Argumentation

CaseStudy9Strike1 ArgumentationTextbook3rded.

CaseStudy 9

This case study is about a strike that took place in the early 20th century, the Bread and Roses

strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Your text this week is a podcast. The speaker, Randi

Hensley, is not just a historian but also a political activist and organizer. Her audience is not a

classroom of students but a political organization. She is not just a story teller; she is an arguer.

Hensley’s argument is posted on D2L or available here:
https://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/bread-and-roses-lawrence-strike-of-1912

Listen to Hensley’s argument. You may need to listen to the audio more than once; an initial

listening to take it all in then a more focused listen, take notes, remember details you’ll want to

go back to later.

Written Questions:

1) Start with the basics: Who is arguing? What is the claim? What are some assumptions
you can make about the setting of the argument?

2) Describe Hensley’s narrative in terms of its extrinsic dimensions.
3) Describe Hensley’s narrative in terms of its intrinsic dimensions
4) Evaluate Hensley’s argument with respect to the narrative’s coherence.

Writing Assignment:

Read the articles above. Notice that all have embedded links and specific information. You

may find it useful or necessary to follow up or do some additional reading.

After reading the argument text(s) above, answer the following questions. Your answers

should be written and submitted to the appropriate dropbox/assignment folder in either a

MSWord or pdf format.

This is formal, academic writing. Things like grammar, spelling, and formatting count.

Students who are not confident in their writing skills should take advantage of the MSU

Writing Center. Some things you should keep in mind:

1) You need a cover page, properly formatted

2) Header. Page number in the upper right-hand corner.

3) Each answer is expected to be 1 – 2 paragraphs; about 1/2 page

4) In college level/upper level writing, assume you are citing at least one source

approximately once every paragraph

5) You need a reference page

6) In the Department of Communication Studies, the standard is APA. Unless told

otherwise, write in APA.

This is a major assignment. The expectation is that you’ll be spending five or six hours

on this assignment:

https://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/bread-and-roses-lawrence-strike-of-1912

https://www.mnsu.edu/success/tutoring/writing-center.html

https://www.mnsu.edu/success/tutoring/writing-center.html

1 – 2 hours of reading

1 – 2 hours of analysis/reviewing theory

2 – 3 hours of writing and proofreading

Argumentation
Literacy

Third Draft

2

August 24, 2020
Welcome to the study of argumentation. Argument, using reasons and evidence to come to
conclusions, is an essential element of communication
The study of argumentation, just in the Western tradition, is over 2000 years old. It was studied
by Plato and Aristotle, written about in Indian Kamas and by Confucian scholars. To help get a
handle on this diverse and long tradition, I put together this textbook to cover some of the
foundational concepts.
This is the third revision of the textbook written as part of my sabbatical project in the Fall of
2018.
The textbook has been used by more than 100 students and has been updated and revised more
than once. I am sure that this version also has typos, dead links, and makes references to
chapters that don’t exist anymore. I ask you all to be patient, let me know where you see the
errors so I can fix them.
All of your quizzes will cover the material in the textbook. When you do discussions and case
studies, you’ll be asked to apply and show you understand the concepts covered in the textbook
readings.
My goal in this project was to develop a textbook that would work with my course as I taught it
but also be a resource for students and educators. It was important to me that this be an open-
source textbook. Feel free to download, print, or share this textbook with others.
Thank you to the reviewers who have consented to look at this textbook and give me their
feedback. Thanks to students to sought out typos and grammatical errors for extra credit.
Finally, thanks to the Department of Communication Studies and School of Communication at
Minnesota State University, Mankato for the opportunity to do this work.

James Patrick Dimock
Professor of Communication Studies
Minnesota State University, Mankato

Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Chapter 1: Part 1 – Argument in the Social World ………………………………………………………………………. 10
Part 2 – Argumentation and Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Part 3 – Argumentation in the Political World ………………………………………………………………………… 27
Chapter 2 Language & Argument …………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Chapter 3: The Setting ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
Chapter 4: Making Claims ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74
Chapter 5: Evidence ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 83
Chapter 6: Logic …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 104
Induction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 106
Deduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 114
Fallacies …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 122
Chapter 7: Structural Descriptions of Argument ……………………………………………………………………… 126
Part 1: Argumentative & Non-argumentative Elements of a Text …………………………………………….. 126
Part 2: Types of Argument ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 129
Part 3: Compound & Complex arguments ……………………………………………………………………………. 136
Chapter 8: Definitions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 146
Chapter 9: Narrative …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 152
Chapter 10: The Scientific Method ………………………………………………………………………………………… 163
Chapter 11: Visual Arguments and Images …………………………………………………………………………….. 179
Appendix 1: Theory and Foundations ……………………………………………………………………………………. 188

INTRODUCTION 4

Introduction

What is an Argument?
There are many different definitions of argument. Some people have even gone so far as to claim that
all communication is argumentative and, because we cannot not communicate, we are always arguing
all the time. This is not the view taken in this course. Here, we define argument much more narrowly:
Argumentation is a verbal act wherein a claim is supported by reasons within a setting.
Over the course of the next several chapters, we will fill in and round out each of the aspects of this
definition. For now, however, we can provide a brief description:
Verbal act – Intentional human behavior using a system of socially constructed/shared symbols;
language. If it doesn’t used words on some level, it isn’t an argument.
A claim – Not all verbal acts make claims, asking questions or issuing commands for example. A
claim is a statement about the world (as opposed to the speaker’s internal world of feelings and
opinions) which can be true or false. We call this a truth-value or T-value.
Reasons – Evidence and logic. The truth or falsity of the claim is determined by the strength of
the evidence (facts, data) and soundness of the logic (lack of fallacies or other errors). Reasoning
is an effort to establish what is true (or probably true) and what is false.
Reasoning is about establishing proof, not convincing – which is persuasion (see text box
Rhetoric).
A setting – One of the most important aspects of argument is the setting. The setting of an
argument consists of assumptions. We make assumptions about the world but we when we
argue we also make assumptions about argument. The setting of an argument specifies what
kinds of claims can be made, what counts as evidence, and what defines sound reasoning.
People have probably been arguing as long as they have been speaking and they have been studying
argument and debate long before Socrates was corrupting the youth of Athens. Since the founding of
communication studies as a distinct discipline in the early 1900s, two trends have defined
communication pedagogy: performance and analysis.
Some course in communication study are about helping you become a better communicator. You learn
to speak better and with more confidence in public. You learn to work together in groups and teams.
Other courses of learning are about analysis, about understanding phenomenon (things, stuff) in the
world around us. In an ideal world, theory and analysis support practice and practice informs and directs
theory and analysis. We learn more about communication practices and, as a result, we improve
communication not just personally but more generally. Analysis uses theory to provide insight into
phenomenon.
It is important to keep in mind that the present work is an introduction to argumentation theory and
analysis. Students approaching this course should already have some background to argumentation or
persuasion and to written and oral communication. Courses in public speaking, introductory writing,

INTRODUCTION 5

critical thinking or logic. Most students have been introduced to some basic ideas such as fallacies.
Generally, the focus of such courses has been on performance. You learned about fallacies in order to
avoid them in your speaking and writing.
This is a course in theory and analysis. Specifically, this textbook is about argumentation literacy.
Literacy refers to the ability to read. When a person is literate, it means they are able to translate
written symbols into language they can understand. Cultural literacy refers to the ability to read and
understand cultural situations and cultural texts. Cultural literacy suggest that reading texts is a layered
experience. The more literate we are, the more we’re able to read within a given text.
Take a movie like the animated Dreamworks film Shreck. If you watched the movie as a kid, you
probably laughed at the jokes. If you go back and watch it now, however, you’ll see jokes you never
noticed. Jokes that were never intended for kids. Adults are more culturally literate. They’ve read more
and experienced more so they see more in the text than kids will.
To become argumentatively literate is to be able to take a text and read the argument. In the same way
reading a film or another cultural artifact or experience requires some perspective and understanding,
argumentative literacy requires an understanding of arguments. The more we understand about
arguments in an abstract, theoretical way, the more able we are to apply that understanding to specific
instances of argument which we also call argumentative texts.
The beginning of literacy is being able to distinguish written words from other visual markers. What
makes the letter “a” different from a circle or triangle or a squiggly line? What makes words different
from random collections of letters? What makes a sensible sentence?
Argumentation literacy begins with basic literacy skills. It begins with being able to differentiate
between arguments and non-arguments. As we become more argumentatively literate, we are able to
make fine distinctions not just between arguments and other forms of communication but between the
argumentative and non-argumentative dimensions of a text. Argumentation literacy means finding the
argument.
Before picking up this textbook or taking this class, you should have developed some understanding of
argument. You should be able to start summarizing an argumentative text, to identify its basic features.
It requires at least some ability to break down the text, to figure out what the arguer is trying to say, the
point they’re trying to make. A summary is a reduction of the text to its principle or most important
elements. The second step in analysis is application of some theory or idea to the text in order to say
more about it, to unpack its argumentative features and characteristics. This is what we call description.
Finally, arguments are tasks. They do things purposefully and thus can be evaluated in terms of their
ability to accomplish those tasks.
Text
Students in communication often encounter the word text. A text refers to a body of communication
that has been recorded, such as a book or an essay. Typically, texts are written works but may also
include videos or performances. Texts are fixed, in the sense that we can go back to them and they will
be the same; others who look at them will see or read the same thing we do.
We encounter arguments as and within texts. Argument texts nearly always include non-argumentative
elements. They may be well written or poorly written. They are sometimes organized and clear but may
also be messy.

INTRODUCTION 6

Summary
Summary is an interpretation of a text. While texts are fixed, readers are different and every reader
brings a little bit of themselves to every reading so summary will be different and will reflect not only
the fixed text but the point of view of the reader (the person who summarizes the text).
This is because summaries are reductions of the text. If you were to go see a movie and then summarize
that movie to a friend, you wouldn’t recite every single event or line of dialogue. You would try to hit the
important parts, the main ideas. Summaries are always smaller than the texts they summarize. They give
less information than the original text.
As summarizers, we select those details we believe are the most important. That means we are also
selecting which details are unimportant or less important. A summary organizes the selected details,
puts them together in a way that makes sense. This also requires synthesizing, defining, and judgments
all of which are reflections of the assumptions and experiences of the read.
This is why we say that all texts have an ineliminable subjectivity.
This doesn’t mean that every summary is correct or that all interpretations are equal. Some
interpretations are simply wrong; they are not supported by the text. When thinking about
interpretation, many readers have a tendency to look for the “right” answer on the assumption that
there can be only one interpretation. It is, however, more accurate to think about texts as fields of
meaning, as a space within which there may be a number of reasonable interpretations.
A summary is a reduction of the text to its principle constitutive elements. It is reductive because it
makes the text smaller. It isn’t all the details. It skips some facts or information and focuses on others
instead. Interpretations differ from one another because as readers we select different details and we
organize those details differently.
Teachers have long used student summaries as ways of assessing student literacy. You’re given a novel.
You are required to summarize that novel as proof that you actually read it.
The summary of an argument text, as opposed to a literary or aesthetic text, begins by recognizing the
argument as an argument. It must include at least two constitutive elements: a claim (or point, a main
idea, an assertion) and some kind of reasoning (evidence, proof, logic, or other information that infers or
implies the truth of the claim). If the text doesn’t have these two things, it isn’t an argumentative text. If
the summary doesn’t include these two elements, it isn’t an argumentative summary.
A summary of argument is the lowest level of argumentation literacy. It is an important first step
because description begins with summarization. Good summaries establish a foundation for good
analysis.
Description
A summary is smaller than the text it summarizes. It says less. A description requires analysis of the text.
It adds to the text. It says more.
Description is the application of theory to a text. The theory tells us things about the text that are not in
the text.
Suppose after a bad day at school, a kid comes home and kicks his dog. First, let us recognized that what
we have is a summary of that child’s day. It is a dramatic reduction of what took place. A description
would apply some kind of theory to explain, to add further information about the phenomenon or

INTRODUCTION 7

experience. Those of us who’ve taken freshman psych might recognize the child’s behavior as
transference, a theoretical concept which explains why people sometimes hurt animals; it is a transfer of
the anger and resentment caused by someone who the subject can’t resist to someone or something
the subject an act out that aggression on.
The theory adds to our understanding of what is taking place.
A description of argument would begin with a summary of the argument but then adds theory in order
to give us an expanded view of the argument. The theory provides insight into the argument. It lets us
say things we weren’t able to say on the basis of the text alone.
Often, theories are what we call naïve. A naïve theory is one formed impressionisticly, based on our own
experiences without a conscious effort to build the theory. A reflexive, or formal theory, is one that is
consciously constructed. Reflexive theory checks individual experience against the experience of others.
As you learn more about any subject, you learn theories of the phenomenon in question whether that
phenomenon is the movement of light through space or the workings of the human circulatory system
or theatre. A theory of argument provides us with tools we can use to describe arguments (see also
Describing Theories). Theories give us precise language that we can use to differentiate between
different features of the argument text. Because theories explain how concepts are related to one
another, we can often make inferences about those things we don’t see because the theory tells us to
expect them.
Some students struggle with moving from summary to description. It is not always an easy transition to
make intellectually.
Summarizing first, and a detailed and critical summary, is the best start to a good description. Using
argumentation terms and concepts to name the features of argument helps. It establishes a framework
for making further inferences—sometimes little more than informed guesses—about the argument text.
Description will use theory, what it knows about argumentation in the abstract, to make statements
about the present text (sometimes called a case).
The best structured descriptions will begin with the summary, followed by a explication of the
theoretical concept or idea, and then showing how the idea thus explicated applied to the text.
Evaluation
Arguments are tasks. They are not merely expressions but have a purpose. They are structured to
achieve a particular end or goal. The purpose of an argument is to provide reason (evidence and logic)
which supports the veracity of the claim. If the argument works, it allows us to conclude that a claim is
probably true or that one claim is more likely to be true than another.
All human tasks can be assessed in terms of their ability to accomplish their given ends. If the task is to
change a tire on a car, we can assess the task in terms of how well the tire is changed: how quickly, how
safely, whether or not the car was able to function effectively after.
An argument is an attempt to provide proof for a claim. It is important to recognized that argumentation
is different from rhetoric (see also X). The task of rhetoric is to persuade. It is political. Argument is
semantic or truth-seeking.
It is important, therefore, that we distinguish between what we call impressionistic evaluation of
argument and reflexive evaluation. An impressionistic evaluation is a statement on the impressions of
the critic (a member of the audience who summarizes, describes, and evaluates arguments). An

INTRODUCTION 8

impressionistic evaluation is statement about the inner world of the critic rather than the argument
itself.
For example, students of argument often develop their evaluations using terms like: I connect with the
argument…the argument makes sense to me…I get the argument…I buy it…I believe it…I am convinced
or unconvinced…
These are not evaluations of the argument but statements about the impressions of the critic. What
they think, what they feel, what they believe and like or don’t like.
A reflexive evaluation applies theories of argument to assess the soundness of an argument. We may
believe an argument is sound but still reject the conclusion (claim) because we believe there is evidence
or stronger logic which supports a competitive claim. A reflexive evaluation is a statement about the
argument, not necessarily the beliefs or values of the arguer.
One of the most difficult elements of argumentative literacy is to assess fairly and objectively the
strength of arguments we personally disagree with.
Evaluating Arguments
Prima Facie

One of the most difficult things for argument critics is to objectively evaluate arguments when we
disagree with the conclusions. There are all kinds of reasons why an argument which is objectively
sound may arrive at a conclusion we disagree with.

While one of the ways we critique arguments is to engage with them, evaluating arguments is not the
same as debating them. The critic is a member of the audience, not a fellow arguer or interlocutor.

One of the intellectual tools argument critics use is a standard called prima facie. Literally “first look,”
the term means “in the absence of refutation.” To say an argument is prima facie sound is to say that,
while there may be evidence to the contrary and a stronger case could be made for a contradictory or
contrary claim, based on what was presented, the argument meets the initial threshold for a sound
argument.

Prima facie doesn’t mean good; it means that the argument meets the absolute minimum standards
for an acceptable argument.

Consider the following argument:

Many people say Daniel Ellsberg was a hero for his act of civil disobedience, releasing secret military
documents and proving the United States was guilty of all kinds of dirty tricks during the Vietnam
War, including lying to the American public.

