LAW017 - WK02 - MTRL01 - Stages of Argument

Stages of Argument

Introduction

• Schopenhauer emphasized the value of having common names for common fallacies, facilitating quick and clear diagnoses of reasoning problems, which in turn improves our ability to notice, fix, and move beyond them.

• Introduction of four stages of sophistication in argument, along with associated informal properties, intended to aid teachers and others in evaluating arguments.

• These stages primarily apply to arguments for ethical and political conclusions, with limited relevance to mathematical and scientific arguments.

Terminology

• Positive Argument: Directly supports a conclusion.

• Negative Argument: Undermines an opposing conclusion.

• Two-Sided Argument: Contains both positive and negative components.

• One-Sided Argument: Lacks both positive and negative components.

• Responsive Argument: Addresses objections to its positive and negative components.

• Unresponsive Argument: Does not address objections to its positive and negative components.

Stage 1: Absence of Argument (Dogmatism)

• Defined as making an assertion without any supporting argument.

• Characterized as the absence of argument altogether.

• Also referred to as dogmatism.

• Represents an advance over vagueness by making a clear assertion.

Stage 2: One-Sided Argument

• Involves offering either a positive or a negative argument, but not both.

• Arguments can be positive or negative but are exclusively one-sided.

• Does not require the argument to be sufficient, strong, or even relevant.

• Examples:

  • "Assisted suicide should be legal because liberty is valuable."

  • "Assisted suicide should be illegal because life is valuable."

  • "You should vote for Smith because she will balance the budget."

  • "You should vote against Smith because she once saw a psychiatrist while in college."

  • "Genocide cannot be all bad. It limits the population."

  • "The death penalty is justified. It keeps at least one person from hurting anyone ever again."

  • "Voting is a sham. No nationwide election was ever decided by one vote."

  • "Cloning human beings is immoral. Every person has a right to be genetically unique."

  • "Bigotry must be tolerated, because most bigots are sincere."

• Even strong Stage 2 arguments can be deficient because they don't consider the opposing side.

• Hearing only one side of an issue is not very informative as stronger arguments may exist for alternative conclusions.

Stage 3: Two-Sided Argument

• Involves offering both a positive and a negative argument.

• Requires two-sidedness but not necessarily sufficiency, strength, or relevance.

• Addresses at least one alternative position, potentially more.

• Examples:

  • "We should regulate handguns because that would reduce the number of accidental and impulsive gun killings every year (positive). The argument that handguns are needed in self-defense is question-begging; if there were fewer guns, there would be less need to use them in self-defense (negative)."

  • "We should not regulate handguns because that would violate the liberty of citizens guaranteed under the Second Amendment (negative). We should make handgun ownership easier rather than more difficult, because an armed society is a safe society (positive)."

  • "Vote for Smith because she will appoint good Supreme Court Justices (positive). Don't vote for the other guy because he accepts money from big corporations (negative)."

• Similar to Stage 2, even a two-sided argument can be weaker than an alternative position if it disregards objections and defenses.

• Moving beyond two-sidedness to responsiveness is essential to assess the true strength of a position.

• Positive arguments for contrary conclusions may be stronger, or negative arguments may reveal insufficiency or invalidity.

• Criticized positions might have adequate responses.

Stage 4: Two-Sided and Responsive Argument

• Involves offering positive and negative arguments while also anticipating and responding to objections.

• Requires arguing two-sidedly and responsively.

• Responsiveness:

  • Positive arguments seek out and respond to objections.

  • Negative arguments seek out and respond to rebuttals or defenses.

  • Responding involves noting the objection, assessing its strength, and explaining why it doesn't overturn one's position.

• A two-sided argument is not necessarily responsive; it may disregard objections and defenses.

• When two-sided arguments become responsive, strength assessment and comparison with contrary conclusions become possible.

• Responsiveness involves confronting objections to one's own arguments, not just criticizing others.

• A willingness to listen to and answer criticisms is essential.

• Even strong arguments can be weaker than counter-arguments.

• Argument becomes serious at Stage 4 because it includes practices to strengthen arguments.

• Stage 4 responsiveness improves relevance, strength, sufficiency, validity, and soundness.

