Ultimate_Writer
teach_75
section_9.4.docx9.4 Confronting Disagreement
By employing the principles of accuracy and charity, and by effectively criticizing arguments, there can be constructive disagreement that avoids heated emotions and verbal aggression.
Mastering the skills of identifying and constructing arguments is not easy, but at this stage you should feel fairly confident in your command of such skills. The big test now is how you will react when someone disagrees with your argument or when you disagree with someone else’s argument. Although advancing an argument does not require an interaction, as mentioned in Chapter 2, disagreements are bound to occur. Many of us likely prefer to avoid disagreements. Indeed, many people are terrified of debating a point because they fear offending others or worry that a debate will only bring out the worst in everyone, quickly escalating into an emotional display of verbal aggression and “I’ll show you!” attitudes on both parts. Few truly gain from or enjoy such an exchange. This is why most people avoid addressing touchy subjects during holiday dinners: No one wants a delicious meal to end with unpleasantness. However, few gain from allowing contested issues to go unchallenged, either, whether you are simply stewing in resentment over your uncle’s unenlightened remark about a group of people or whether society fails to question a wrongheaded direction in public policy. Not knowing how to disagree in a calm, productive manner can be quite problematic. We should recognize, however, that some do like the tension of the battle and find the raising of voices and the test of quick retorts very exciting. Even so, all they gain is the confirmation that they can win by being the loudest, most articulate, or most aggressive. Unfortunately, this is an illusion, since quieting the opposition does not amount to having convinced them.
The solution to this common problem is threefold. The first part involves clearly articulating premises, examining the coherence of the argument, and identifying the support for each claim. This part is the most technically difficult but is already within your reach, thanks to the standard argument form. As we have discussed throughout this book, being able to draw an argument buried underneath filler sentences, rhetorical devices, and such allows us to grasp the meaning and coherence of what is being communicated. In this section, we will closely examine another factor in identifying arguments: the correct interpretation of an argument. We will call this the principle of accuracy.
The second part is not technically difficult, because it is an attitude or state of mind. In ordinary idiomatic language, it is referred to as giving a person the benefit of the doubt, letting someone have his or her say, or putting suspicion aside. In other words, we should judge others and their ideas fairly, even if we may be less than inclined to do so. Philosophers call this attitude the principle of charity.
Finally, the third part involved in handling disagreement is developing good habits of criticism. Evaluating an argument effectively requires understanding the types of objections that might be raised and how to raise them effectively. This understanding can be equally helpful in recognizing criticisms that our own arguments may receive and criticizing opposing arguments effectively.
Applying the Principle of Accuracy
The principle of accuracy requires that you interpret the argument as close to how the author or speaker presents it as possible. Being accurate in your interpretation is not as easy as it may sound.
As we examined in Chapter 2, arguments are typically not presented in standard form, with premises and conclusion precisely stated. Instead, they may be drawn out over several pages or chapters or occasionally even distributed across different portions of an author’s work. In these sorts of cases, accurately interpreting an argument can require careful review of the work in which it occurs. Accurate interpretation may require familiarity with the author’s other works and the works of other authors with similar views. Knowing an author’s broader views can give us a better idea of what he or she means in a specific case. Some academics spend their entire careers trying to clearly and accurately understand the work of important authors who were themselves trying to be as clear as possible.
At the other end of the spectrum, arguments can be presented in ways that give us very little to go on. A letter to the editor is short and self-contained but is often not stated clearly enough for us to really be certain about the details of the argument. If you are lucky enough to hear an argument presented verbally, you may be able to ask for clarification, but if the argument is written, then you are out of luck and have to go through the effort of attempting to figure out what the author meant to say in its best light.
As discussed in Chapter 2, it is often not only tempting but also necessary to reword or paraphrase a claim. The principle of accuracy requires that you exercise a lot of care in doing this. Sometimes one can unintentionally change the meaning of a claim in subtle ways that affect its plausibility and what can be inferred from it.
In short, the principle of accuracy requires that you interpret any argument as closely as possible to the actual statement of the argument while paying attention to features of context. One test for assessing whether you have correctly presented another person’s argument is whether that person is likely to agree with your wording. This often involves making sure that you have interpreted the person favorably.
Applying the Principle of Charity
Applying the principle of charity means to set aside our confidence in our expertise and to be open to entertaining the positions presented by others by doing a fair reading of the argument provided.
The principle of charity is likewise easy to understand but harder to apply. In being charitable philosophically, we seek to give our opponent (and his or her corresponding argument) our utmost care and attention, always seeking to understand the position presented in its strongest and most defensible light before subjecting the argument to scrutiny.
