Hey Team! the group breakdowns we worked on for Chapter Two, as well as the review of chapter 1 and 3 should be posted on this thread, one posting per group, but whoever posts, please list the names of everyone in your group. I am looking for about two paragraphs each from each group to help the rest of the class digest the section you focused on. Let's keep it interesting, colorful and clear. I'll go first with an example:
Page 53-56 in Chapter Three covers Terms Needing Definition, or ways for an advocate to help clarify the argument and persuade her audience. She has to define terms, like if someone said "Yes I wrote that paper myself" but really they copied it out of some one else's homework...they actually cheated, see technically, they wrote it...that is equivocation and it is a fallacy if a single meaning isn't clarified. Vaugue terms, like "great" and "everyone" should be made more specific and technical terms should be "dumbed down" for people who are not experts in a super specialized field. I don't know what a neurotransmitter and a peptide is, but if you said "the brain function that causes emotion" I can understand that, it is less technical, see? It invites more people into the argument. One example of new terms could be slang and hip words such as "That's how I roll..." which some older person might think means I get onto the ground and roll around instead of the current meaning: That's just how I do things, dawg. Finally, coined terms are when we make up a new word, like MacDonaldization is used to mean that we live in a fast-food, immediate gratification society...Oh, or when a celebrity couple's names get run together, like "Benniffer" for Ben and J-Lo back in ancient history...to help define these, see page 55 and 56 in our INTERESTING (I'd rather drag myself through broken glass than read it) TEXT BOOK!!!!! We can use other words that mean the same thing, or describe the function of a confusing word, like You say "That's just how I roll," when you don't want to be questioned about reckless or odd behavior...Sometimes you can describe what something is not to help people get what it is, like a private contractor does not work for some one else or single is "not married" --You can also use behaviors and operations to help describe things. My group included Sandra, Sandi and Ms. Wheeler, peace out homies!
7 comments:
good examples dawg, lol!
Anonamous will have to give us some clues, so we can unveil your true identity...and a.u.p. MUst be ALex...so no, due today is ONLY the letter to the editor, any editor...250 words of less, not handwritten! AND using a strong OPINION!!!!!!!! About something you believe needs to be changed, improved or maintained. Propositions concern fact, value or policy, remember!--Blogisha
Oh wow, boys and girls aren’t you sooo excited about reading this overview of Chapter 1 of "Advocacy and Opposition" I know I’m just dying to share it with you. Chapter 1 is the "What is Argumentation" chapter. It is broken down into four parts,
1) The nature of Argumentation
2) The nature of the Audience
3) The historical development of argumentation
4) Ethical standards for argumentation
Ok really there is a 5 & a 6 but if you are a person who actually reads the supplementary readings or refers to the references then you have all ready outlined this chapter in much greater detail than I’m going to provide here, so read your own notes and go to bed happy.
1) The nature of Argumentation: a co-operative use of argumentation is a means of discovering knowledge and solving problems. "It is a form of instrumental communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behavior through the use of spoken or written messages." (Pg3)
A) Recognize that there are cultural differences with arguing
*European: debating two sides on an issue
*Native American or African: emphasizes well fare of whole community arguments are co-operative and informational.
*Feminist: more conversational, inclusive technique encourages all to participate and share their experiences.
B) Requires diverging opinions
*Persuasion- argumentation is the reasoning component of persuasion
ELM: elaboration likelihood model, when faced with a persuasive message two ways of processing information
*Central route: requires high degree of involvement, requires that a person take time to examine arguments abased on their merits, examine them for quality, soundness and believability
*Peripheral route: short cut, lack of effort and involvement. Use some cue from message, context or situation to come to reasoning.
Argumentation is always characterized by controversy.
Argumentation is a rule-governed communication behavior.
2) The nature of Audience: argumentation is always directed at an audience, one or more persons capable of being influenced, to accept or reject message.
*Common bonds of audience: language, knowledge, experiences
*Demographic characteristics: age, sex, and race…
*Psychographic: characteristics shared attitudes and or values.
3) The historical development of Argumentation: began in Greece
A) Rhetoric and rhetorical perspective: explains
*How we use communication to influence and change others,
*How arguments are made and interpreted,
*About content and context of arguments,
*Specific definable topics
B) Dialectical perspective is the "Structure of conversation in which people offer and analyze reasons, a plan for interaction in which all sides of an issue or opinion are raised and resolved through discussion" Dialectical perspective/technique is used for asking board philosophical questions. This form requires a high degree of participation from all participants.
C) Logical perspectives: uses a series of formal rules for distinguishing sound arguments from unsound ones. It emphasizes accuracy in proof and reasoning (less human and more math)
Stephen Toulmin (also known as lord god boo foo in the debating world) created a series of statements using "proof and reasoning" his model shows how proof and reasoning together may be interpreted by an audience.
4) The ethical standards for argumentation:
Ethics: moral choices persons make regarding his behavior.
*Teleological ethics: the ends justify the means.
*Deontological ethics: based on a set of absolutes.