Ellsberg was a civilian. By definition, a civilian is not in the military. Civilians don’t have the
context or the background to understand much less judge military policy and the decisions of
our commanders. Even if what the government was doing was wrong, those wrongs could be
addressed after the war. Civilians are just not qualified to second-guess the decisions of
military leaders.

INTRODUCTION 9

Let’s refine this argument:
⎯ The claim is a universal negative—No Ellsberg is a hero.
⎯ The evidence of the claim is that Ellsberg was a civilian. No civilian has knowledge necessary
to interfere in military decisions.

⎯ It is assumed that the audience knows that Ellsberg did interfere with and second-guess the
decisions of military leaders. It’s also assumed that no one who does what is wrong can be a
hero.

Logically this makes sense. The arguer works with a basic categorical syllogism. The logic is sound. The
arguer defines civilian although in the negative so the definition could be better it supports the major
premise. It doesn’t cite sources but, to my knowledge, everything is accurate.

So, prima facie, this argument isn’t the best argument but it is sound.

A contra-argument, might challenge the major premise, that no civilian is capable of judging military
decisions. As an expert on military history working at a Pentagon supported think tank, employed to
study the Vietnam war, that premise is not one I would accept. I think the argument will ultimately
not stand up to criticism but, prima facie, it was a sound argument.

Arguer’s advance claims and support those claims with evidence and reasoning. This assumes a
setting which assume the burden of proof or threshold the arguer must meet in order to have a prima
facie argument. In a court of law, for example, the prosecutor must make a prima facie case before
the defense puts on a single witness. If the prosecutor fails to do so, the defense will move to dismiss
on the grounds that they don’t need to make an argument because the prosecutor has not met their
burden of proof, proof beyond reasonable doubt.

To say an argument is prima facie means the argument meets the minimum standards. At the
conclusion of a prima facie argument, the debate is not over but the arguer has overcome the
presumption. Once we say an argument is prima facie, it can be assumed true until an interlocutor
responds, the technical term is rejoins, to the argument.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 10

Chapter 1: Argument in the Social World

Not an Argument
Verbal Aggression

Imagine the following scenario.

You come home late after class one evening and your roommates are in an argument.
Roommate A left a piece of pie in the refrigerator. Roommate B has eaten the pie.

“You knew that was mine! You do this all the time,” shouts A.
“We made a rule,” B fires back. “If it’s there for more than 24 hours, it’s fair game. You leave
garbage in there all the time. Till it molds!”

Both roommates are raising their voices. Waving their arms. Doors will be slammed. After
tonight, perhaps the argument will go on for days. Roommate B will sulk in their room and
give A the silent treatment.

To call this communication exchange argument seems perfectly normal. This is how laypeople (people
who have a general sense of argument) as opposed to experts (people trained in argumentation
theory) use the word. In this sense, argument refers to a disagreement between two or more people
in which both use a number of communicative and non-communicative strategies to assert power
relative to the other. Pretty complicated…people trying to push other people around to get what they
want ☺

While this situation involves communication, it also involves the denial of communication along with
other behaviors which, while communicative, are not rational. The roommates in this scenario are not
engaged in what we call argument but something fundamentally different: Verbal Aggression.

Like verbal aggression, arguments are verbal acts centered on some conflict or disagreement. What
makes arguments different is that argumentation is a reason-giving activity, it is directed at
influencing the way people think, what they believe. Aggression is coercive.

In our scenario, Roommate A is not trying to persuade or prove they were in the right but to get
Roommate B to agree. A’s position is based on making something unpleasant happen—or stop
happening. “Admit you stole my pie and apologize,” Roommate A says, “and I will stop yelling.”
Roommate B’s response is not a reasoned rebuttal but also coercive. “Let the pie go and I’ll start
communicating with you again.”

As experts, or as people who are becoming experts, we take care how we use terms. We’re conscious
that words laypeople use are often the same words (homophones) as the words experts use but they
use them in very different ways. As experts, our language is precise and informed by an theoretical
understanding. We are careful and deliberate in our use of language to describe our subject:
argument. .

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 11

Pat 1: Nature of Human Beings
In the movie Castaway, actor Tom Hanks plays Chuck Noland, a man who survives a plane crash on a
deserted island in the middle of the ocean. All alone, Noland spends his days talking to a volleyball he
has named Wilson. In a surprisingly heart wrenching scene, Wilson is lost during the attempt to escape
from the island. Hanks nearly loses his own life trying to save his only friend.
A volleyball?
Castaway says something about human nature. We are not meant to be alone. Noland befriends a
volleyball because human beings are inherently social. To be utterly alone is antithetical to human
nature. The philosopher Aristotle said that human beings are political animals. We were, he said, born to
live in a polis—a social, political, and economic community.
Isolated and alone, human beings struggle to survive, to provide for their basic needs such as food,
clothing, and shelter. More than our economic needs, our emotional and psychological health depends
on social interaction and engagement. Our ability to access the power of our brains, memory, and
imagination depend on learning from other humans. We learn a language followed by other more
complicated skills essential for surviving in given society. In one society that means avoiding crocodiles
and in another speeding cars.
Everywhere we find human beings, even going back in the fossil record to our pre-human ancestors,
looking at our closest relatives among the great apes, we find sociality. We are social beings, creatures
who evolved in and to function within social systems. We evolved from tool-makers, hunters who
coordinated their efforts to bring down big mammals, mammoths and whales, and gatherers who were
able to deduce the life cycle of the plants they ate, and domesticate them.
How do we do it?
Certainly other animals, like wolves and meerkats, live in social groups and depend on one another for
their survival. Their ways of being, however, are static. They don’t change. They don’t innovate. Their
behavior is governed by instinct. While some animals, such as dogs, can learn complicated skills, they
cannot teach those skills to other dogs. They can show but never tell or explain or elaborate.
Humans’ social lives are dynamic. Many of the skills that would have been considered essential for our
grandparents or great grandparents to survive are totally forgotten. While all living things adapt to their
environments, humans manage their needs in ways that are fundamentally different. We use reason.
We use reason to adapt our environments to our needs.
We live in societies and societies are systems. None of us is self-sufficient. The business owner depends
on her employees to show up and on her suppliers and distributors. The farmer depends on the grain
elevator and the railroads. Very few of us build the homes we live in. We take our cars to a specialist
who fixes them. Without an organized social, economic, and political system, our lives would be very
different and significantly more primitive.
Systems—ecosystems, multinational corporations, even the human body—have mechanisms for
regulating the behavior of its constituent elements. Like a children’s teeter-totter, they can be in

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 12

balance or out of balance. Systems must regulate their internal workings, managing inputs and outputs.
Without those regulatory mechanisms, systems would break down.
Every cell in the human body, for example, needs oxygen. The body must have a way of bringing in air
(nose and mouth), of getting the oxygen in that air into the bloodstream (lungs) and moving the oxygen
to each and every cell (heart and circulatory system). The system must then take the waste produced
(carbon dioxide) out of the body. If anyone of these systems breaks down or fails to work properly, the
body will break down either starved for oxygen or suffocated by carbon dioxide.
Social systems are more complicated and human social systems are especially complex. Human societies
address needs that are often much harder to define. Food and oxygen are basic. So are shelter and
safety. Things like love or self-actualization, however, are much more amorphous; much harder to
define and measure. Providing food for everyone is a material need every member of society needs.
Education and entertainment are also necessary and vary widely both in terms of what the society
needs and what different people need. Not everyone likes slapstick comedy; we need ditch-diggers and
professors.
So how do human systems regulate themselves, control their inputs and outputs and manage everything
that happens in between?
The mechanisms of human social control are complex and often overlapping. Some are clear and overt,
like rules which govern behavior, while others are more subtle, like social norms. We have mechanisms
which orient us. These mechanisms go to work before we behave; they channel our actions in a
prescribed or desired direction. Societies, big and small, also need mechanisms to correct behavior after
the fact, punishing transgressions. Some of these mechanism are visible and obvious. Others work best
when they are unseen, when they are implied and hinted at rather than expressed overtly. Often, these
mechanisms overlap with one another.
For example, when you started school, your first year teacher may have told you to be in your desk
when the bell rings and raise your hand when you want to talk. Those regulated your behavior before
you acted, telling you what to do. If you talked out of turn, and your teacher sent you to the corner to
think about your behavior, that was corrective. If when you wore a shirt with a unicorn on it, the other
kids laughed, that was informal but also corrective. You probably wouldn’t wear that shirt again.
Sometimes these formal and inform, orienting and correcting mechanisms conflict with one another.
Take underage drinking for example. The express rules say it is always wrong and there are correctives if
the rule is broken. At the same time, peers often make it clear that being part of the group means at
least tolerating that behavior, and often glorifies it. The two sets of norms conflict.
Two Types of Mechanism
We can generally distinguish between two forms of social control, coercion (repressive; hard power) and
persuasion (ideological; soft power). To see how they work differently, imagine that you are driving a
car. You’re in a hurry and you don’t want to be late. You could drive faster, exceeding the speed limit.
There are two factors which influence your decision.
Factor one is the police. If you speed and if you get caught, you’ll get a fine.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 13

This is social control by coercion. Do what you’re told (in this case the speed limit) or else. You may still
want to speed. You may still even chose to speed. You could consider the probability that you’ll get
caught and you could weigh that against the costs and benefits. How late will you really be? Is it worth
the speeding ticket to risk it?
As a society, we could influence your decision in a two ways. We could increase the probability that
you’d be caught (more police on the highway) or increase the severity of the punishment. If the worst
case scenario is only a few dollars, then speeding may be worth the risk. A few hundred? A thousand?
Jail time?
All of these factors involve thinking but the defining aspect of this mode of social control is the infliction
of pain. Do what you’re told or you’ll get your hand slapped. It’s the same method of social control used
to housetrain a pet.
Coercion, or a conditional threat to inflict pain in order to influence behavior, is often an effective
method of controlling behavior. It does have certain problems however. First, while we might justify this
kind of control with small children—spanking for trying to touch a hot stove; isolated to a bedroom for
fighting—it is much more difficult to rationalize between adults and equals. We may accept it in some
spheres of our social life—our boss can fire us; we can get arrested for lying about our taxes—but most
areas, we resent it.
The second problem is that coercion creates conditions wherein the rational person would chose the
opposite of what we might want. Where the probability is low or the punishment weak, the rational
person might well take the risk.
Consider cheating on a test. If the test is online and the class has hundreds of students, your chance of
getting caught is quite low. If you do get caught, the teacher will give you an F on the test but since you
didn’t study anyway, an F is probably the outcome if you don’t cheat. So you probably won’t get caught
and if you don’t get caught you’ll get an A. If you don’t cheat, you’ll surely get an F.
The rational person cheats.
This is why millions of people speed and don’t pay taxes and even cheat on exams. Risk versus reward.
So let’s go back to your car. One factor is the police. The other is your passenger.
“Listen,” says your passenger. “There’s no reason to speed. If you do and get pulled over, even for a
warning, it will make us even later. And we’re only going across town. Ten miles an hour faster will only
get us there a minute earlier and it’s a party not a business meeting.”
Notice that this mechanism of social control is fundamentally different from coercion. Although your
passenger may influence your understanding of risks and rewards, they are not threatening or promising
anything. Some of their arguments, such as the difference between a party and a business meeting,
have no hint of coercion to them. This is persuasion.
Unlike coercion, which is a physical activity in the sense that it acts upon the body, persuasion is a verbal
activity. It acts upon the subject’s understanding of the world.
Persuasion has two advantages which correlate with coercion’s weaknesses. Unlike coercion, persuasion
invites a response. Arguments create conditions for counterarguments. While coercion may be

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 14

reasonable between parents and children, it is hardly the way partners treat one another. To persuade
someone suggests that we don’t have either the power or the right to make them to whatever we want.
We need to get them to choose it. Persuasion gives reasons to choose, not an order to accept.
It is important to keep in mind that in a society, like ours, that starts with the idea that everyone is
equal, there is little room for coercion. There are few circumstances when a person has the right or
power to simply tell others what to do without having to give reasons. Not in a democratically organized
system. Most of us would be very skeptical of a society in which people were not considered equals.
Such a society would almost have to work on coercion—force, violence, totalitarianism—while
democratic republics embrace persuasion and reason.
Persuasion is also more effective than coercion. As a mechanism of regulating social behavior it just
works better especially in the long term. In our example of the speeding car, the passenger’s arguments
about impractical nature of speeding—how little time you actually gain by going faster—will influence
future decisions to speed. If the driver can guess there are no cops out on the road, and the only reason
not to speed is the risk of a ticket, then there is no reason not to speed.
Consider our other example, cheating. Certainly coercion plays a role in most people’s decision-making
calculus. But more often, when I talk to students, the reasons they give for not cheating apply even if
they don’t get caught:
I’ll think less of myself.
I won’t really learn anything.

These reasons have nothing to do with material consequences. They are grounded on a set of
assumptions about the world and more precisely about education. You choose not to cheat because, in
your worldview, cheating is wrong and that is true even if you think you’d get away with it.
This is not to say that coercion has no place in or society or that persuasion is always good. Persuasion is
more time consuming. It takes more effort—sometimes considerably more effort—to convince people
to do something. In a time of crisis, for example, a decision maker may not have time to hear from
everyone or weigh all the evidence. If the ship is sinking, we can bail or launch lifeboats but we can’t
debate about it.
We should also be clear that persuasion, while it lacks the ethical problems associated with threatening
people, has its own ethical concerns. Not every effort to persuade is ethical.
Consider what we today call propaganda. Propaganda is generally recognized as persuasive, in that it
has a proven ability to influence people’s thinking, their values, and their actions. It is also unethical
because it does so by appealing to non-rational factors—prejudices and stereotypes, resentments and
fears—in ways that are inherently deceptive or manipulative.
Persuasion is not perfect.
Let’s revisit the cheating example. Suppose a case wherein a student is accused of cheating and,
moreover, that you are not that student but a decision-maker—a judge or member of a jury who will
have to answer the question of whether or not this student cheated.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 15

How should you make your decision? How would ethical people decide whether or not someone should
be punished and, if so, how?
Most of us, whether we are the accused or the victim or the adjudicator, would want to base the
decision on reasonable and objective analysis, on facts and logic. The alternative would be to base our
decision on our pre-existing ideas, our biases and prejudices, and our assumptions about the world.
When we exercise power over others and when others exercise power over us, we want that power to
be contained and exercised not a the arbitrary or capricious will of those who can but based on what is
right and true and fair.
We want arguments to decide.
Argumentation is a response to an imperfect world where we have to make choices, and choices have
consequences, in a world where the truth is often elusive. We make decisions which have real impacts
on real people’s lives even though we can’t always be certain that we are correct. Arguments exist in a
world of doubt.
Sociology of argument
Human beings are inherently social creatures. We live and work in social groups and, while some of us
may be more introverted and all of us benefit from alone time now and then, human beings simply
don’t function well without a social network to rely on. Isolation from others is recognized under
international law as a kind of torture.
The philosopher Aristotle said humans were made to live in a polis, a social-political-economic
community. Christian philosophy has a similar starting point—that man was not meant to live alone. The
fossil record provides further evidence. Our pre-human ancestors are social animals, living in complex
social organizations which provided them with certain evolutionary advantages. Those humans who
could work together, who could coordinate their activities and specialize, were able to succeed where
those who insisted on working alone turned out to be evolutionary dead ends.
Argumentation is one of those mechanisms of social interaction.
We may have internal struggles but we don’t every really debate with ourselves. Argumentation begins
with an assumption of difference, of a separation. In order for there to be an argument, there must be a
disagreement over the truth-value of a claim. One person must be saying X and at least one other
reasonable person must assert not-X.
Because argumentation is a social activity, we start understanding arguments by differentiating between
the various roles, who is doing what. There are three different roles that are played in an argument. An
argument may involve as few as two people or whole nations. There may be two sides or innumerable
standpoints, but there are only three roles and everyone who is part of the argument must play at least
one of them.
The Arguer
The arguer asserts the claim. All arguments begin with the assertion of a claim and the advancing of
reasons in support of that claim. The arguer begins the argument.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 16