We tend to see the good in arguments that include conclusions we agree with and the bad in arguments that include conclusions we disagree with. When someone on our side of an issue presents an argument, we are prone to read their argument favorably, taking the most charitable interpretation as a matter of course. Think of how you respond when considering your choice for a candidate in an election. Do you tend to interpret more favorably the words of candidates who are members of your own political party, those who support positions that benefit you personally, or even those whom you might find most visually appealing? Do you see positions different from yours as silly or unfounded, perhaps even immoral? If so, you may need to be more charitable in your interpretations. Remember that many intelligent, sincere, and thoughtful people hold positions that are very different from yours. If you see such positions as not having any basis, then it is likely you are being uncharitable. These tendencies are the manifestation of our biases (see Chapter 8), and ignoring them may lead to the entrenchment of our biases into dogmatic positions or fallacious positions. For example, if you criticize an argument based on an uncharitable interpretation, this can be considered a case of the straw man fallacy (see Chapter 7).
Our tendency to be overly critical of arguments for positions we disagree with is deep-rooted, and it requires a lot of effort and psychological strength to overcome. But the mechanics are simple: Suspend your own beliefs and seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas. The principle of charity can become a habit if we approach it methodically, as follows:
Approach new or opposing ideas under the assumption that they could be true, even though our initial reaction may be to disagree.
Make it a goal to understand the opponent’s argument, instead of nitpicking and looking for contradictions or weaknesses.
Consider the strongest argument for the opposition instead of the weakest argument for it.
Given how difficult it can be to charitably interpret arguments, you might wonder whether it is worth the effort. However, there are good reasons for being charitable.
First and foremost, it is important to remember that the goal of logic is not to win disputes but, rather, to arrive at the truth. We have reason to believe that the conclusions of stronger arguments are more likely to be true than the conclusions of weaker arguments. If we wish to know the truth of an issue, we should examine the best arguments that we can find on both sides. If we do this and notice that one side’s arguments are stronger than the other’s, then we have good reason for adopting that side of the issue. On the other hand, if we do not look at the strongest argument available, then we will have little reason to be confident in our final decision. Being uncharitable in interpreting others may help you score points in a dispute, but there is no reason to think that it will lead you to the truth of the matter. (For more discussion of this important point, see Chapter 7.
Second, by making a habit of applying the principle of charity, you develop the skills and character that will help you make good decisions. As people come to recognize you as someone who is fair and charitable in discussions, you will find that they are more willing to share their views with you. In turn, your own views will be the product of a balanced look at all sides, rather than being largely controlled by your own biases.
Balancing the Principles of Accuracy and Charity
When it is difficult to balance the principles of accuracy and charity, try to be more charitable in your interpretation, especially in more informal settings and discussions.
If arguers always presented the strongest arguments available and did so in a clear and organized fashion, there would be little problem applying the principles of accuracy and charity. Unfortunately, we all sometimes present arguments that are not as strong as they could or should be. In these cases the two principles work can against each other—that is, the most charitable interpretation may not be the most accurate.
In general, the principle of charity should be given more weight than that of accuracy. This is especially true when the arguments are presented in less formal settings. By giving people the benefit of the doubt and treating their views as charitably as possible, you will earn a reputation as someone who is more interested in productive discussions than in scoring points. You will have a lot more discussions this way, and both you and the other people involved are likely to learn a lot more. In informal settings, it is best to assume that people are making a stronger argument, rather than trying to hold them to precisely what they say.
The situation is somewhat different when interpreting arguments in academic writing such as journal articles. Journal articles are written carefully and revised many times. The authors are committing themselves to what they say and should understand the implications of it. Nonetheless, it is still good to be charitable when possible, but following the author’s exact presentation is more important than it is in less formal settings. In cases in which you are primarily examining an argument made by a single author in a published article and in which you are trying to judge how well the argument works, accuracy is paramount. Still, be as charitable as the circumstances allow.
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism. In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it. In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly critique an argument will also help you make your own arguments more effective.
The process of criticizing an argument is similar to a chess game. Both require an analysis of the strengths and weakness of your opponent’s position and a determination of whether the premise, or chess piece, is central to your opponent’s argument or strategy.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them. Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn. So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises
The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise. Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The following is a list of questions that will help you not only methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument. In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5, inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some of their premises turn out to be incorrect. Sometimes a premise is incorrect, but in a way that does not really make a difference.
For example, consider someone who advises you to be careful of boiling water, claiming that it boils at 200°F and 200°F water can cause severe burns. Technically, the person’s premises are false: Water boils at 212°F, not at 200°F. This difference does not really impact the person’s argument, however. The arguer could easily correct the premise and reach the same conclusion. As a result, this is not a good place to focus an objection. Yes, it is worth mentioning that the premise is incorrect, but as problems go, this one is not very big. The amount of effort you should put into an objection should correlate to the significance of the problem. Before putting a lot of emphasis on a particular objection, make sure that it will really impact the strength of the argument.
