”

“Did too.”

“Did not.”

“Did too.”

And so it went.

Listening to little tykes argue is both fascinating and frustrating. Their arguing skills are under-developed, yet they understand that arguing is supposed to be a back and forth process. They try to emulate the give and take format they see adults using. Although they may imitate the form of adult arguments, children’s arguments are typically lacking in substance. They know they are supposed to refute their opponent’s arguments, but they don’t quite know how. They may add snappy comebacks to their argumentative repertoire, such as “I know you are but what am I?” but their arguments remain superficial. Unfortunately, not all people outgrow this. Indeed, in the fast food restaurant, it wasn’t the toddlers who were arguing. It was their parents. The two children, along with the author, sat quietly soaking it all in.

Arguing as a Developmental Process

Child prodigies are fascinating. Pablo Picasso learned to draw before he learned to speak. He was admitted to Barcelona’s School of Fine Arts when he was 13. Garry Kasparov, considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time, began playing at the age of five and was the USSR chess champion at 13. And then there’s Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who wrote his first symphony when he was only eight.

Feeling old? If so, you can take solace in the fact that, when it comes to arguing, there are no childhood geniuses.¹ You won’t, for instance, find any eight-year-old “whizz kids” presenting cases before the Supreme Court. This is because the ability to think, reason, and argue well is a developmental process. As Mercier and Sperber observed, “there is no evidence that [reasoning] occurs in preverbal children” (2011, p. 57). As their cognitive functioning and language abilities improve, children improve their argumentation skills (Amsterlaw, 2006; Jasna, 1992; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Ricco, 2015). Young-uns soon learn to make more substantive arguments. For example, most kids quickly learn to invoke the “fairness principle” as an effective strategy. If a parent says, “Lulu, it’s your bedtime,” the child might respond, “That’s not fair! Henry gets to stay up late.”

Children also learn social norms that govern arguing, such as not engaging in name-calling, taunting, or hazing (okay, some kids learn these norms), and they develop what has been called a theory of mind (Wellman, 1992). That is, they begin to see things from another person’s point of view, a crucial skill that helps them tailor their arguments to a particular audience. As a result, after asking her mom, “Can I stay up an hour later to watch this show?” Lulu might add, “It’s educational!” Lulu’s argument demonstrates perspective-taking.

Argumentation skills continue to develop during the teen years. One study (Weinstock, Neuman & Glassner, 2006) found that students’ ability to identify informal fallacies improved with grade level. Another study demonstrated that adolescents (7th and 8th graders) were proficient in advancing arguments for their own side, but were not as adept as young college students (freshman and sophomores) at refuting the arguments of the opposing side (Felton & Kuhn, 2001).

The Importance of Context and Culture

While the ability to argue is learned, it is important to keep in mind that this ability is learned somewhat differently across cultures and over time. Arguing is contextual and is situated in a particular culture, time, and place. By way of example, what might have been perceived as a cogent argument for the use of torture in the 1500s, during the Spanish Inquisition, would not be perceived as a reasonable argument today. Moreover, while arguments for a number of questionable medical practices—e.g., bloodletting or lobotomies—might have held water at one time or another, they’d certainly be considered unreasonable today.

What’s more, culture and context not only influence perceptions about the content of arguments, but also perceptions about whether, when, and how to disagree. Likewise, orientations toward arguing, such as whether to be direct and assertive or avoid confrontation, vary between Asian and Western cultures (Xie, Hample & Wang, 2015). We address these differences in more detail in Chapter 4.

Adult Arguers

Research suggests that arguing ability continues to develop into adulthood (Grossman, Na, Varnum, Park, Kitayama & Nisbett, 2010; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Moshman, 1998). By the time most people finish high school or enter college they have acquired basic argumentation skills. You may be asking yourself, then, “If I’ve got the basics down, why do I need this book?” The answer is that it is one thing to develop basic argumentation skills, and another thing altogether to become a skillful arguer. Parents, for instance, frequently resort to a fallacy called appealing to the crowd when they utter remarks such as “I don’t care if your friends ride their skateboards in the street. If they jumped off a cliff would you do it too?” Other examples of adult arguers making rather childish arguments are just a couple of clicks away on your remote control. The Judge Judy show, for example, relies on plaintiffs’ and defendants’ feeble arguments as a form of entertainment. Other low-brow TV fare also appeals to people’s baser argumentative urges. Hey, we love to watch these shows too, but we don’t expect to hear exemplary reasoning when doing so.