The arguer is responsible for making the initial claim and presenting reasoning and evidence to support
that claim. Traditionally, the arguer has what is known as the burden of proof. Until a claim has been
supported by argument, is presumed false (see Sophistry: Shifting Burdens). The arguer is responsible
for making the claim which is up for debate and providing sufficient reason to accept the claim as true or
probably true.
A claim and the minimum level of reasons to support it, to demonstrate it meets the standards for proof
determined within that setting, is called a prima facie argument. In a court of law in the United States,
for example, a prima facie case would the responsibility of the prosecutor, who has the burden to prove
the claim “this person is guilty of this crime” beyond a reasonable doubt. An argument which fails to do
so is not prima facie.
The Interlocutor
One of the most important truths of argument, which differentiates arguments from other reason giving
activities, is that arguments invite and even anticipate counter-arguments. If there is not at least one
reasonable (based on logic and evidence, grounded in reasonable assumptions) then there is no
argument.
The interlocutor opposes the claim advanced by the arguer. Their relationship is dialectical in the sense
that any change in the position of one will necessarily determine a change in the position of the other.
For example, in a court of law, the prosecutor would be an arguer while the defense would be the
interlocutor. Suppose the prosecutor started off the trial claiming “Smith is guilty of murdering Jones”
but, because of new evidence, amended their claim to a lesser charge “Smith is responsible for Jones
death, but didn’t intend for Jones to die.” The defense attorneys would need to change their counter
arguments, away from “intentional murder” and to “(unintentional) responsibility.”
The important thing to remember is that the arguer advances a claim and thus has a burden of proof.
The interlocutor may make a number of claims (subordinate claims) which they must support but they
do not have a burden to refute the claim, or thesis. If an arguer fails to produce a prima facie argument,
the interlocutor does not need to make any argument at all. In a court of law, the prosecution must go
first and, if they don’t make a prima facie case, the judge may dismiss the case without the defense
putting forward a single argument. It isn’t necessary because, until the prima facie standard has been
met, the claim is presumptively false—the defendant is presumed to be innocent.
Interlocutors are engaged in contra-argumentation. The interlocutor may advance and defend claims
but their obligation is not to prove but to counter the proof—logic, evidence, reasonable assumptions.
The defense doesn’t need to prove the accused is innocent. The defense needs to show the prosecution
didn’t prove the accused guilty beyond the agreed upon threshold of proof, in this setting, “reasonable
doubt.”
The Audience
In some cases, arguments only involve two people—an arguer and an interlocutor. In that case the role
of the audience may also be played by one or the other or both but the role is always there.
To use our example of legal argument, the prosecution plays the role of arguer, the defense is the
interlocutor. The jury is the audience. The judge is also an audience member but in a different capacity.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 17

The task of the audience is to adjudicate the argument. The audience is situated with the arguer and the
interlocutor, in the same setting and therefore operating under the same understanding of argument.
The jury should apply the same standards of proof and rules of evidence as the prosecutor and the
defense. The judge also applies the same standards but, while the jury adjudicates questions of fact, the
judge decides questions of law. So a jury might be asked to decide which witness is more credible while
a judge would rule on whether or not testimony was admissible under the rules of procedure and
evidence.
The totality of the arguer’s reasons, including responses to counter arguments (called rebuttals), is what
is called the case. The interlocutor also makes a case although, in complex arguments there may be
multiple interlocutors who make separate, independent cases. Such cases may even be contradictory. A
case is a complete set of arguments.
The audience is presented with two, possibly more but at minimum two, cases. The audience must
weigh the evidence and the strength of the logic and determine what is most likely true.
The nature of the audience, its make-up and character, will vary according to the setting of the
argument. A legal question, such as guilt or innocence, is adjudicated in a setting where the audience is
expected to be objective, fully informed, and bound to well-defined rules of decision-making. In a
televised presidential debate, candidates play by a very different set of rules. They attempt to win over a
small pool of undecided voters while at the same time trying to motivate their voter-base. A very
different set of rules.
Scholarly audience
As students in an upper level argumentation course, you are a special kind of audience. To continue
using a courtroom metaphor, a scholarly audience is less like a jury and more like a judge. We call
scholarly audiences critics.
Critics exist in many different areas of human activity—literature, plastic arts, cooking, music, and
movies. What a critic does is apply contextually appropriate standards to describe and evaluate their
particular sphere of activity. So an art critic knows about art and uses what they know to say things
about a particular work of art which may not be immediately evident. They are able to say things about
the art that further our understanding and appreciation for the work.
Critics of argument begin with field independent understanding of arguments, including a knowledge of
non-arguments and pseudo-arguments, and apply that understanding to arguments in the same way a
food critic might apply an understanding of food chemistry, the science of flavor, to explaining certain
taste sensations, what works and what doesn’t and why. Our area of expertise is argument.
Like all forms of criticism, argumentation critics don’t just apply field independent perspectives of
argument; they also look at the context in order to determine appropriate field dependent criteria for
explaining and assessing arguments. A critique of argument isn’t concerned with the particular valences
(likes and dislikes) of the critic any more than the personal opinions of a judge should matter when
deciding rules of law and courtroom procedure. It isn’t about whether or not the claim is necessarily
true or false but whether or not, all things considered, the argument is sound.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 18

Part 2 – Argumentation and Ethics
Argumentation is a social act. We need at least two opposing positions for an argument to exist. If
everyone agrees or if there is no one to disagree with, then we don’t have an argument.
We also don’t—or shouldn’t—argue when there is nothing at stake or where two reasonable can hold
contradictory positions without any significant social or political or economic impact. You can think that
Scooby Doo is the best detective in the world and your roommate can think it’s Sherlock Holmes. That
disagreement may lead to fun, or heated, debate but the outcome isn’t really important. You can both
live your lives having your own opinions.
Arguments become meaningful when they are adjudicated (decided) and that decision has impact. If
your roommate makes a stronger argument for Holmes, you might change your mind or you might go
back and marshal your arguments from another time. If the debate is over who is responsible for
damages to your apartment, that is different. The adjudicator of that argument will decide who will pay
and who will not. There are consequences.
Ethics
There are many people who try to complicate what really is quite simple. Ethics concerns questions of
right and wrong or what we call moral, as opposed to practical, imperatives. Practical imperatives are
driven by matters of expediency or resources. Should you go to Hawaii over Spring Break? Practical
questions would concern how you would pay for it, where you would stay, who would drive you to the
airport. Practical imperatives are typically grounded in material realities, things like money and time and
resources. Practical questions are answered in terms of expediency. Which option is more likely to get
us what we want with the most efficient or expedient use of resources?
Moral imperatives are not concern with what we can do or what the most effective way to do
something is what is just, right, fair, or good. Sometimes these things are not in conflict. Sometimes the
cheapest and most effective way to do something is also good and right. Sometimes it is not.
Consider this example. You want to go to Hawaii for Spring Break. It will cost you $500 for a ticket but
you only have $300. You know your roommate has $200 in a jar of quarters. You could also do some
hard work this weekend and earn $200 but you have tickets to a show.
From a purely practical perspective, you can get your ticket, avoid hard work, and go to Hawaii if you
take the $200 from your roommate. If you can avoid the consequences (blame it on someone else) then
this is a win-win-win scenario for you.
That would be stealing, pure and simple. Most people would say that, even if you get away with it,
stealing is wrong. You shouldn’t do it even if it gives you a number of advantages or benefits.
Ethics concerns questions of what you should or should not do regardless of the practical or material
consequences.
Ethical Relativism
Ethics is a challenging topic made more complicated because ethical questions almost always involve
acting against our material interests. We want to win the game so is cheating really wrong? We don’t
want to go to work so is lying really bad?

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 19

We also have problems with different grounds or bases of ethics. Many moral imperatives are based on
commands of an authority, like a divine being (the Bible says…) or a historical destiny (true Americans
always…) or the inertia of tradition (we’ve always done…) and those authorities are always set within a
cultural (social, political, economic) context. What “we’ve always done” in the Midwest isn’t they way
they’ve done it on the coasts. My Bible says this; yours says something different and others read a
totally different book.
Who’s to say?
Let’s begin by saying that some ethical claims are really expressions of a person’s subjective values,
valences, and expectations. But just because we cannot agree on a singular authority doesn’t mean that
all ethical questions are matters of opinion.
Skepticism

Skepticism is an approach to claims which sets an impossibly high standard of proof. If you can’t prove
a claim to a degree of absolute certainty, then the claim cannot be accepted.

Skepticism denies the possibility of making truth claims. A general skepticism would say that no truth
claims can be supported. Everything is subjective or a matter of opinion. You think the Earth is 93
million miles from the Sun? Well what is a mile? What is the Sun? That’s what you think. Can you
prove the Earth isn’t flat for certain?

Of course general skepticism is a hard position to maintain, especially with concrete or material
realities like how many feet are in a mile and how many pages are in a book.

Moral skepticism suggests that all moral judgments are subjective. When I say “cheating is wrong” I
may be claiming that it is universally wrong for everyone all the time but what I am really doing is
imposing my viewpoint on everyone. I think it is wrong. It bothers me. You have just as much
authority or right to say “cheating is justified” as I have to say it is wrong. Neither of us has the right
to make moral judgments about other people’s behavior.

This approach to ethics has some appeal. It creates a lot of room for us to pursue what we want
without restricting our range of action by moral concerns. It also makes sense where there is a lot of
disagreement about what is right and what is wrong. Some people think same sex marriage is wrong
while others argue any effort to limit marriage is wrong. Both sides point the finger of judgment at
the other.

It is extremely difficult, however, to consistently maintain such a position. It would be hard to make
an argument, for example, that would say robbery or murder are morally acceptable. It would be
impossible to have a coherent social order in which people didn’t generally agree that some things
were wrong.

As scholars of argument, we are wary of skepticism. It often runs afoul of a fallacy known as
argumentum ad ignorantum. More importantly, however, it ignores the essential nature of argument:

All arguments take place in a world of uncertainty.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 20

We can never know, to an absolute degree, that murder is wrong any more than we can know to an
absolute degree that Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber or that the American War for
Independence was a good idea or that the Earth travels around the Sun.

To dismiss claims because their truth value can’t be determined to a degree of absolute certainty
denies the very possibility of argument and the need for argument. If we have a person accused of
murder, we cannot know to an absolute degree if they are guilty any more than we can know if
murder really is wrong. But we must do something about the dead body and the person with the gun.

Skepticism is only reasonable in a world where action is not required. Where action is required,
arguments are the answer to uncertainty. Uncertainty doesn’t preclude argument.

Functions of argument
Arguments exist in our social world as a response to uncertainty and the need to take actions. When we
act, and in particular when we act as a society in a coercive way—taking money by fines or taxes,
conscripting people to serve, putting people in prisons—we want to do so rationally. We want to do it
because it is the right thing to do. We accept a world in which some people go to jail because we believe
that we will only go to jail if we are in truth guilty of a crime. The exercise of this kind of power must be
rational and fair not based on prejudice or the interests of the few.
Arguments are truth-seeking activities. Arguers, interlocutors, and audiences come together in a the
context of disagreement in order to find out what is true, or most likely true. While they may disagree
vehemently on some things, all three parties come together in order to determine what that truth is and
this shared commitment gives us a basis for an ethics of argument.
In the context of an argument, anything which inhibits the truth-seeking function of argument is
unethical.
In the world, there are times when we argue and times we don’t. It is not unethical to not argue with
someone who is robbing you. Sometimes we are engaged in performances, not debates. But when three
parties come together to argue, they establish conditions—a setting—in which they express their shared
commitment to discovering the truth or falsity of a claim to the best of their shared ability.
From this, we can extrapolate some ethical principles that apply to arguments.
First, the integrity of information introduced. Good arguments rely on accurate information, reliable
reports of facts, and trustworthy data.
Lying, or deliberately introducing information known to be false, is widely recognized as unethical. In the
context of an argument, false information lead us to erroneous conclusions. The person or persons who
lie are not concerned with truth but with arriving at a predetermined conclusion. The function of
argument is short-circuited.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 21

People may argue that, under some circumstances, it is ethical to lie. If a murderer is hunting for your
friend, they lying to protect your friend would be ethical. Argument scholars would disagree. First, it is
questionable whether a murderer has a right to the truth so whether or not the false statements are
technically lies is not granted. More importantly, though, this is example is not an example of an
argument. In an argument, lying by one party even with the best of motives or intentions, implies that
the truth being sought is already known. If the truth is already known, then why argue?
Argument is truth-seeking. Inaccurate or untrue information is always antithetical to that end.
Casuistry

Casuistry is probably not a term you’ve encountered before but you have no doubt experienced the
concept. Like sophistry and rhetoric, casuistry is a verbal behavior that involves arguments, often
looks like argument, but is not an argument. We sometimes call casuistry pseudo-argument.

Arguments are semantic activity. They are truth-seeking. Even if we are reasonably convinced of our
position, the act of arguing indicates a willingness to test the proposition and a commitment to follow
the evidence and logic. If you can’t admit the possibility of you’re being wrong, then psychologically
speaking, you shouldn’t be arguing.

Arguments begin with claims and then test those claims against reason—evidence and logic.

Casuistry is often closely associated with but not limited to religious and mystical thinking. It starts
with a certain conclusion and then reasons backwards, seeking evidence and applying logic to support
the predetermined conclusion. It does not admit the probability of error and is therefore often linked
with or closely associated with dogmatic evidence and with authoritative rather than scientific
thinking.

Where most of us will encounter casuistry is in the form of rationalizing rather than arguing. Casuistry
looks for reasons and evidence but the conclusion is predetermined and the offered arguments often
have little to do with the actual motives.

For example, under authoritarian regimes, persons accused of crimes are often “guilty until proven
innocent” but casuistry goes further. There is no opportunity even to prove innocence. Guilt is pre-
determined and evidence is only sought out or presented to justify the conclusion already arrived at.
Casuistry is pseudo-argumentative in that it appears to be argumentative in its assertion of claims and
presentation of reasons but the setting is one in which the claim is already known to be true.
Arguments begin with the belief that the claim as a t-value but that value can only be known with a
degree of probability, not certainty.

Lying is not the only way the integrity of information can be corrupted. Assertions of certainty where
there is room for doubt, withholding information about potential biases or prejudices, and other
distortions of the integrity fact claims all raise ethical concerns. A lie by omission is still a lie. Preventing
or excluding information on non-rational grounds would also violate the semantic functions of
argument.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 22

For example, in the 1800s, many US states had laws on the books that prevented non-whites from giving
testifying against whites in court. In a California case in 1862, George Hall was convicted of murdering
Ling Sing on the testimony of three witnesses, all of whom were of Chinese descent. The California court
overturned Hall’s conviction, freeing him because Chinese persons should never have been allowed to
testify in court.
The racism of such laws is undeniable and unethical. From an argumentation perspective, this
immorality is compounded by the exclusion of relevant information based on irrational criteria. We
cannot come to good, accurate decisions when we exclude reports of fact and points of view without
any sound reason, a semantic reason, for doing so.
Jurgen Habermas
Ideal Speech Situation

Although there are many theories of communication and ethics, the approach taken in this book is
influenced by the German philosopher and social critic Jurgen Habermas. Habermas says ethical
arguers should strive to create situations wherein:

1. All competent stakeholders are allowed to participate
2. All participants are allowed to question or challenge any claim
3. All participants are allowed introduce claims and reports of fact
4. All participants are able to speak freely without internal or external coercion.

This would mean, for example, that in an argument over immigration, we could not exclude
information because it comes from non-citizens or even undocumented persons. We could not
require information or testimony to be in one language or exclude certain positions.

Habermas sets an ideal, a goal. It may not be workable in every (or any) situation but it sets a
standard to strive for and at its core, the standard seeks the widest and fullest consideration of the
facts.