Is it believable? Another issue to consider is whether a premise is sufficiently believable. In the context in which the premise is given, is it likely to be accepted by its intended audience? If not, then the premise might deserve higher levels of scrutiny. In such cases we might check to make sure we have understood it correctly and check if the author has provided further evidence for the strong claim in question. This can be a bit tricky, since it depends on several contextual issues. A premise may be acceptable to one audience but not to another. However, realize that it is just not possible to fully justify every premise in an argument. Premises are the starting points for arguments; they are statements that are presented as sufficiently believable to base an argument on. Trying to justify every premise would introduce even more premises that would then have to be justified, and so on. If you are going to challenge a premise, you should typically have specific reasons for doing so. Merely challenging every premise is not productive.
If you identify a specific premise that is central to the argument yet insufficiently supported, you should make a mental note and move forward. If you are able to converse with the proponent of the argument, then you can ask for further justification of the premise. If the proponent is not available to question—perhaps because the argument occurs in an article, book, or televised speech—then you should formulate some reasons for thinking the premise is weak. In essence, the burden is on you, the objector, to say why the premise is not sufficiently believable, and not on the proponent of the argument to present premises that you find believable or sufficiently supported. Never escalate your beliefs into accusations of lying or fraud. If you believe that the premise is false, the most productive next step is to come up with reasons why the premise is not sufficiently plausible for the context of the argument.
Are there any qualifiers? A qualifier is a word or phrase that affects the strength of a claim that a premise makes. Consider the difference between the statements “Humans are the cause of the current climate change” and “It is at least possible that humans are the cause of the current climate change.” While addressing the same point, these two statements have very different levels of believability. The qualifier phrase “it is at least possible” makes the second statement more acceptable than the first. Whatever your view on the causes of climate change, you should see the second statement as having more going for it than the former, because the second statement only makes a claim about what is possible. Accordingly, it claims much less than the first one. If the first claim is true, the second one is also, but the second claim could be true even if the first turned out to be false.
In focusing an objection on a premise, you need to be sure that your objection takes into account the qualifiers. If the premise is the second claim—”It is at least possible that humans are the cause of the current climate change”—then it would make little sense to object that it has not been fully proved that humans are the cause. Qualifiers can affect the strength of premises in many ways. The lesson here is that you need to be very clear about exactly what is being claimed before objecting to it.
Sometimes premises take the form of hypotheticals—that is, sentences stating assumed situations merely for the sake of argument. Suppose that someone is arguing that the United States should aggressively pursue investment in alternative energy. Such a person might present the following argument as part of a larger argument: “Suppose climate change really is caused by humans. If so, then investing in alternative energy would help reduce or slow climate change.” If you happen to think climate change is not caused by humans, you might be tempted to object to the first premise here. That would be a mistake, since the premise is framed as a hypothetical. The author of the argument is only making a point about what would follow if the claim were true. It must be clear that in this context the author of the argument is not claiming that the first premise is true.
The line of reasoning might continue as follows: “On the other hand, suppose that humans are not changing the climate. The increase in carbon in the atmosphere still shows that our energy production can only continue so long as we have carbon to burn on the ground. We would be well advised to find other alternatives.” Here, one might be tempted to object that humans are part of the cause of climate change. Again, this would be a mistake. The claim that humans are not changing the climate is also used here only as a hypothetical.
So What? Criticizing Inferences
Even an argument with unobjectionable premises can fail to establish its conclusion. The problem in such cases lies with the inferences. Objecting to an inference is like saying, “So what if your premises are true? Your conclusion doesn’t follow from them!” Of course, “So what!” is neither the best feedback to receive nor the best response to offer to an opponent. A better method of showing that an argument is invalid is to offer a counterexample. Recall from Chapter 3 that a counterexample is a strategy that aims to show that even if the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion may very well be false. Counterexamples do not have to be real cases, they just have to be possible cases; they have to show that it is possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false—that the premises do not absolutely guarantee the conclusion.
Beware, however, that counterexamples work best for deductive arguments and do not work as decisively when the argument is inductive. This is because true premises in inductive arguments at best show that the conclusion is probably true, but this is not guaranteed as it is with deductive arguments. Thus, showing that it is merely possible that the premises of an inductive argument are true while its conclusion is false does not undermine the inference. The best that can be done in the case of inductive arguments is to show that the conclusion is not sufficiently probable given the premises. There is no single best way to do this. Because each inductive argument has a different strength and may be based on a different kind of reasoning, objections must be crafted carefully based on the specifics of the argument. There are, fortunately, some broad guidelines to be offered about how to proceed.
First, be clear about just how strong the argument is supposed to be. Remember the contrast between claiming that “Humans are the cause of the current climate change” versus “It is at least possible that humans are the cause of the current climate change.” Many objections fail because they assume the argument is intended to be stronger than it is. Any objection to an inductive inference basically claims that the premises do not make the conclusion as likely as the arguer proposes. If the arguer is misinterpreted on this point, the objection will miss its mark.
Finally, consider whether the argument contains reasoning that is fallacious. A number of fallacies are discussed in Chapter 7. Remember that just pointing out a fallacy does not show that the conclusion of the argument is false. It can only show that the conclusion is not sufficiently supported by that specific argument.