Figure 1.1 Sometimes people act first, and think second.

© Peter Mueller/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

Faux Reasoning

Unfortunately, in everyday life the situation isn’t much better. Consider the sham conversation below.

Naomi:	“Why?”
Bernie:	“Because.”
Naomi:	“Because why?”
Bernie:	“Just because.”

Figure 1.2 “Punny reason giving.”

J.C. Duffy, Fusco Brothers, 10/23/2008 Cartoonist Group, image 27509. © J.C. Duffy/Fusco Brothers/cartoonistgroup.com.

Although Bernie offers the semblance of an argument, it is not an actual argument. Perhaps he can’t come up with a good reason or maybe he is being cognitively lazy. The slang phrase “I want this because of reasons,” which was also a popular meme, embodies this same empty reasoning. The phrase, which is sometimes shortened to “because of reasons,” is used ironically to acknowledge that a person should have reasons, but cannot be bothered to come up with any.

Another faux argument involves making a questionable claim, and then adding “I’m just sayin’” as a means of shirking any obligation to provide proof. Imagine, for example, two office gossips discussing their boss’s attire:

Ralph:	“Is Lester on the prowl? He’s sporting a new wardrobe.”
Amos:	“I don’t think so. He and his wife just celebrated their 20th anniversary.”
Ralph:	“Still . . . that’s an awfully nice suit he has on. I’m just sayin’.”

Think about Ralph’s claim for a moment. By adding “I’m just sayin’,” he isn’t strengthening his argument. The phrase is tacked on to avoid offering additional reasons or proof.

The proverbial response, “Whatever . . .” (accent on the ever) also entails a pretext of reasoning. “Whatever . . .” is a way of conveying annoyance or disdain without conceding or refuting the point. If you’ve ever used this response, you should know that people find it irritating. In fact, in one series of polls, “whatever” was voted the “most annoying” word for seven years in a row (Marist Poll, 2015)! Other tired tropes, such as “It is what it is,” can be aggravating as well. Although offered as an excuse for doing nothing, it relies on circular reasoning, a topic we will cover later in this book.

Angry Argument

Worse still, some adult arguers don’t simply offer empty arguments, they get mad too. They resort to verbal aggression, such as threats or name calling. Participants on reality shows, such as Big Brother or Real Housewives, often rely on such tactics. The dialogue below illustrates a hypothetical encounter characterized by aggressiveness.

Vic:	“Oh yeah?”
Rex:	“Yeah!”
Vic:	“Sez who?”
Rex:	“Sez me. Wanna make somethin’ of it?”
Vic:	“I’d like to see you try.”
Rex:	“Keep yappin’ and I’ll slap the ugly right off your face.”
Vic:	“Bring it on, fool.”
Rex:	“So you’re admittin’ you’re ugly?”
Vic:	“Not as ugly as you’re gonna be.”

The form of the above argument involves point–counterpoint, but there is little or no substance to the “arguments.” Blustering and threats have replaced reasoning and rationality. Argumentation scholars (Infante, 1987; Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986) view verbal aggression as a skill deficiency. When arguers lack appropriate argumentation skills, they resort to name calling and put downs. We will have more to say about verbal aggression in the following chapter.

Aims and Goals of This Book

Improving Your Knowledge and Skills in Argumentation

The good news is that it is quite possible to improve your arguing, reasoning, and thinking skills. Hence this book. One of our primary reasons for writing this text is to help increase your knowledge and understanding of basic principles and processes of argumentation which, in turn, will improve your argumentation skills. Whatever your current level or ability, you can improve. In this respect, arguing is analogous to dancing. You might already have a decent “Moonwalk” or “Tango,” but there is always room for improvement. First, you’ll need a better understanding of how argumentation works. Then you’ll need practice. And lots of it. Just as one can’t learn to scuba dive solely by reading a...