The integrity of the information we used when we argue is important. Bad information leads to bad
decisions. Just as important is good, or sound, reasoning. We will discuss good evidence and good logic
in future chapters. With respect to ethics, we don’t necessarily think an arguer who makes logical
fallacies or draws illogical conclusions is unethical. Being wrong doesn’t make you a bad person. We do
however expect arguers to argue authentically.
In this context, authentic means that the arguments reflect the arguer’s beliefs about the world. That
they believe their arguments are rational and sound. If I am arguing fallaciously I am just a lousy arguer;
if I am choosing to argue fallaciously in order to get you to a conclusion that sound, valid logic wouldn’t
bring you to, I am arguing inauthentically. I am making arguments which I do not believe a rational
person would, or should, accept as validating a truth claim.
To argue inauthentically is to argue for a position for which you do not believe there is sufficient
reasoning or evidence. This doesn’t mean an arguer has no doubts or is absolutely certain but that they

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 23

are not advancing arguments which they believe to be unsound or unsupported. If I believe an argument
is weak but present it as though it is strong, that would be an inauthentic argument. While it is
important not to dismiss arguments just because we personally don’t find them compelling or
convincing, considering arguments we think weak is not the same as advancing an argument we know,
or believe, to be weak as though it is strong in order to manipulate a audience or interlocutor.
Devil’s Advocate

There are times when arguers engage inauthentically but ethically. The Devil’s Advocate is an
interlocutor’s role in the absence of a genuine interlocutor. A person taking such a role is usually
intentional and clear about such a role: I don’t believe this but, for the sake of argument…

While an inauthentic arguer attempts to convince an audience of a claim they themselves don’t
believe or use arguments they don’t believe to be sound, the devil’s advocate is engaging in an
important role, testing the soundness of claims by considering challenges even when no one is
present to raise them. The devil’s advocate is an important role, sometimes called a critic in small
group and decision-making theory. The devil’s advocate slows down decisions, tests the validity of
reasoning and the accuracy of evidence. The role is important as a way of avoiding rushed judgments
and groupthink
Honesty and integrity when it comes to making fact claims and being open and authentic in representing
what we believe are presumptive of the systemic realities and semantic functions of argument. As a final
ethical consideration, we want to think of arguments as ongoing. The arguments we make today
establish the conditions under which we will make arguments in the future.
Many philosophers of varying perspectives from Immanuel Kant to Jeremy Bentham to my mom have
asked “what if everyone acted that way?”
Argumentation as a semantic activity works if and only if all the parties involved are committed to the
end goal, determining what is (probably) true so we can act accordingly. Lying, dishonesty, or unfairly
excluding perspectives threatens an argument’s ability to do that. One or more parties being
disingenuous also works against the semantic goal of argument.
Those activities, and many others, don’t just upend an argument. They make it more difficult to have
arguments in the future.
Ethical arguments recognize the possibility of error. If there was no room for doubt, we would be
arguing. Even if this argument is settled, we know other arguments will arise in the future. If new
evidence is discovered or if a logical error is discovered, we can and should go back and revisit important
questions. Ethical arguers are conscious that this is not the last argument and how we argue today
establishes the conditions under which we will argue tomorrow.
Actions which close off or prevent the opportunity for future arguments are non-argumentative.
Arguments always leave the door open for further argument. Argument invited its rebuttal. External and
coercive forces close those off, barring further consideration.
Passion and energy are often unavoidable, especially where the issues are meaningful and often non-
argumentative elements will come into play. Name calling—whether vicious and spiteful or light and
witty—are not necessarily bad. Rarely is name calling fallacious even when it is mean but it can create

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 24

conditions under which some people may be unwilling to participate. If rude behavior, unruly speech,
and obnoxiousness prevent others from engaging, they threaten the ideal speech situation we should be
striving for.
While lying and inauthenticity are antithetical to the goals of a particular argument, such practices
especially when adopted by arguers and interlocutors, become expected of audiences. The
normalization of irrational, non-argumentative practices impacts not just the particular argument but
the setting in which those arguments take place.
Consider, for example, the popular wisdom that “all politicians lie.” This claim is probably false; it is a
sweeping generalization. If, however, we operate in a setting wherein no speaker is expected to tell the
truth, where inauthenticity, unverified reports, dubious theories, and other threats to good decision-
making are normal, where no one can tell fact from fiction, then arguments are impossible. Where
arguments are impossible, the only tool left to get things done is coercion.
In his novel The Doubt Factory, author Paolo Bacigalupi writes about
the child of an advertising and public relations guru who discovers her
father’s manifesto, outlining his agency’s strategy for protecting greedy
drug companies, industrial polluters, and others: don’t argue; sow
doubt.

Bacigalupi’s novel drew upon real life examples, from the tobacco
industry to big oil, who used the idea of doubt – that no information
should be trusted – to prevent action and keep their products on the
market.

Doubt and skepticism, the idea that it impossible to come to working
agreements on controversial issues and arguments don’t settle
anything, creates settings which preclude the possibility of argument.
Violence
If there is any one hard and fast rule when it comes to ethics and argument it is the prohibition against
coercion, and especially violence. Argument scholars and ethicists are likely to treat any suggestion or
threat of violence as unethical.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 25

Sophistry

Sophistry is a behavior associated with argument and sophists (those who engage in sophistry) will
often engage in arguments—even sound arguments. Sophistry is not necessarily unethical behavior.
Sophistry goes beyond arguments. It includes non-argumentative elements, both verbal and
nonverbal.

Like rhetoric (see Not an Argument: Rhetoric), sophistry is strategic. While rhetoric is concerned with
the relationship between the speaker (arguer) and the audience, sophistry is concerned with the
relationship between the speaker (arguer) and the interlocutor or opponent.

A rhetor is concerned with persuading an audience. A sophist is concerned with winning against an
opponent.

Consider, for example, a legal setting. The setting establishes rules of evidence, accepts certain
authorities, assumes rules of inference.

In this case, the court system is also what we call adversarial. Both sides make arguments but they
also do so strategically, that is to say they make arguments in order to convince or persuade an
audience, the jury or a judge.

Some of what a sophist does, is not rhetorical or argumentative, or even concerned with the truth of
a particular claim. Sophists want to win (or make an opponent lose). Prosecutors and defense
attorneys both try to stack the deck in their favor by picking jury members who are likely to support
certain kinds of arguments. The language of victory and defeat, not truth, pervades the discourse of
legal arguments.

Law is not the only place where the setting is open to competitive arguments; another is education. In
the United States, thousands of high school and college students participate on debate teams.
Modeled on classical Grecian education, a debate wherein a judge—often a teacher or perhaps the
class as a whole—decides who wins the debate. Like the debates among young Greek students,
sophistry in this case was justified as a means of instruction in argument. In Plato’s dialogues,
Socrates criticized this approach to education. He didn’t believe that students would be able to set
aside the habits learned in sophistic exercises. In the public sphere, where discovery of some truth is
the goal, sophists would continue to be more interested in winning to the detriment of the public
good.

While Socrates’s distaste for sophistry was extreme, his criticism was not without some merit. Not all
sophistry is unethical but it often raises ethical questions. The substitution of slogans for arguments in
political discourse, for example, would be an example of sophistry. In his debate with President Jimmy
Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan reduced the complex economic situation to a single question: “Are you
better off today than you were four years ago?” It is a questionable argument but it resonated with a
particular set of voters that Reagan hoped to win from his opponent. Although delivered as a
spontaneous response to a question, Reagan’s team had written and tested the line in advance and
Reagan, the former actor, rehearsed his delivery so he would be ready when the moment came. It is a
brilliant example of sophistry in the age of television.

Was it ethical or manipulative?

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 26

Like lawyers, advertisers, and public relations today, sophists can expect to be called upon to justify
their tactics. Sophists have often been accused of using fallacious arguments and other manipulative
or deceptive strategies for advancing and refuting claims. Simplistic, bad arguments are often more
persuasive than difficult but sound reasoning.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 27

Part 3 – Argumentation in the Political World
Most of us who grew up in the United States have been taught to celebrate the First Amendment and
freedom of speech as unqualified goods. Censorship, conversely is always bad.
Such claims are easy when issues are abstract. In the real world, our options are rarely between good
and bad or right and wrong. We’re asked to weigh good and better, bad and worse. We’re asked to
draw lines and make hard choices.
We cannot talk about argument without talking about the civic space of argument. We argue in homes
and offices but the widest, most far-reaching arguments take place in the public sphere, concerning
issues which effect societies, economies, and systems as a whole. These spaces require consideration
beyond ethics. We have to talk about politics and civics.
Two approaches
Freedom of speech is good. Censorship is bad. Why?
Although there are many ways we can go about answering that question, most of our approaches will
begin with one of the following assumptions:
1) Freedom of speech is a right.
Rights are a fuzzy, sometimes hard to define idea. What does it mean to say you have a right to do this
or that? It might be something we’re born with (natural right) which means governments cannot take it
away. Rights might also be something we’ve been given or earned. We have the right to opt out of some
practices, such as pledging to a flag, because other rights such as religious freedom are considered more
important. We have to prove we can operate a vehicle responsibly before we claim a right to drive.
These rights can be taken away but only if there is good cause.
Whatever a right is, it establishes a moral imperative on the part of someone else. To say you have a
right to be here is to say that others have an obligation to let you stay, or they have no right to make you
leave. If I have a right to smoke cigarettes, I can do so even if they are harmful. Rights can be limited but
only in prescribed ways and under prescribed conditions.
Generally speaking, only rights can limit other rights. Your right speak freely doesn’t mean you can do so
in my living room. My ownership rights (property rights) limit your freedom of speech.
2) Freedom of speech is useful.
Just because something isn’t a right doesn’t mean it isn’t good. Freedom of speech has been defended
and supported on practical grounds that have little if anything to do with rights. The ability to speak
freely on any subject, to consider every question without censorship should be protected not because
we have a right to do so but because it produces better decisions.
British philosopher John Stuart Mill, writing in the 1800s, took this approach to what he called the
liberty of speech. This approach gets Mill out of tricky questions that other philosophers and politicians
couldn’t answer. Earlier thinkers on the subject, like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, were caught in
difficult philosophical position. They argued that rights were given by either god or nature (sometimes
using these concepts interchangeably) while at the same time they argued against religion and
‘metaphysical’ answers to real world questions. Neither Locke nor Jefferson was religious; they didn’t

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 28

believe in god in any personal sense. So who gives us these so-called rights?Mill answers the question by
starting from an entirely different place. Free speech is good not because it is moral but because it leads
to better decisions, to progress and growth. Restricting speech stymies progress and puts those who do
at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those who don’t. Mill’s argument suggest that the rapid technological,
industrial, and economic progress of Britain and the United States was attributable in part to their
embrace of liberty in thought and discussion.
Free Speech: A right or just useful?
It isn’t important that you have an answer to this question. It may not be one or the other. As you think
about freedom of speech, and consider different aspects of the issues, you should always be keeping in
mind the question of why and how. If you’re going to defend a speech act, are you doing so because the
speaker had a right? Is there a moral imperative? Or is your defense grounded in practical imperatives?
John Stuart Mill’s “marketplace of ideas.”

British social and political thinker J. S. Mill wrote and published in the early 19th century. He was
influenced by the American experiment in self-government and his ideas about liberty influenced
many early US politicians and statesmen. Among his more influential works was a lengthy defense of
individual freedom called On Liberty which included a well-formed defense of free speech based on
its utility.

The early modern age was not precisely anti-religious in character but it was certainly irreligious. The
advancement of science had long been held back by religious dogma which held that, to understand
the order to the universe, one needed to study religious texts to understand the divine will. In the
modern age, beginning in the 16th century with Descartes (cogito ergo sum/I think therefore I am) and
Galileo and the fragmentation of religious authority during the Protestant Reformation, science
offered an alternative to scripture.

The story of Galileo is one that free speech defenders love to tell. Galileo was an astronomer who,
using work done by others on the nature of light and lenses, invented the telescope and first
documented the moons of Jupiter, a theory shattering discovery. Since Ptolemy in ancient Greece,
western scholars had believed the Earth was the center of the universe and that all things moved
around the earth in perfect circles. Moons orbiting around Jupiter would mean circles inside of circles,
chaos in the divinely ordered universe.

Based on this and other observations, Galileo published his conclusion that it was the Sun, not the
Earth, which sat at the center of the universe. This belief, because it contradicted church doctrine,
was ruled heretical and Galileo was forced to recant his work on pain of death.

Mill begins his defense by noting that being right, that is believing things which are true, is inherently
valuable because it is useful. He doesn’t defend free speech on the grounds that it is a right or a
freedom or that it reflects some metaphysical quality of personness. It is good because it is useful.
Galileo’s invention, the telescope, is a technological accomplishment based on understanding how
light moves. Inquiry into the nature of the universe is never abstract. Every discovery impacts our
ability to do things, opens up new possibilities for doing new thing or old things differently. To refuse
to study the natural world because we either have all the answers or the answers are not knowable is
to block not just intellectual development but economic progress.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 29

Mill had powerful support for his argument. He was generally in favor of what was then called
liberalism or a loosening of traditional restraints. For example, in the middle ages, it was against the
law for anyone but royalty to wear ermine fur. If you’re a furrier, that limits your market. Liberalizing
markets, opening them up to free trade as opposed to monopolies held by the king (who by law had
exclusive rights to conduct trade of any kind and business could only be done by his leave which
invariably involved a tax), allowed for rapid economic expansion.

The obvious material benefits of economic liberalism could be seen in places like Britain and the
United States, who embraced liberal policies and contrasted with nations like Spain and Germany who
were unwilling and unable to do so. That economic expansion, depended on technological innovation
and advancement. Inventions like the cotton gin, the assembly line, and the telephone transformed
economies. Those who were on the forward edge of scientific knowledge were the leaders in
technological advancement.

Mill’s argument was for liberalism economically and politically which meant intellectually as well. He
defended intellectual liberalization, freedom to speak on any subject without restraint, on grounds of
its usefulness. Much of his argument, however, is contra-argumentation. Mill attacks the rationale for
placing restraints on speech, demolishing the arguments of his opponents.

First, Mill begins from a position of scientific uncertainty and human fallibility. We must acknowledge,
both as individuals and societies, that we are subject to error. We believe things, sometimes
absolutely and with good reason, which turn out to be wrong. We must always be prepared for the
possibility that what we hold to be true is in error.

To censor opinions because with think they are wrong, because they are in error, assumes we have
the power to know, a priori (before any arguments) what is true and what is false. To say “we know
the truth and therefore all challenges are presumptively wrong” is to presume one’s own infallibility.
We have to admit that it is possible, even if not likely, that the opinion we try to censor is the right
one and our beliefs are in error.

Second, Mill argues, truth is partial. Even if our current beliefs about the world are correct, to
encounter new opinions will refine and add to the picture of the world we already have.
Finally, even opinions we know to be wrong should get a public hearing. True belief, Mill contended,
atrophies without challenge. In order for people to believe the truth and to respect that belief, they
must from time to time be called upon to defend that belief against challenge.

Mill’s beliefs about liberty and freedom of speech, along with works of others like Thomas Jefferson,
have been described as the “marketplace of ideas.” In the marketplace, the theory posits, consumers
decide what products work and what products don’t. Competition between producers results in more
efficient operations, lower costs and higher profits. Companies who fall behind, perish; overtaken and
consumed by competitors.