FYI: there is no universal set of norms on morality (but there should be and I happily volunteer my morality as the standard from which everything should be judged)
(Pg. 15 is a great page if you want to stir up some "issues")
Morality is influenced by your culture: for example Western European verses the Feminist or the African morality viewpoint
A) Clarity: clearly expressed ideas "the doctrine of perspicuity" this is about word choice, word order and arrangement of arguments.
B) Honesty: saying what you believe the truth is.
C) Efficiency: using the best most effective arguments to make you point.
D) Relevance: what message will be most important to audience (that which has the greatest ELM value)
E) Discourse Ethics: an attitude of honesty.
F) Pg. 20 has a list of ten guidelines of does and don’ts in debating, most are no brainers but if you tend to offend people easily you might want to spend time reviewing them, mostly "Be Nice, Play fair, and don’t run with scissors".
this exciting rendition was brought to you by Leza Coleman, Derrick Marlow and Chris Realin
Okay, we're going to try and make this quick, easy, and fairly painless for everyone. The first section of chapter two discusses where to begin in the process of argumentation. First, let's look at the common characteristics of argumentation:
* Argumentation is a social
activity
* Argumentation is an intellectual
activity
* Argumentation is a verbal
activity
* Argumentation is opinion stating,
justifying, or refuting
* Argumentation is directed toward
an audience
Now that we have the basics down, let's move on to the next step. Argumentation takes place in the context of a field that contains the arguer, a subject of controversy, and an audience. A FIELD OF ARGUMENTATION is a social or professional context in which people argue in order to make decisions or gain knowledge.
Our old buddy Toulmin uses "field" as a metaphor for the figurative territory in which arguers and audiences function. Each field has certain elements, i.e. definitions, theories, or terminology, that are FIELD DEPENDENT and particular to that field alone.
Here's an example to make the concept a little clearer. Think of two sports that are not so similar, such as football and figure skating. Each "field" has specific terms, words, and descriptions that are specific to that field alone and wouldn't make sense in another field. Think interception, quarterback or Super Bowl. Doesn't make much sense if you're talking about ice skating. On the other hand, elements like dedication, competition, or training, could be used in discussing either field. These elements are known as FIELD INVARIANT.
As for the players on the "field," we have the ADVOCATE and the OPPONENT. The ADVOCATE is the person who communicates to ENCOURAGE CHANGE and the opponent acts to DISCOURAGE THE CHANGE. Going back to our sports analogy, the advocate plays offense and the opponent plays defense.
That's it for our section. Pretty straight forward, right? Now go watch some football. Think of it as research.
Alfredo, Bea and Julie
You guys are doing a terrific job, I am so impressed! Blog on!!!!!!
Sandra the Blogging Maniac
Presumption
Rybacki and Rybacki suggest that “all argumentation takes place over a piece of figurative ground occupied by existing institutions, ideas, laws, policies, and customs. This figurative ground represents the way things are at present.” (pg 26-27). Presumption specifies who holds this popularly held ground at the beginning of the argument, controversy, or debate.
Archbishop Richard Whately (1828/1963) said that if you are trying to change a presumption you must know who has to prove that the change is reasonable and who will benefit from the change. He also said that presumptions can be altered as a field evolves, people will want to keep the old presumptions while they will respect and understand the new presumptions. “The result of argumentation [for a presumption] is about whether to believe or not believe [or change or not change] something.” (pg 28)
In a debate, argumentation to test a hypothesis uses artificial presumption. “Presumption is automatically granted to the negative team at the beginning of each debate, and the affirmative team has the burden of proving the presumption should be overturned.” (pg 29)
The Two Types of Presumption:
• artificial presumption – the idea that presumption is influenced by a field (line of work) “Each field has its own natural order, and participants in that field usually consider its institutions, ideas, rules, policies, or customs effective and deserving of continuation until someone shows them good and sufficient reasons to change.” (pg 27)
o A great example of artificial presumption is the American legal system; the field-dependant presumption is that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This view has been the norm in the legal system it is what you are supposed to believe, whether or not people actually believe it, is another story.
• natural presumption – the idea that an institution, idea, rule, policy, common practice, custom, value, or interpretation of reality is working for that field (line of work)
o The quote “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is an excellent definition to think of when trying to understand natural presumption; people automatically presume something is working just fine until that something breaks down. This is what people automatically assume, with out being told and even when that natural presumption is being challenged people still automatically jump to the side that has been part of the natural order.
o The sky is above us. The sun is hot. Killing is wrong. Or even Scott Peterson did it (a prevalent presumption before he was even convicted).
o Example: When you get in your car to drive home and the car starts, you naturally presume that the car is running fine. It is not until it doesn’t start or it is making unusual sounds that you start to think something is wrong with it.
Key Qualities of Presumption
• presumption only describes the existing beliefs, practices, policies, rules or laws, etc.
• presumption does not judge the value or lack of value of the existing beliefs, practices, policies, rules or laws, etc.
• presumption helps to identify ideas or opinions for either accepting or rejecting a proposal for change
• presumption helps identify what the advocate must prove when testing the proposed change
Rachel Agutos
Rose Knoll
Tiffany Warrick
Good job Mark! Made it in time! Oh, and Adriana is the other person in our group.
Post a Comment