• Answering objections and rebuttals requires addressing false or irrelevant premises, invalid reasoning, and unclear language.

• Be willing to uncover the weakness, admit the strength.

• Calls for concessions to strong arguments on the other side & identifying major alternatives to one's position and assessing their objections.

• Argument revision may involve retracting parts of a thesis, adding new arguments, qualifying oversimplified statements, acknowledging exceptions, or making concessions.

• Alternative arguments are found through study, imagination, and experience.

• Responsiveness is strengthened through a lifetime of sensitive listening and observation.

• Stage 4 is dialectically stable because it inherently involves continuous improvement.

Stage 5: Non-Existent

• Responsiveness is a matter of degree, with no definitive Stage 5.

• Commitment to surpass current responsiveness levels is crucial.

• Responding to objections about insufficient responsiveness is part of the process.

• Stage 4 requires continuous listening, learning, and revising in light of criticism.

• Argument improves at this stage, making it serious.

Perspectives on the Stages

• Stages 1, 2, and 3 allow for random belief selection, while Stage 4 is incompatible with it.

• Stages 1, 2, and 3 do not necessarily lead to truth, correctness, validity, wisdom, or justice; Stage 4 is needed for inquiry towards an adequate position.

• Greek skeptics' concept of equipollent arguments applies to Stages 1, 2, and 3, but not Stage 4.

• Stage 4 demonstrates a concern for the strength and validity of arguments, not just their form.

• A stage of argument is finally serious when we cannot make an equipollent counter-argument at a moment's notice.

General points

• Arguments at the same stage can vary in strength.

• Stages 2 and 3 can be seen as verbal decoration if equipollent arguments can be easily created.

• Progression through stages:

  • Assertion (Stage 1) is necessary but not sufficient for argument.

  • Argument (Stage 2) is necessary but not sufficient for two-sided argument.

  • Two-sided argument (Stage 3) is necessary but not sufficient for responsive argument.

• Students typically learn responsiveness later than two-sidedness.

• Assignments that encourage students to respond to strong arguments against their position can help them move from Stage 3 to Stage 4.

• Stage 4 arguments are necessary but not sufficient for resolving long-standing disputes.

• Advancing through stages introduces new logical virtues:

  • Stage 1 to 2: Unargued to argued positions.

  • Stage 2 to 3: One-sided to two-sided arguments.

  • Stage 3 to 4: Unresponsive to responsive arguments.

Argument Properties by Stage

Appendix for Logicians

• Stages are not defined by validity and truth or validity and soundness.

• Validity applies only to deductive arguments, while ethical arguments aren't always deductive.

• The aim is to classify argument strategies that can be carried out validly or invalidly, soundly or unsoundly.

• Even sound Stage 2 or 3 arguments can be strengthened through two-sidedness or responsiveness.

• Teachers may avoid judging the truth of student conclusions, focusing instead on the strength of arguments.

• The framework allows for commenting on the stage of an argument without addressing its soundness.

• Labels are designed for non-controversial application, similar to naming common fallacies, to facilitate progress in disputes.

• Cogency: Some logicians define an argument as cogent if it is valid, sound, and considers all relevant evidence. Failure to reach Stage 4 affects cogency, not validity or soundness.

• The value of staging arguments lies in helping teachers instruct argument, not illuminating argument itself.

• The method aims to make the application non-controversial and does not depend on correctness.

• Positive and negative arguments can be difficult to distinguish, especially when there are only two contradictory options.

• My reply has both positive and negative elements —positive for supporting my view, negative for undermining the contradictory view.

Application to Ethics and Mathematics:

• These stages of argument apply in ethics but not mathematics.

• In mathematics, a one-sided and unresponsive argument can be perfect when proving a theorem within a formal system.

• In ethics and politics, premises are often as disputed as conclusions, leading to criticism of premises.

• The stages apply in any discipline where premises are as much in dispute as the conclusions.

• Assigning a Stage 4 argument is more suitable for philosophy papers than mathematics papers.

Stage 1: Absence of Argument (Dogmatism)

• This stage is characterized by making an assertion without any supporting argument, also referred to as dogmatism.