In the same way that Mill and other liberals, like Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and others who shaped
the US Constitution, believed economic competition would result in the best companies coming out
on top, they believed that truth was inherently superior to falsehood and, in the arena of public
dialogue and debate, the true will out.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 30

The First Amendment: A Brief History
The First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791 along with nine other
amendments. Collectively this Bill of Rights established key limitations on the power of the new Federal
government.
While most of us in the United States would agree that these rights are essential, how these rights are
interpreted, their meaning and importance vis-à-vis other rights, has varied widely over the last two
hundred years.
Generally speaking, the First Amendment protects rights:
1) The right to speak freely, including the right to publish;
2) The separation between church and state and the freedom of religion from state interference;
3) The right to assemble and organize;
4) The right to hold government accountable, including accessing information about the
government and its activities.
These rights emerged and evolved over time in response to changes in social, economic, and political
organization. These are only a few highlights.
Before 1791:
1215 – Magna Carta. In Britain, nobles for Prince John to sign an agreement recognizing the rule
of law. It asserts the basic principle of a limited rather than absolute government and the
equality of all persons before the law.
The Magna Carta provided a legal, as opposed to merely philosophical, foundation for later
statements of rights and prohibitions on government in British and US law.
1555 – Peace of Augsburg. The sixteenth century was a period of violent political upheaval and
conflicts over religion played a central role. Thousands were killed in wars between Protestants
and Catholics in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
The Peace of Augsburg is one of the first statements of religious freedom although it was
extremely limited. Ordinary people did not have the right to choose their religion or type of
worship. The Prince or ruler of a given territory was allowed to choose and was free to impose
their choice upon their subjects.
1641 – Massachusetts Body of Liberties. The first statement of rights and freedoms in the
British colonies, the Body of Liberties affirmed essential principles of the Magna Carta placing
significantly more emphasis on individual freedom. It included many of the rights later
enumerated in the Bill of Rights including rights to a jury trial, bail, and freedom from “double
jeopardy.”
1663 – Charter of Rhode Island. Establishing the Rhode Island colony, the 1663 charter is
notable in granting religious freedom to individuals rather than local authorities. The first official
statement of an individual’s freedom of conscience in the colonies.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 31

1781—1788 – Federalist Papers. A collection of 85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay. Eloquent public argument for republican government and the freedom
of the press.
The Federalists argued for a stronger centralized government that would hold the original 13
colonies together. Fearful of the power of a central government, opponents supported stronger
state governments and warned of federal tyranny. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay passionately and
eloquently defended the proposed US Constitution. Ironically, many Federalists would later
oppose the Bill of Rights advocated by Jefferson and the Democratic Party.
After 1791:
1798 – Alien and Sedition Acts. Much of the history of freedom of speech has been about
expanding the right to advocate. The Alien and Sedition Acts are not a single law but a series of
laws which sharply limited the expansion of rights. In addition to criminalizing false, scandalous,
or malicious statements about public officials, the acts targeted foreigners (mostly Irish and
French), made it harder for them to vote, and easier to deport them.
The acts threatened to topple the new country. Two states, Kentucky and Virginia, passed laws
nullifying the acts which would effectively have made all Federal laws options. These
nullification laws would later be invoked as the legal basis for succession.
1803 – Marbury v. Madison. This controversial case established judicial review as the only
constitutional remedy for Federal violations of the constitution (as opposed to state
nullification). It gave the Supreme Court the authority to strike down laws which violated the
rights established in the Constitution and the right to interpret those rights in the context of an
evolving social-political-economic order.
1907 – Patterson v. Colorado. While the Bill of Rights prohibited the Federal government from
prohibiting speech, the Bill of Rights was long understood as applying only to the Federal
government. States were free to regulate speech as they saw fit. That right was reaffirmed by
the Court as late as 1907.
Patterson also affirmed a principle from English common law now called the “bad tendency
test.” The bad tendency test was a way of assessing when the government could and could not
restrict speech. If the speech had a tendency to harm the public welfare, then the state has the
right to regulate. This is one of the broadest limitations on free speech. In the Patterson case, a
newspaper editor was fined for reporting on the relationship between state judges and utility
companies.
In Patterson, the Court also distinguishes between “prior restraint” and “subsequent
punishment.” While the First Amendment may protect publishers from prior restraint (stopping
them before they publish) it does not protect them from subsequent punishment for doing so.
1917 – Espionage Act. Criminalized speech which “caused or attempted to cause
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the armed or naval forces” or to
interfere with recruiting troops.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 32

The act was used to jail opponents of the First World War on the grounds that speaking out
against the war would encourage insubordination and make it harder to recruit volunteers to
fight in Europe.
1918 – Sedition Act. Extended and expanded the Espionage Act. Although ostensibly to protect
the US from spies and saboteurs, the acts were primarily directed at labor and union organizers
and “radical” political ideologies. The act sharply limited criticism of the government including
disrespect of the flag.
1918 – Deportation Act. Combined with the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the Deportation Act
was an effort to deport foreign-born labor and union organizers. Largely a response to fear of
Russian workers following the institution of a workers’ democracy in the former Tsarist
dictatorship, the act criminalized whole philosophies regardless of the actions or practices of
individuals. Pacifists and reformers were lumped in with violent revolutionaries.
1919 – American Civil Liberties Union Founded. In response to a the abuses by the Department
of Justice and the FBI, a group of lawyers publically defends socialists and anarchists rights even
while condemning their philosophies. It is start of what will become an organized effort to
protect individual freedoms by protecting unpopular and even detestable speech.
1919 – Scheneck v. United States. The Scheneck decision reversed erosion of free speech,
setting much higher standard than Patterson’s bad tendency test.
Clear and Present Danger was based on the Court’s conclusion that state has a right to regulate
speech when the that speech is used in circumstances “of such a nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has the right to
prevent.”
Unlike Patterson, wherein there needed to be only a tendency or likelihood of some public
harm, Scheneck says the danger must be immediate. This is “falsely shouting fire in a theater to
cause panic” test.
1919 – Gitlow v. New York. Before Gitlow, the Bill of Rights limited the Federal government, not
the states. Gitlow established that, following the passage of the 14th Amendment, the rights
established in the Constitution may not be limited by the states. Originally intended to prevent
Southern states from stripping newly freed slaves of their rights, it has since been seen as a
crucial advance in the protection of minorities.
Since Gitlow, the battle over free speech and many other freedoms protected by the First
Amendment, has shifted. States, not the Federal government, have been seen as the most
pernicious violators of civil and political freedoms.
1931 – Stromberg v. California. The Stromberg decision is important for two reasons. First, it
was an important test of the Gitlow decision which prevented states from prohibiting political
expressions.
Second, Stromberg recognized that political expression went beyond speech. The California
statute prohibited the flying of red flags, symbols of socialism. Stromberg established that

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 33

freedom of speech is really a freedom of expression and advocacy which can take many forms,
not just words.
1937 – DeJonge v. Oregon. Protected speaking at peaceable assemblies and engaging in lawful
discussion. While it may be a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States, the
peaceful discussion of political topics cannot be prohibited. State, local, and federal authorities
can place reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner but may not prohibit what is
otherwise a lawful activity.
The DeJonge decision made it possible for labor and union organizations and religious minorities
to meet and organize.
1940 – Thornhill v. Alabama. Another important expansion of free speech rights and organizing.
Byron Thornhill had been convicted of loitering with the intent to influence others or what is
today more generally called “picketing.”
The Thornhill decision protects peaceful protest and public demonstrations of dissent.
1943 – West Virginia SBE v. Barnette. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier ruling in
Gobitis (1940) which compelled students to salute the flag and recite a pledge of allegiance.
The Barnette decision is one of many free speech and freedom of religion cases brought by
Jehovah’s Witnesses. It was not argued on religious grounds, however, but on free speech
grounds. Freedom of speech was extended to include freedom from compulsory speech.
1954 – Brown vs BOE Topeka. One of the most significant decisions in the history of Court,
Brown is not a freedom of speech decision. The decision which ended legal segregation would
be based on the 14th Amendment and would have significant impacts on future decisions and
the direction of the Court.
1964 – New York Times v. Sullivan. With respect to libel, the Court established the actual malice
standard. To be held libel in criticizing a public official, a journalist would need to have actual
malice—knowingly publishing false information or with a reckless disregard for the truth of
defamatory claims. The actual malice standard is extremely high and gives reporters and
publishers considerable protection.
The Sullivan decision was important because Southern politicians had used threats of punitive
defamation suits, decided upon in Southern courts by all-white juries, to block publication of
stories critical of race relations in the South. This was a huge benefit to the Civil Rights
movement, shedding light on the violence of Southern segregation.
1966 – Freedom of Information Act. Prior to the FOIA, Federal agencies had broad latitude
regarding what information was made public. The FOIA is of singular importance in guaranteeing
access to government documents and information. With few exceptions, such as on-going
investigations, medical records, and matters of national security, the Federal government must
make records available upon request in a timely manner.
It was through Freedom of Information requests that the American public became aware of
COINTELPRO, an illegal operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to surveil and disrupt

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 34

the lawful activities of Civil Rights, labor, and anti-war organizations. By providing access to
information on government activities, the FOIA is an important check on the abuse of power and
corruption.
1969 – Tinker v. BOE Des Moines. When children in the Tinker family wore black armbands to
school as part of an anti-war protest, they were sent home. The Court ruled that children have
rights and those rights “don’t stop at the schoolhouse door.”
The right to protest in public spaces, including schools, can be limited only to the degree those
protests infringe upon the functioning of those institutions. The peaceful, silent nature of the
Tinkers’ protest was an important factor in that decision.
1969 – Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg case establishes the third, and highest, standard
for restricting speech: incitement. Unlike bad tendency or clear and present danger, the
incitement standard held that advocacy could not be restricted unless it directed or incited
lawless or illegal action, or was likely to do so.
A pamphlet on sabotage, for example, could advocate illegal actions or defend lawlessness. A
pamphlet which directed or was likely to cause someone to engage in lawless action would
violate the incitement standard.
1974 Miami Herald v. Tornillo. The Miami Herald, a print newspaper, won the right to not print
a politician’s rebuttal. The Herald had published editorials critical of Tornillo who demanded
space to respond. The Court held that a privately owned newspaper, which unlike television and
radio which used publicly owned airwaves, did not have to give equal time to opposing
candidate.
On the surface, the Tornillo decision reaffirms the freedom from compulsory speech of
Barnette. In the context of later decisions, however, such as Citizens United, it marks a shift in
rights which gives considerable power to corporations,
1976 – Hudgens v. NLRB. In many ways, the Hudgens decision was the follow-up to Tornillo. In
Hudgens, the Court held that the freedom of speech was a freedom from government or state
interference.
Private property owners were not prohibited from regulating speech on their property and
could act to disrupt or prevent the exercise of other rights protected by the Constitution such as
the right to picket and the right to assemble.
1978 – NSPA v. Skokie. The National Socialist Party (Nazi) of America sued and won the right to
march through the largely Jewish community of Skokie, IL. The Skokie case affirmed the
principle of content neutrality in the regulation of public speech. One could not permit one
group to advocate in ways forbidden to others.
1988 – Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. The Reverend Jerry Falwell used the pornographic
magazine company Hustler, and its controversial owner Larry Flint, over a cartoon parody
featuring Falwell. Falwell argued the cartoon made claims about him that Flint and Hustler knew
to be false (including accusations of incest), meeting the actual malice standard set in
Brandenburg.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 35

While the cartoon was obviously defamatory, the Court ruled that cartoons where an important
part of political speech as was satire.
1989 – Texas v. Johnson. Burning the American flag is constitutionally protected form of speech.
Following the Stromberg ruling, that flags and other symbols are protected speech, acting on
those symbols even in ways that others find distasteful, is political and protected.
2001 – Patriot Act. Following a series of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the US gave
broad powers of surveillance and detention especially of non-citizens. Critics have charged that
the Act opened the door to widespread abuses including targeting, including infiltrating,
peaceful anti-war and humanitarian organizations.
2007 – Morse v. Frederick. Also known as the “Bong hits for Jesus” case, the decision was seen
by many critics as a significant step back from both Brandenburg and Tinker. The Court ruled
that because the school had an interest in preventing drug use, that even though the student
was not on school grounds (although at an event supported by the school; running of the
Olympic torch through town) it had the right to regulate that speech.
The “Bong hits for Jesus” sign did not incite fellow students to use marijuana nor did it create a
clear and present danger of their doing so. Thus, at least for students, it represents a big step
back toward the bad tendency standard established in Patterson.
2010 – Citizens United v. FEC. When the United States acted to limit campaign spending,
especially unlimited amounts of “dark money” from corporations, those corporations sued. In a
far reaching and incredibly controversial decision, the Court held that corporations have free
speech rights just like human beings. They ruled further that money was a form of political
speech and thus protected by the First Amendment. In conjunction with rulings like Hudgens
and Tornillo, this ruling has been criticized for giving business corporations tremendous
unchecked power vis-à-vis citizens and communities.
The rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are neither simple nor obvious. They have meant, and
continue to mean different things to different people. They reflect the historical conditions of their time
and, as those times change, take on new significances. Sometimes the reasons why a decision was made
are at odds with the way that decision is later used. Rulings intended to protect or expand free speech
can end up restricting speech.
It is also important to keep in mind that there isn’t necessarily a trend but rather a perpetual contest
between those who benefit from restricting speech and access to information and those who benefit
from openness and critical inquiry.
Not Freedom of Speech
Academic Freedom

As you navigate university life, you undoubtedly you have encountered the term academic freedom.
It is a tricky term, often spoken in the same breath or in the same context as freedom of speech. The
two rights/freedom are often talked about as though there were similar or at least based on similar
principles.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 36

For example, many conservatives who are concerned with the influence of political and social liberals
in academic life, will argue for more diversity using arguments reminiscent of those advanced by Mill.

While diversity and range of opinion is important and the fact claims of many academic critics may be
reasonable accurate (liberals and leftists are more common in universities that corporations), the
principle assumption is mistaken.

A university professor benefits from the same First Amendment protections as other citizens and
often to a greater degree but this often has little to do with academic freedom. Public colleges and
universities are state agencies which means, unlike private employers, they are required to abide by
the First Amendment. A state university cannot fire an employee for engaging in legally protected
political activity. In some places, public employees like university professors, are protected by strong
contracts which protect them from arbitrary dismissal. In most cases, these contracts either directly
or indirectly protect political speech.

So if a university professor were to engage in a demonstration on campus, even one that was critical
of university policy, that would be protected by the First Amendment. So would a janitor or an
administrative assistant. Or a student. This is not an exercise of academic freedom.

While similar in nature to freedom of speech and expression, academic freedom is a very different
idea with very different origins. Most of our ideas about free speech come from British political
thought but academic freedom is German. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the
Germans had the most progressive and advanced education system in the world and many in the US
studied and copied the German model. This is why the first year of school for most people in the US is
“kindergarten,” are German word.

German educators fought for three concepts which, together, for the basis of what we today call
academic freedom: freedom to teach, freedom to learn, and freedom of students. Of these, US
educational institutions have embraced the first two but have shown little support for the third.

Freedom to teach is not the same as freedom of advocacy. Teaching is not advocacy, at least not in
the traditional sense of the word. The freedom to learn, in this case, does not apply to students,
necessarily but to the ability to study, inquire and do research.

Both rights are derived not from a right to freedom of speech but from the right of self-governance.
Academic freedom is not the right of individual professors or teachers to say or do whatever they
want. The question is who gets to decide what is and is not the proper teaching of a subject.

You may be asking yourself, right now, what is this discussion of academic freedom doing in an
argument class? That is a fair question. Academic freedom says that it should be the scholarly
community to gets to answer that question. I would have to make my case, to use argument not
coercion, to a body of my peers. First to other people who study argument and, if necessary to other
people who study communication. Scholarly arguments, which have their own settings, generally
require the advice and opinion, sometime even a vote, from someone outside the discipline to act as
a check on programs and departments.

So, to defend this section of the book, I might be asked to demonstrate its relevance to a panel of
other professors in communication studies who are also versed in argumentation. If this were an

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 37

especially formal review, that panel might include faculty from another part of campus, like biology.
This outside representative would be included as an objective, scholarly voice to represent the
academy generally.
What academic freedom prevents is that kind of decision being made by people outside the discipline
and outside the system of academic work. A politician with no level of training or expertise, who is
not a teacher or a researcher, has no—or at least very little—say over what constitutes the proper
domain of argumentation studies. While the Germans were originally concerned with kings and
clerics, who had no right to say what was and what was not science, today we are more interested in
legislatures and governing boards.

Universities, colleges, and even our primary and secondary schools are organized to serve a wide
range of interests, political, social and economic. A university, for example, doesn’t just produce
knowledge, it fuels an economy. Local property owners rent houses, grocery stores and restaurants
feed students, teachers, and other workers. Because many of the people who come to study stay to
live, they establish law offices and newspapers and clinics and build the local economy.

In a democracy, where the purse strings of the university are under control of the citizens, the citizens
have a right to act, through their representatives, to regulate university life. Academic freedom is
ultimately about governance of college and university life. The legislature allocates funding, for
example, to the system but not where each dollar goes. That is decided, often with the highest level
of democracy possible, by the individual colleges and universities.

The freedom to teach and to learn means that, to the greatest extent possible, classroom decisions
and research decisions, are handled at the lowest levels, not the highest; a bottom up approach to
decision-making. Often misunderstood, the idea of tenure does not mean a job for life and the ability
to do whatever you want. It means that the teacher is presumptively qualified to make decisions
about teaching and researching. Any teacher, tenured or not, must teach their assigned courses or
can be subject to dismissal. The question of “are they teaching their classes or not” is not one that
must be decided by other experts in that field of teaching.

What about the last freedom? German academics fought for three freedoms: teaching, learning, and
freedom of students.

The United States has consistently rejected the final freedom, the freedom of students. For German
educators the freedom of students was really a freedom from students. Today, students often get
into trouble in the surrounding communities. Student are known to drink and engage in parties. This
has not changed since universities of the medieval age. Socrates was executed, in part, for the bad
behavior of his students. Even today, large groups of young men and women can become explosive;
students riot after football games.

In Germany, in the late 1800’s, students more often rioted over political or social issues. When
students rioted, it would often be the universities who suffered. Unable to punish students, German
rulers would close the schools.

German professors and teachers argued that they were exclusively concerned with education, not the
lives of their students outside the classroom. Teachers should not find themselves out on the street,
fired en masse, because the students went wild over some political scandal or outrage. The “freedom
of students” was a freedom from university responsibility.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 38

In the US, a system known as en loco parentis was established instead. Literally “in absence of the
parents” the school becomes the student’s de facto guardian, able to make many of the same kinds of
decisions that would normally only be permitted a parent. Student handbooks for Minnesota State
University, back when it was known as Mankato Normal School, allowed students to attend any one
of the local churches they chose on Sunday but every student was required to attend a church.
Colleges and universities long felt free to oversee students’ moral as well as intellectual upbringing.

Today, you see en loco parentis in many aspects of university life: student housing and dining
facilities, health services, career placement, advising centers, tutoring and orientation. US universities
and colleges are heavily invested in providing social activities as well as educational opportunities.
They also exercise the right to discipline, including issuing fines, for violations of university conduct
codes, for behaviors like drinking or using drugs. Those behaviors can be punished even if they are
also punished by the state because they fall under the university’s responsibility to care for students’
moral growth, a responsibility their German predecessors refused to accept.

The Dilemma of Civic Freedom
The United States today conceives of itself as a democratic republic, a social-political-economic order
based on equality and freedom as the means of realizing the broadest possible human well-being.
Coercive controls are inconsistent, though not entirely incompatible with democracy. It would be
difficult to conceive of a functioning social-political-economic system without police or courts or systems
of punishment. In a free society, these coercive controls are limited and must be justified. That would
include any kind of censorship.
It would not be inconceivable, for example, to have laws that precluded anti-democratic political parties,
or those with a stated opposition to constitutional limits on state power, from running candidates for
offices. Such a law would require a degree of authenticity from candidates who, upon taking office,
swear an oath to “faithfully uphold the duties” of that office. A fascist, who does not believe that
constitutions should limit executive powers, cannot be expected to abide by constitutional limits if
trusted with executive power.
In the 1950s, the Communist Control Act tried to make it illegal for communists to hold public office or
positions in government. While the bill had overwhelming support, even the most ardent anti-
communists were critical of its ability to actually root out anti-democratic ideologies. They just went
underground, changing public statement to appear less hostile to republican institutions, camouflaging
their authoritarian intentions.
Civility
What ethics is to individual behavior and choices, civility is to the public sphere. Discourse is civil if it is in
the interests of the general population, of the social-political-economic order as a whole. Civility covers
several key areas or factors which impact our collective truth-seeking and decision-making.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 39

The first and most important of these rules involves what is and what is not the civic domain. While we
are social creatures, who are politically organized and economically dependent on one another, we are
also individuals. The line between the public and the private is one that depends on, or is influenced by,
other factors such as population density and forms of labor. The need for private space, for example, is
contingent upon there being enough wealth for people to have their own bedrooms. In the United
States, this was a luxury for all but wealthiest families well into the twentieth century. In many parts of
the world, the idea that individuals would need so much personal space is bazaar.
In 1988, presidential front-runner Gary Hart was derailed by allegations of an extra-marital affair. Before
Hart’s campaign, the press was often aware of politicians engaging in affairs but rarely reported on such
behavior. John Kennedy’s extramarital relations were well-known among insiders but politicians’ private
lives generally were not considered relevant. The public had no right to know.
In the United States, ubiquitous social media has meant a thinner and thinner line between the public
and the private. The overwhelming majority of this, however, is background discourse. Civility is
concerned with civic processes—the activity and mechanisms of decision-making; civic argumentation
would be concerned with the semantic (truth-seeking) dimensions of those activities and mechanisms.
Civility is not part of the background discourse because that is not a civil space.
Not every topic belongs in the civic space. What I had for lunch is none of your business. Whether or not
obesity is an epidemic is something scientists should debate, determine, and disseminate. Their findings
and discoveries should inform our civic discussions of public policy, including things like subsidies for
sugar production, taxes on beverages, using soda machines to raise money in schools, and other matters
where we have to make decisions, and impose our choices upon those who would have chosen
otherwise.
Who can participate and how is that participation moderated or filtered?
In ancient Athens, for example, young men became citizens at the age of 18 and could vote and
participate in the Assembly. In practice, however, men younger than 30 were rarely allowed to address
the Assembly. So in the earliest democracies, participation was sharply limited. Only 10 – 20% of the
population of Athens was eligible to participate at all Athenian democracy.
Rules and norms governing participation may be formal or informal but they are always there. In the
United States, for example, the Tinker decision means that people under 18 have the right to speak
publicly but the Morse decision means that students can be sanctioned for their advocacy outside the
classroom. Many people in the United States value their freedom of speech but believe that their
employers will fire them for speaking out on certain issues. If you work at a company where the
supervisors and managers and even the owners are clear in their political affiliations, it is reasonable to
feel some concern that you might be fired for campaigning on the other side – which is completely legal
under Tornillo and Hudgens.
All social-political-economic orders have norms and rules, formal and informal, which regulate and filter
who can speak, when they can speak, and the manner of speech (language, grammatical norms, etc.). In
a system consistent with the ethos of democracy and the values inherent in argumentation, those rules
will allow for the broadest range of participation under the widest and most inclusive conditions.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 40

While there may be a value in this level of democracy, it is also pragmatic. More participation means
better decisions with better support and buy-in from both supporters and detractors.
Civic discourse is also limited with respect to what kinds of evidence is admissible. Those decision-
making bodies concerned with making the best decisions will, generally speaking, admit the widest
possible range of evidence. More technical decision-making often places greater limitations on the
admissibility of evidence.
Courts, for example, wield considerable power and thus are often limited with respect to what kinds of
questions they can ask and answer and with respect to the kind of evidence they can look at. Judges
know allowing evidence in one hearing or trial opens the door, or sets a precedent, which others can
apply in the future. It changes the setting.
Legislatures, on the other hand, may hold seemingly endless committee meetings letting all kinds of
people speak. Because their decision-making power is very different, they benefit from wider and less
restricted access to information in considering how to frame civic action and public policy. Reforming
how police communities, for example, would benefit from input by police—beat cops who are on the
ground as well as commanders—and by social scientists, lawyers, and members of the community.
Former gang members can provide a perspective that is very different from small business owners and
policy makers would benefit from both points of view.
Still, such forums are not the same kind of free-for-all as a town hall. Legislatures invite testimony. In
some countries, like the United States, they have the power to subpoena, just like courts, and compel
testimony. They have no obligation to allow particular individuals to testify. Even in a town hall meeting,
however, Rawls would argue, that the rules of civic discourse rather than background discourse would
be in effect. Long, rambling stories aren’t just a violation of decorum; they prevent other people from
speaking. A speaker my express their fear that they are being discriminated against or their rights being
violated but the authorities unique to their own comprehensive doctrine would violate these civic
norms.
In a democratic system, the number of authorities would be few while the avenues of establishing
expertise would be many and varied.
While it is true that democratic systems will place considerable value on scientific criteria for evidence,
sometimes called “data-driven” decision-making, that is because scientific standards strive to transcend
particular perspectives, looking for methods of falsification and verification which function consistently
across cultural boundaries. This does not mean, however, that democracies should exclude anything but
objective data. Technocracy, or rule by experts, are just a different kind of tyranny. Many autocratic
states, such as the Nazis, were also technocratic. In a system committed to making the best decisions,
broad criteria that included humanistic data, such as personal narratives or impact statements, would be
an ideal.
Background discourse is an ongoing phenomenon. It has no beginning nor will it end so long as there are
people living in communities. Civic discourse must come to an end. It is oriented at decision-making. In
all formal decision-making bodies, there is a process for ending the debate and coming to a decision, an
up or down vote.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 41

In a jury trial, 12 people unanimously conclude a narrowly defined statement is true, beyond a
reasonable doubt. In legislature, 50% of the body plus one must agree on a conclusion but may do so for
very different reasons. In a corporation, thousands of people may vote but the actual decision will be
made by a small handful of people acting on their perceived economic interests.
Even within formal bodies, there are often unwritten rules which determine how decisions are finally
made. The Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, would not bring significant statements to the
floor, such at their condemnation of nuclear weapons in the 1980s, if it would pass by a narrow margin.
While their constitution allowed them to pass resolutions by a vote of greater than 50%, informally, the
leadership wouldn’t bring them to the floor without confidence that they would receive near unanimous
support. The appearance of unity was serious consideration.
In a democratic/republican system of government, one that sees the people or citizens as the sovereign
power, the decision-making processes must be open and authentic. Civic debate isn’t civic if it is just a
show for the public while the actual negotiations take place in a secret “smoky back room” based on
interests unknown citizens. While secrecy may be important during negotiations and there may be need
to keep some processes secret, such as grand jury investigations, prima facie openness and
authenticity—that the reasons given for a program or policy are the actual justification for that action—
are the only guarantees of accountability.
Most democratic systems will also include in their decision-making apparatus ways of revisiting or
reconsidering decisions, such as appeals.
Rules, if they are to function at all, must have some means of enforcement and some sanction for
violation. A speed limit isn’t a limit if there are no police and no tickets.
Some people have questioned the court’s practice of excluding illegally obtained evidence from trial. If
the police were to discover a body in the trunk of a car, but open the trunk without a warrant, then the
criminal—who we know to be guilty because there is a body in his trunk!—goes free. Not letting police
or prosecutors use evidence of guilt is a violation of the truth-seeking function of the court.
Setting aside the fact that our “body in the trunk” example is clearly hyperbolic, the courts have ruled
that excluding evidence illegally obtained is the only way to enforce the rules is to take away the
advantage of obtained by violating them. In this way, the truth-seeking outcome of a particular trial is
infringed but in order to protect the truth-seeking function of the system as a whole.
But, in a democratic/republican system, these rules—even those seemingly black-and-white rules with
clearly proscribed punishments—only work if stakeholders are committed to the process. In 1856, when
South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane,
the House of Representatives acted to expel Brooks from Congress. Brooks resigned before they could
do so, returned to South Carolina and was promptly re-elected to his seat.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 42

The action is still regarded as a significant event in
the lead up to the Civil War, when citizens and
stakeholders refused to hold their representatives
accountable to civic norms. Brooks was a hero
throughout the South for standing up to Yankee
insults to Southern culture. His violent attack,
moreover, made it difficult to criticize Sumner,
whose condemnation of slavery certainly crossed
the lines of civil discourse in the US Senate. While
Sumner’s characterization of slavery may have
been accurate, his vicious personal attacks on
Southern culture and specifically targeting Brooks’s uncle, Senator Andrew Butler, ratcheted up the
tension and would have made the conduct of civil argument much more difficult even if Brooks hadn’t
made things much worse.

Accountability, in a decentralized and democratic system of decision-making, is not so much a set of
rules and mechanisms of enforcement as it is an ongoing performance. Stakeholders and citizens must
act to hold their representatives and one another accountable. This can include measures such as
verbally expressing our condemnation or support for discursive practices, using social media, or even
recalling and voting violators out of office.
How we respond often depends on where we are in the social-political-economic order. Commitment to
democracy would mean supporting media outlets, for example, that are committed to accurate
reporting of the news, supporting multiple media outlets, and refusing to give time or attention to those
sources who violate our expectation with respect to accuracy and fairness. Reporters who don’t think
critically about what they are being told, who are mere mouth pieces for autocrats, fail to perform the
function of the fourth estate.
Example
Fake News

Fake news has dramatically changed pubic discourse and those changes are overwhelmingly negative.

First, the dissemination of news stories which are substantively false makes is harder to distinguish
between credible and not credible testimony. A false story has implications beyond itself; it provides a
touchstone or point of narrative fidelity which can be used to shore up and support other false
stories.

So a false story about Hillary Clinton running a child-sex ring out of a pizza parlor, all alone, is just an
incredible story. When it gets picked up and repeated, re-distributed in other outlets, the story
becomes self-reinforcing.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 43

Following the 2016
General Election, for
example, President-Elect
Trump claimed that
millions of people voted
illegally. His source was an
unsupported tweet from
an unqualified witness (a
witness with no special
knowledge or experience)
who simply asserted the
claim without any actual evidence. Trump’s repeated assertions of voter fraud where then used by
questionable/disreputable news sources as independent confirmation of the original claim. One fake
story thus quickly became many, self-confirming narratives (this is also called an echo chamber).

Fake news isn’t just a phenomenon (a thing that happens in the world); it is also a trope. The term
“fake news” has become for certain sectors of the public, a kind of mantra used to ward off criticism.
If the story challenges the dominant narrative, or the desired narrative, it is dismissed a politically
motivated “fake news.”

The trope is reinforced by actual fake news stories. When a story turns out to be false, it casts doubt
not only on the veracity of arguments supported by those stories but causes us to question all the
other stories we’ve heard and come to accept.

The practical effect of “fake news” has been to weaken the public sphere. When we are no longer
able to trust any witness, when all experts are dismissed as biased political hacks rather than
informed and experienced sources of information, our ability to engage in meaningful political
discourse is undermined. Without reliable information, argumentation ceases to function as a way of
arriving at agreement; no claim can be accepted as probably true.

It isn’t just reporting and the media who suffer. Democracy itself, as an alternative to coercion and
authoritarianism, is undermined.

Pseudo civility
It is important to differentiate between genuine civility and an artificial civility based on calm and order.
Civility means supporting the civil order, the social-political-economic decision-making apparatus.
Sometimes civility demands disruption. Civility would never sit silently, if in an ostensibly democratic
order, certain people or classes were openly discriminated against. Civility sometimes demands protest
and dissent. Even disobedience can be civil.
There is however a sense of civility in which to be civil means to be pleasant or polite. Civility is equated
with calmness or maintaining a sense of order or calm. This like equating passive aggressive behavior
with conflict resolution. Just because people aren’t yelling doesn’t mean everything is OK; people yelling
doesn’t necessarily mean that everything’s going to hell.

Chapter 1: ARGUMENT IN THE SOCIAL WORLD 44

Disruptive behavior is always risky; it threatens the stability and order which make it possible to deal
with contentious and often emotional issues. We should be cognizant, however, that the desire to keep
things calm and maintain order are presumptive that there is nothing wrong with business as usual.
Clarification:
Decorum

The Roman oratory and politician Cicero helped popularize the term decorum, a term which often
erroneously equated with civility.

Decorum means fitting and appropriate to the situation. So, when you come to school, jeans and
hoodie is fitting and appropriate. When you go to a formal occasion, a tuxedo or evening gown would
fit. Wearing an evening gown to a Tuesday night class would be a bit out of the ordinary and if you
saw someone at the gym in a tux you’d probably wonder what was going on.