Stage 2: One-Sided Argument

• This stage involves offering either a positive or negative argument, but not both. Arguments can be either positive or negative but are only one-sided. Example: "Assisted suicide should be legal because liberty is valuable."

• Even strong arguments in this stage can be deficient due to the lack of consideration for opposing viewpoints.

Stage 3: Two-Sided Argument

• In this stage, both a positive and a negative argument are presented. While it includes responsiveness to at least one alternative position, it may still overlook some objections. Example: "We should regulate handguns because that would reduce gun killings (positive); however, handguns are necessary for self-defense (negative)."

• This stage allows for a more informative discussion but is still not wholly robust.

Stage 4: Two-Sided and Responsive Argument

• This stage involves not only offering positive and negative arguments but also anticipating and responding to objections.

• A strong argument at this stage addresses weaknesses and strengths critically, improving sufficiency and validity. Example: "We should regulate handguns to reduce gun killings (positive) while noting that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed (negative). However, we can argue that fewer guns in society will enhance safety without infringing upon individual rights (responses to objections)."

Summarize - the four different state of arguments, from simplest (stage #1) to most complex (stage #4)

1. Stage 1: Claim - This stage introduces a simple assertion or statement without consideration of opposing views.

2. Stage 2: Justified Claim - Here, the argument is supported with evidence, beginning to incorporate rationale behind the assertion, although it may not address counterarguments yet.

3. Stage 3: Counterargument - At this level, the argument begins to include acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints and responses, enhancing its depth by presenting both sides of the issue.

4. Stage 4: Two-Sided and Responsive Argument - This most complex stage not only presents positive and negative arguments but also anticipates and addresses objections effectively, aiming for a balanced and well-reasoned conclusion.

Stage 1: Absence of Argument (Dogmatism)
This stage is characterized by making an assertion without any supporting argument, also referred to as dogmatism.

Stage 2: One-Sided Argument
This stage involves offering either a positive or negative argument, but not both. Arguments can be either positive or negative but are only one-sided. Example: "Assisted suicide should be legal because liberty is valuable."
Even strong arguments in this stage can be deficient due to the lack of consideration for opposing viewpoints.

Stage 3: Two-Sided Argument
In this stage, both a positive and a negative argument are presented. While it includes responsiveness to at least one alternative position, it may still overlook some objections. Example: "We should regulate handguns because that would reduce gun killings (positive); however, handguns are necessary for self-defense (negative)."
This stage allows for a more informative discussion but is still not wholly robust.

Stage 4: Two-Sided and Responsive Argument
This stage involves not only offering positive and negative arguments but also anticipating and responding to objections.
A strong argument at this stage addresses weaknesses and strengths critically, improving sufficiency and validity. Example: "We should regulate handguns to reduce gun killings (positive) while noting that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed (negative). However, we can argue that fewer guns in society will enhance safety without infringing upon individual rights (responses to objections).

explain why I will use stage 3 two-sided argument in my research paper

I will use a Stage 3 two-sided argument in my research paper because this approach allows for a comprehensive discussion of the topic by presenting both positive and negative perspectives. This stage encourages critical engagement with the issue by addressing alternative positions, which can enhance the depth and quality of the argument. By incorporating differing viewpoints, I can provide a more balanced analysis, which makes my argument stronger and more persuasive. Additionally, acknowledging opposing arguments demonstrates intellectual honesty and the willingness to engage with complexities, thus bolstering the credibility of my research.

Write six sentences, a stage 4 two-sided and responsive argument on social media monitoring Social media monitoring has become a contentious issue, especially in the context of privacy and security. On one hand, proponents argue that monitoring can enhance public safety by identifying potential threats and preventing harm. However, critics express concern over the infringement of individual rights, highlighting the potential for abuse and misuse of personal data. Furthermore, while social media monitoring can provide valuable insights for law enforcement, it also raises ethical questions about surveillance practices and the importance of maintaining user privacy. An effective response to these concerns involves implementing strict regulations and transparency measures to ensure that monitoring is conducted ethically and legally. Ultimately, striking a balance between safety and privacy is essential for fostering trust within the community.