Decorum differs from civility in important ways. While civil behavior may be decorous, it may also
involve strategic violations of decorum. Shouting at a meeting and banging your fist on the table is
rarely decorous, it may in a moment of tension restore order and return a meeting to focused
discussion.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 45

Chapter 2 Language & Argument

You are a brilliant animal. Few species in the history of life have had the kind of impact human beings
have had on the earth. A couple billion years ago, plants turned carbon dioxide into oxygen, a corrosive
gas that nearly killed off every other living thing—mostly bacteria—on the planet. They’re number two.
You are number one.
Plants had one thing going for them. They could turn sunlight into energy.
You think.
At this point someone usually points out that they have a dog and their dog thinks. That some mental
process happens inside the dog’s brain is obvious. It learns things. It can do tricks and can be trained to
poop outside. That’s thinking.
Not like you.
You think on an entirely different level. You are a symbol user, something no other animal (that we
know of) does. Whales and chimpanzees and all kinds of animals engage in communication. They send
and receive information. They do not use symbols.
Signs and Symbols
Signs and symbols are things—objects, sounds, images—that stand for something else. The image DOG
represents a particular set of objects in the world. The symbol both designates objects and differentiates
those objects from others.
Signs are simple. They often occur naturally and their relationship to their signified is typically natural.
For example, let us say you’re walking in the woods and come across a tree with a number of vertical
scratches in the bark. Perhaps you find nearby some tufts of coarse brown hair. These are signs that a
bear is in the area.
The signs of the bear—scratches and fur—are not the bear. Signs and symbols are distinct from their
signifieds. As simple as this may sound, it is an important starting point for understanding signs and
symbols. In this case, the signs are not intentional. The signs are the natural product of the bear living its
life as a bear. The bear did not want to tell hikers it was around. It wanted to sharpen its claws or scratch
an itch.
Like a sign, a symbol is something that stands for or represents something else. Unlike signs, however,
symbols are intentional, arbitrary, and social.
Symbols are constructed not left; they are not the natural product of other activities. The image below,
for example, was not left accidentally. It was put up with the intention of warning hikers and campers of
the dangers of bears in the area. The symbol user, in the case of the warning below, chose to use a
picture of a bear and the word “bear” to inform hikers and campers of a specific risk. Symbols respond
to human interests and needs. They are selected and communicated with a purpose.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 46

There is, however, no natural relationship between the
word “bear” and the animal the word stands for. We use
the word “bear” in English. The image above also includes
the French symbol “ours.” There is no sense in which one
symbol is better or more appropriate or fits better than
another symbol. The symbol is arbitrary. There is no natural
relationship between bears and the word bear or the word
ours. We could have called bears “scary pigs” or “xancala
wallas.”

If the warning posted above read “You are in scary pig
country” it would not make a whole lot of sense to most
hikers. The picture of the bear might clarify but most
people would not associate the symbol “scary pig” with

Fig. 1 – Beware of Bears
the animal in question.
Symbols, in order to function, require some level of agreement between symbol users. Symbols are
social; they are a shared system of meaning making and understanding. They are created by
communities of symbol users. If they are not shared, they have no function or purpose.
It is important to note that while all language users may have some degree of idiosyncrasy and while
their may be language communities that use words in very different ways, to be intelligible, a symbol
must have a significant degree of consensus relative to it’s meaning. Without this consensus, language is
not possible and we resort to nonverbal communication. If you’ve ever found yourself in a country not
your own, trying to speak to people who don’t know your language, you find yourself relying on things
like pointing, miming, and simple emotions to communicate.
The philosopher of human communication Kenneth Burke defined the human being as a symbols using
(and misusing) animal. Aristotle said humans were the zoon logon echon, the animal that speaks. Many
myths of human origins link the use of language to divine intervention. Our use of language is an
empirical (visible, measureable) difference between human beings and all other animals we have
encountered.
It isn’t just a difference. It is a profound distinction. Language is a tool but the ability to use that tool is
distinctly human.
Humans communicate with one another in many different ways. We use both signs and symbols. As a
communication studies student, you have no doubt come across the familiar adage that “we cannot not
communicate.” We are always sending and receiving messages even when we don’t intend to and even
if we are not aware of it. A person who shows up late to class may not intend to say they don’t think the
class is important but that may be what the teacher receives. A person wearing all white may be trying
to communicate that they are initiate of Santeria but a person who puts on jeans and a t-shirt is not
necessarily trying to communicate they do not practice Santeria.
Some human communication involves just signs. Some requires signs and symbols. Some
communication attempts to reduce the influence of signs and focus entirely upon the symbolic. Much of
what we call nonverbal communication is through signs. Those signs, which include thinks like clothing,

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 47

facial expressions, posture, movement, the use of space, vocal expressions and inflection,
pronunciation, etc., interact with the symbols we use in complex ways. Signs are continuous. We can’t
shut them off. Symbols are punctuated. They have beginnings and endings. They are intentional and
require some social setting (see Chapter 3) in order to make sense.

Clarification:
Oral and Written
Verbal and Nonverbal

Becoming an expert in anything means learning to use the language of that field. What makes your
auto mechanic an expert is that they know the right names for all the parts of your engine. The lawyer
knows the legal terms and uses them correctly to describe particular relations and situations.

As an expert in human communication, you should use terms properly and take seriously distinctions
with others, who we call laypeople, do not.

Many people (including very smart people who should know better) confuse the distinction between
verbal and nonverbal and the distinction between oral and written.

The word “verbal” means with words. If you are reading this right now, they you are engaged in a
form of verbal communication. Verbal communication may be written or spoken aloud. If words are
being used, the communication is verbal.

Many people, however, will use the word “verbal” when they should be using the word “oral.” The
word oral means with the mouth. Telling a joke is verbal whether you say it out loud or write it in an
email. To laugh at a joke is oral.

Where the distinction is most important is when we look at things like sign language. Sign language is
not nonverbal. It does not belong in the same category as shrugging shoulders or nodding one’s head.
It is a complex, symbolic system involving both the use of a set of words and a system for combining
those words to form sentences, a grammar.

Using the word verbal when you really mean oral is probably OK when you’re dealing with non-
experts but as a specialist in human communication, you should know the distinction and maintain it
in your speaking and writing.

Verbal →

with words; may be oral or written

Nonverbal →

not words; may be oral or not oral (sounds, movements, pictures, smoke signals,
music)

Language
Philosophers of language typically begin by differentiating between language as a thing in the world
(langue) and a practice (parole). In the first sense, langue, language consists of symbols (not signs) and a

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 48

system for combining those symbols in meaningful ways. In order for language to function, both
conditions need to be in place—a set of shared symbols and a grammar or system of logic which allow
us to order and arrange those symbols in ways that make sense.
In the latter sense, parole, language is also something we do. It is something that we can talk about in
the abstract but only encounter in practice. These practices often diverge greatly from one another.
Language is built upon and embedded within other human behaviors and practices and we use language
for many different purposes which often make language challenging to conceptualize.
Let’s begin by situating language, by understanding it in relation to other human activities.

Figure 1

Language is a distinctly human behavior. If we were to use a Venn diagram (see Figure 1) then we would
say that while human beings do many things, only some of those things are language. All language,
however, belongs to the category “things humans do.” While other animals such as primates and whales
communicate with one another in complex ways, we do not (at this time) consider those
communications language.
This reveals another property of language: it is communicative but not all communication is linguistic.
We know, moreover, that communication may be both verbal (using words) and nonverbal (using not-
words). Language is always verbal although it is often contextualized by nonverbal factors (see Chapter).
We should consider that some verbal behaviors, such as the use of simple symbols, but most if not all
verbal communication will probably also be linguistic (see Figure 2).

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 49

Figure 2

Humans communicate for a number of reasons and in a number of different ways. In this respect, we
are not unlike other social animals. A baby crying, for example, communicates something. Over time,
caregivers often learn to interpret cries—to tell the “hungry cry” from the “tired cry.” This is not
fundamentally different from what a lot of mammals do and contributes to the survival of the species.
Mother cats understand and respond to the meows of their kittens.
As a child grows, it begins to interpret the language its parents use. The command “no” often figures
prominently here. It may not be every child’s first word but it is probably in the first few. The
philosopher and social critic Kenneth Burke argued that it was this “invention of the negative” which
makes us human.
In my experience, as a parent with an interest in communication behavior, children learn language very
quickly. There is a short period of single worlds. The kid sometimes seems to understand simple
statements, explanations or commands. Sometimes they don’t and it’s hard to tell if that is selective.
Then they are talking. It happens very fast from not quite right to full-blown language user so fast it feels
like it happens over night. The language use is simple and the grammar is often simple but intelligible.
The child is able to use words to differentiate between past, present, and future.
Then they lie.
All kids lie. It is incredibly sophisticated behavior, inherently human. While animals are capable of
sophisticated manipulation of their own and other species (birds leading cats away from their nests for
example), a lie is unique. It requires the ability to recognize that your mind, what you know, is not
another’s. You know things they do not.
And it requires the ability to not just use symbols but to misuse those symbols, another thing Burke says
makes humans distinct from other animals. We can use symbols to describe things that another

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 50

language user has not experienced and impart the benefits of that experience. We can teach a dog tricks
but the dog can’t teach those tricks to other dogs. Humans can share the benefits of their own
knowledge and they can build upon the experience of others. We can imagine things that never have
been and share them with others. We can describe the world we experience and we can also lie about
what we’ve seen, heard, and done.
No one is exactly sure when or how humans started talking. One of the ways anthropologists look for
when trying to determine whether or not the remains of our ancestors were language users or not is to
look for signs of long term planning. Gathering and storing seeds doesn’t necessarily require language.
Agriculture requires the ability to communicate not just a sensation or feeling or even something that
has been experienced but to express something never before experienced.
But if we can talk about a future we’ve never seen, one where the food comes to where we are rather
than one where we have to go find the food, we can also talk about a world that’s never been.
We can imagine and communicate our imaginations. We can also say things that are not true.
Sometimes we can be wrong, that what we imagined to be an accurate reflection of the way the world
is, is not how the world is.
This tells us something else about the properties of language and how language works. Some language
does things that non-language does. When we see a person we recognize but don’t know well on the
street, we might nod and say “Wa’s’up.” The other person does not respond to the verbal act, the
question “What is up?” but instead nods, perhaps responding with the same question or something
similar. This interaction could be accomplished nonverbally. It is as much about the way the words are
articulated, our posture and movements as the words used. It is little more than a recognition of the
other’s existence. Like dogs sniffing butts. “I see you. I see you see me.”
Some language communicates or clarifies our inner worlds, puts our senses into a way others can
understand. That we like or don’t like a flavor. That we are worried about the risks associated with a
course of action. That we feel differently about one member of the community than another.
We can also be deceptive about our inner states. We can communicate happiness when we really feel
anger. While language expands the complexity and range of human expression in this area, it isn’t really
doing anything that could not be done nonverbally. Language lets us do it better.
Language does more than this however. It gives us the ability say something about the world. In order to
unpack this idea, we need to go back and talk about symbols. Recall that a symbols is something that
stands for or represents something else. The symbol “DOG” represents the animal, or rather an abstract
idea or picture of that animal.
One of the ways that language has been described is to think of a symbol as a picture of the thing it
represents. When I say the word “dog” aloud with my mouth, that sound is a picture of the thing. We
use symbols to represent all of the things we may encounter in the world—dogs and trees and houses—
and also things that aren’t so material but which are also meaningful to us such as freedom and equality
and simplicity. Every word we use is an abstraction, a picture of the thing it symbolizes.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 51

Words alone do not make a language. Words must be put together with other words. If every word is a
picture, it must be combined with other pictures in order to create a complex statement about the
world. Words combine with other word, but they cannot be combined in just any way. The sentence:
The boy hit the yellow ball with a wooden stick.
is a meaningful sentence. The words are arranged according to rules that are understood (more or less)
by everyone who uses that language. Contrast that with the following:
stick ! boy ball a the with wooden yellow
When I was young, there was a toy called Tinker Toys. It was a simple construction set; with only a few
different things you could build all kinds of things especially if you were creative and didn’t have to
share. There were only four types of Tinker Toy: sticks, barrels, wheels, and flags.
Sticks cannot be connected to barrels or wheels. Wheels, flags, and barrels cannot be connected to one
another. Sticks can be connected to wheels, flags, and barrels but only in very particular ways.
So you can build almost anything with Tinker Toys, but you have to follow the rules that govern how the
individual parts connect to one another.
The same thing is true of language. You can use words to say almost anything. In fact, the number of
things that can be said is quite literally infinite. Math is a symbol system capable of an infinity of
expressions. Language is capable of the same kind of infinity:
I have one apple.
I have two apples.
I have one red apple and one green apple.
I have two red apples and one green apple…
The number of words we have is limited. The rules that govern the arrangement of words to form
sentences are limited and can be mastered to a significant degree by a small child. Yet it can create an
infinite number of unique, intelligible sentences.
A sentence functions like a symbol. A symbol is a picture of a thing. A sentence is an ordering of symbols
which pictures the arrangement between things.
The symbol “boy” may stand for a young human male. “The” distinguishes one particular boy from all
others. The verb “hit” links the boy, the ball, and the wooden stick, as opposed to all other sticks.
A sentence is a picture of the world.
A single symbol merely makes a meaningful distinction. It doesn’t say anything. To say “dragon” doesn’t
communicate anything at all. It pictures something. To say “dragons are fictional” makes a statement
about the world and the relationship of dragons to that world.
Types of sentences

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 52

People who study grammar have identified three different kinds of sentences: imperative, interrogative,
and declarative.
Imperative sentences (commands). Imperative sentences direct the behavior of others. It establishes a
relationship which ought to be but is not (for more on ought see Chapter). You may not be sitting down
but you should be.
Interrogative sentences (questions). Interrogative sentences problematize the relationship between
things in the world. You may want to sit but you don’t know where you should sit.
Declarative sentences (claims). Declarative sentences are different from other sentences because they
make claims. A claim is distinguished from all other sentences in that it has a T-value; it can be true or
false.
For example, if we say that the boy hit the ball, that sentence is true if the boy to which the symbol
refers took a particular action relative to another specific object, the ball, that could be accurately
described as a hit.

Types of Words
Positive terms and Dialectical terms

Arguments require the use of words. Claims must be expressible in the form of a sentence. Reasons
can take many forms but the need for language is inescapable.

We have already talked about how words, like all symbols, require a significant degree of consensus
or shared understanding to work. If I were to use the word “screwdriver” to identify what you call
“sandwich” we would have real trouble communicating.

So far, however, we have only talked about the denotation of words. We need to talk about
connotation. Arguers tend to stress denotative meanings (see Chapter) but recognize that the
meaning of words goes well beyond dictionary definitions. Denotation refers to that space where the
meaning of a word is the most concrete, where the consensus over the meaning of the symbol is
virtually authoritative.

Connotation begins with the prefix “con,” a Latin word meaning “with.” Connotative meanings are
meanings that come with the word. One philosopher of language called them echoes.

Take the word brother. Denotatively it would refer to a male relationship, possibly legally but
generally by parentage. To call a person a brother, however, would suggest a closeness that goes
beyond friendship.

Small changes to the word however, change that connotation in dramatic ways. If I were to call you
not “my brother” but “Big Brother” (notice the capitalization) that word echoes its author, George
Orwell and his novel about an totalitarian state where people’s every move was monitored by the
ultimate dictator, Big Brother.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 53

All words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. In some words, that connotative
meaning is minimal. For arguers, and those of us who study argument, the problem of connotation
and denotation typically comes down to clarity. Sometimes communicators will use connotative
meanings to suggest rather than say things directly. Rhetors and sophists are especially interested in
the connotation of the words they use.

We use the term “dog whistle” in talking about civic discourse to refer to words or phrases which
suggest some things to particular audiences, like a kind of code. In the decades following the Civil
Rights Movement, for example, the term “law and order” was used by politicians to express support
for segregation while evading charges that they were racist.

Many areas of communication studies are interested in connotation and denotation. As students and
scholars of argument, our interest goes a bit further. We are also interested in the type of word.
Some words have connotative meaning but are principally about describing the material world
around us. We call these positive terms in that they refer to objects of sensory experience: trees,
dogs, cars, and farms.

The defining characteristic of a positive term is that it can be defined by pointing, it refers to an object
in the world and we define a positive term by connecting the word with its object.

Other words, important words we use every day, simply don’t work that way. The word “liberty” for
example or “hot.”

The word “hot” isn’t like the word “90 degrees.” The latter is positive; it refers to a measurement of
mercury which remains constant relative to temperature. It can be pointed at or verified with the
eyes.

“Hot” on the other hand isn’t. Hot only makes sense in relationship another symbol, “cold.” If we lived
in a world without cold, the word hot would make no sense. In a world where there was no
oppression or slavery, the word liberty wouldn’t refer to anything.

We call these words dialectical. The prefix, dia, means “two” and lex means word. Two words. A
dialectical term is always two terms, one term that implies or assumes another. The relationship is
such that any change in the meaning of one term necessarily assumes a change in the other. If we
change the meaning of the word hot, we must also change the meaning of the word cold and in a
commensurate manner.

Dialectical terms function very differently from positive terms in other respects as well. Positive terms
are important for their descriptive function. Scientific arguments tend to focus on positive terms (see
Chapter; see also Scientific Pose). Dialectical terms, are often prescriptive or normative. They say less
about the world as it is and more about the arguer and what the world should be.

To say the room is 80 degrees says nothing other than what is. To call the room hot, on the other
hand, suggest that there is something problematic, that the room is not as it should be. Moreover,
because positive terms are the kinds of things we often verify, we don’t typically argue about them
when we can simply go and look. So while connotation is something arguers worry about, they must
also learn to accept and address claims using dialectical terms. To a considerable degree, arguments
are about which dialectical term best fits a particular case.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 54

God Terms and Devil Terms

All dialectical terms suggest some kind of judgment or valence. In some cases, that valuation is the
most important function of the word. Words which ground the discourse or anchor meanings are
called god terms and devil terms.

All arguments must take place within some kind of setting (see Chapter) that includes shared
assumptions about the world, what is real and not, what is possible and not, and what is good and
what is not-good. Dialectical terms which figure prominently in this final category, good and bad, are
called god terms and devil terms.

Let us take a rather obvious god term in contemporary US culture: freedom.

While we can point at things like income or chains, any definition of freedom will invariably return us
to other words not material things. We can define freedom using synonyms like liberty or antonyms
like slavery but always to another word as opposed to a thing in the world.

The other inescapable fact about the word freedom is that, however we define it, it is good.
Whatever else freedom is, however much disagreement on its meaning, it is good. It sits at or very
near the apex of US social and cultural values. That pantheon includes other terms as well such as
democracy and equality and rights; and it has its opposites as well: slavery, discrimination,
authoritarian and others.

God terms, or those which are the most potent motivators, and devil terms, the most powerful
repellants, often figure prominently and rhetorical and sophistical discourse. In part this is because
their power to motivate and unite also depends on a wide range of meaning and interpretation. The
more powerful a god term or devil term is, the more likely that it has a less defined meaning. Strategic
communicators often take advantage of those less then defined boundaries to equivocate in their
efforts to persuade and convince others.

While scientific discourses are rightfully leery of god terms and devil terms, in the public sphere they
are an inescapable feature of the landscape. What is important for us, as arguers, is to be on the
lookout for dialectical terms generally and to avoid confusing dialectical and positive terms. We must
also recognize, as we interpret and refine argument texts, to identify god terms and devil terms not
only for what they are, which are expressions of a perceived absolute and agreed upon valence (good
or bad), and treat them accordingly.

Semantics (Language and the World)
We use language for a number of important social activities. We use it when we’re alone to think about
the world, reflect on our experiences and imagine what might become. We use language with others to
solve problems and negotiate relationships. We share how we feel and we appreciate the feelings of
others.
Not over language act is an argument. Arguments are specific kinds of language acts performed under
specific sets of circumstances. We’ll talk more about this setting in Chapter 2.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 55

Semantics refers to a type of human activity broadly called “truth seeking.” Under what conditions can a
sentence be said to be true or false. What do words like true and false even mean? Can we even talk
about “truth” or is there only our own perspective?
Semantics are concerned with questions of truth value or the degree to which a sentence or claim has
the following features:
✓ It could be either true or false
✓ It must be either true or false
✓ If it is false, it cannot be true; if it is true, it cannot be false
Opinions
I don’t like the word “opinion” because it is most often used with an inconsistency that makes
arguments difficult. An opinion is a kind of belief. It is something the holder (speaker) believes to be
true. For example,
In my opinion, Firefly is a better science fiction series than Star Trek.
When we say “opinion” here we mean something like “I know my claim is just a reflection of my own
preferences; other people may disagree and still be right.” It is an expression of the speaker’s own inner
worlds of likes and dislikes. In this context “is better” is the same as saying “I like it more.”
We also use the word opinion to refute arguments. Suppose I argue not that I like Firefly better but that,
The Firefly franchise has earned more money than the Star Trek franchise.
We would not call this an opinion because the speaker doesn’t suggest that this is merely a reflection of
their inner world of tastes and appetites but a statement that could be true or false. This claim is utterly
false. Star Trek has been worth more than $4 billion; Serenity didn’t even turn a profit until it went to
video. Anyone with a smartphone can search that and find the answer in a couple seconds.
Notice, in showing the claim is true or false, the argument doesn’t go to inner states about how it makes
us feel or how we personally identified with the characters but to material data—facts.
Facts
A fact is a sentence or statement that has a truth-value; typically we say that it is a fact to the degree it
has a positive truth-value. Being true makes it a fact and it is a fact because it is true.
This is what argument scholars call a tautology, or a circular argument.
In this course, we use the word fact in a very specific way. Facts are statements of which have a truth-
value. Most importantly:
The truth-value of a fact claim is verified by empirically observation/experience.
Let us return to our debate between Firefly and Star Trek; the question of which made more money is
not really a debate at all. We got out our smart phones and looked it up and the debate was over. There
is a very important lesson here. Intelligent people don’t argue about facts. They look them up.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 56

Empirically verifiable claims are those we prove or disprove by comparing them with what our senses
tell us about the world. They are intuitive claims. We know they are true based on what we (or someone
on our behalf, see Witness Testimony) experience through our senses: we can see, hear, smell, taste, or
touch.

Clarification
Fact versus Report of Fact

It is absolutely imperative to distinguish between a fact and the report of the fact. Facts are empirical
and verifiable but facts often don’t come to us empirically. Some we experience directly and verify
through our own intuition.

Suppose your roommate wakes you up and tells you that your car has been hit by a snowplow in the
parking lot:

Fact: Your car has been hit by a snow plow

Report of the fact: Your roommate told you that Your car has been hit by a plow

Just because we did not verify the fact ourselves does not make it less of a fact claim. Facts may also
be verified by a witness or relates that experience to us (see Chapter 4 on Evidence)

The distinction is subtle but very important in argument study. Intelligent people don’t argue about
facts because facts are verified through observation or experience. We don’t argue about which Sci Fi
series made the most money; we look it up.

But we can have two witnesses who make contradictory reports over the same fact. One roommate
can say “I saw the plow do it” and while roommate2 says “No, it wasn’t a plow. Roommate1 did it!”
Which of your roommates is more credible? Who do you believe and why?

What is in conflict here is not the fact—although that is certainly in dispute—but the report of the fact
is what is at issue. When facts are in dispute, we go to reporter of the fact that we can both agree
upon and that should settle the argument. A debate about the credibility of witnesses is not the same
as a debate about facts.

Arguable Claims
We know that Star Trek made more money that Firefly because we can see the two figures side by side.
We only argue where the truth-value of a claim is not empirically verifiable. Facts are the stuff of
argument. We don’t argue about them; we argue with them. We argue about the implications of facts,
what they mean, or what we can predict on the basis of the facts before us. We debate about impact,
influence; about what is relevant and important not about what is.
Consider the following argument:

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 57

Although it made far less money, Firefly is in many respects a more critical and insightful series.
Star Trek was notable in that it depicted a future of peace on Earth, harmony between nations
and races. Star Trek gave the United States its first inter-racial kiss on television.
Make no mistake, however. This harmony comes with a presumption that it is the United States
model which will triumph. The Federation is based on the United States. The story invokes the
age of exploration which was also an age of colonialization and exploitation for millions of
people. If Captain Kirk and his crew are like Columbus and Magellan, then the future of those
they discover is serious jeopardy.
Firefly on the other hand suggests a world where most people speak both English and Chinese,
often moving fluidly between the two. The US isn’t the cultural hegemon. An important country
but not “the winner.” Firefly’s crew represents a more genuine diversity and its image of
expansion is one based on conflict and exploitation. Resistance to the Federation by those who
live a precarious existence on the fringe of the system is a central theme as is the efforts of the
Federation to control the outer planets.
We could simplify (we will use the term “refine” throughout this textbook) the argument to a claim:
Firefly is better than Star Trek
The arguer makes a number of fact claims—that Star Trek featured the first interracial kiss on US
television; that the characters in Firefly speak both Chinese and English—which you, as a viewer of both
shows can empirically verify. If you have never seen either show, you need to ask someone sitting next
to you if that’s true. Fact and report of fact.
But the arguer’s claim is that, looking at the facts, one show is objectively better than the other. It is a
claim asserted not as an opinion or an expression of the arguer’s worldview but as a statement that has
a t-value. The arguer isn’t just saying Firefly is better but that those who say Star Trek is better are
wrong.
What makes a claim arguable? What makes this claim arguable while claims of opinion are not?
1. Arguable claims must have a T-value
If the claim is merely subjective, it cannot be argued. We may disagree on the subjectivity or objectivity
of a claim. I may assert a claim for which I am prepared to advance evidence and reasons while you are
certain the claim only represents my inner world of appetites and taste.
Until everyone can agree the claim has a T-value, we don’t have an argument.*

2. The T-value cannot be empirically verifiable

* Although we can argue about whether or not to argue. We can say, for example the claim “Firefly is better than
Star Trek” may not have a truth-value but that claim, that “’Firefly is better than Star Trek’ is a claim without a t-
value” is a claim with a t-value and it is debatable.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 58

If the T-value of the claim is empirically verifiable then we should not argue about it but instead just go
look. Remember, we can argue about which report of the fact is more verifiable but if the claim is one
that can be verified then arguments are just wasting time until the fact can be verified.
3. The T-value cannot be speculative
Some questions simple cannot be debated even though they have a T-value. So the claim “Intelligent life
has originated the Earth’s solar system.” The claim is either true of false. But what kind of evidence
would be acceptable? Eye witness reports have largely been discounted. There is no empirical evidence
so short of aliens landing in the middle of our debate to settle the argument, we’re just guessing.
4. There must be a stake the T-value of the claim
We can, in most cases of disagreement, agree to disagree. You think there are aliens. I disagree. What’s
the big deal if we don’t see the world the same way?
Let us suppose, however, the claim is not merely speculative. Suppose I claim:
You cheated on the test.
More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle talked about how this type of claim (he used the word
“forensic”) was a probability, thus in need of argument, rather than a fact which could be explicated
(shown or demonstrated). We could not go back in the past and observe your actions nor can we get
inside your head and see whether or not you were cheating or making an honest mistake. Verification
produces certainty. Arguments can at best result in probability.
If the claim is “You got a perfect score on the test” then we can determine that, intuitively, by looking at
it. Our conclusion is certain. We would expect not just most but all people who graded the same test
according to the same criteria, using the same answer sheet, to get the exact same result. The
implication of the fact, and other facts and assumptions, is that you cheated on the test. But that claim
will always be a probability, not a certainty.
In popular culture and discourse, you may have heard phrases like “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is
the standard used in criminal trials. We accept a claim as true (that it has a positive T-value) if it is
probably true, that is there is not reasonable doubt as to its being true. This doesn’t mean absolutely or
certainly true nor does our inability to prove it true mean that it is false (this is a fallacy called
argumentum ad ignorantiam).
More importantly, however, there is a need to know whether or not the claim is true or false. It is not
merely a matter of opinion. If you did cheat, then every student in the class who didn’t cheat, was
robbed of their effort and of the integrity of their grade. If you cheated, then there should be real
world—not just opinion—consequences. At the same time, however, if you worked hard and studied
only to be accused of cheating, you’ve been insulted, your hard work besmirched. You deserve to have
your name cleared and your reputation restored.
The T-value of “You cheated on the test” matters to nearly everyone involved. We know that we can
never answer it with kind of certainty we can answer fact claims but we also can’t succumb to a
semiological paralysis, where because we can’t answer with epistemological certainty we do nothing.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 59

Fallacy
Equivocation and Ambiguity

The use of words presents us with a dilemma. On one hand, in order for language to make any sense,
two language users must mean the same thing when they use the same word. The symbols must have
the same symbolized or point of reference.

If two language users have incompatible words for the same thing, such as the words “water” and
“agua” to refer to the same thing, H2O, then in order to communicate, the speakers are reduced to
pointing, to non-linguistic communication. This will work if you’re thirsty but not if you’re trying to
negotiate trade agreements.

At the same time, we are singular beings who use language in unique or idiosyncratic ways. Because
words have connotative as well as denotative meanings, and because no to people will share exactly
the same connotation, language is always singular and unique. Indeed there is often a considerable
range of meaning within linguistic communities and between individuals.

So language is both. It operates on both levels at the same time.

This is a product of the evolutionary mechanisms which produced the ability to use language. Human
beings are incredibly good at what most things with a brain do on some level, which is detect
patterns. It’s how we find food and mates and avoid death long enough to bread.

If we have a considerable degree of shared understanding, we can fill in the gaps where our
understanding is idiosyncratic. It let us figure out what people mean as opposed to what they say.
Consider the following movie title:

S7VEN

Linguistically, that word is not a word at all. It is nonsense. Most of us, however, immediately
processed the intent behind the word. Seven.

This is how most language use functions. It depends upon a high level of consensus on meanings that
allows for considerable variation in both the meaning of particular symbols (words) and structures
(grammar).

This flexibility, perhaps even tension, permits a wide range of expression. Poetry and other artistic
uses of language often take advantage of the inherent ambiguity in language to develop metaphor
and widen the range of human expression.

Argument, however, because it is concerned with truth claims, is concerned with reducing the
inherent ambiguity as much as possible. Clarity and precision in meaning are hallmarks of good
argument.

But sometimes our language is ambiguous meaning that the meaning is unanchored. We don’t worry
about that when we’re asking what Moby Dick means but if the question is more immediate, like
should we put a person in jail, then we don’t get to have our own personal definition of what murder
means to us.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 60

We call an argument ambiguous if two or more reasonable interpretations of the argument can be
made that entail a substantive difference in meaning or in quality of the argument.

I might read the argument as saying one thing, you read something else that is different but along the
same fundamental or essential lines. This is because in the real world where arguments take place,
people think about issues first and not arguments. They are often sloppy and unstructured and
enthymematic. They are often thick with non-argumentative elements. So it is perfectly normal for
there to be some range of reasonable interpretations of the same argument. When those
interpretations become substantive on a descriptive or evaluative level, that we call the argument
text ambiguous.

This ambiguity means that we read the argument in ways which are fundamentally or essentially
different. This would mean that, if we put our claims on the Square of Opposition, they are either
contrary or contradictory to one another. Often, such disagreements are the product of analytical
ability. One, perhaps both, of the readers have missed clues or misinterpreted aspects of the
argument. They might come to greater consensus through discussion and debate.

Ambiguous texts have contradictory interpretations which cannot be resolved. The problem is not the
reader but the arguer. It is poorly written. The arguer has used imprecise or unclear language. It is not
a good argument because it does not support a claim but could reasonably be understood to support
two or more claims which refute one another.

Most ambiguity can be attributed to poor communication skills. Improper grammar and sloppy,
inconsistent use of terms, using dialectical terms where positive terms are called for, and similar
weaknesses in writing and construction.

Equivocation

Equal voice or equal strength. Ambiguous arguments are those wherein a two or more reasonable
and contradictory descriptions or evaluations can be made. Most often, arguers are attempting to
make clear arguments but, for one reason or another, failed to do so.

Equivocation differs from ambiguity in its intent. Equivocation is intentional ambiguity.

Small children learn this when forced to say things they don’t mean. A child forced to apologize for
making a younger sibling says “I’m sorry you’re crying” as opposed to “I’m sorry I hurt you.”

In a world where speakers are often confronted with different settings wherein different rules of
argument apply, equivocation is often employed as a discursive strategy. A restaurant accused of
spreading food poisoning might say they regret the incident and even agree to pay medical bills in a
carefully crafted statement that, while saying sorry never takes responsibility. A much more
sophisticated example of what children try to do in the nursery.

If not categorically unethical, equivocation is ethically suspect, especially if it is attempting to disguise
its nature. Equivocation violates one of the fundamental conditions of argument, that it advance a
claim, not more than one and certainly not two claims that contradict one another.

CHAPTER 2 LANGUAGE 61

Most of the time, when we encounter equivocation, it is in the form of public statements like press
releases. Short answers to complex questions. Much of this, while interesting to communication
scholars, is not argumentative. It doesn’t pretend to be civic argumentation.

When, however, an arguer uses equivocation in a way to make what is non-argumentative look like
an argument, then we are dealing with a form of sophistry that is unethical. It is an effort to make
what is not supported by reason look like it is supported by reason. It provides cover for action which
is, in essence, coercive.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 62

Chapter 3: The Setting

We need to step back a moment and reflect on Chapter 2.
Chapter 2 provided us with two important background ideas. First, language as a shared system of
communicating abstract and complex ideas. Second, these ideas can be expressed in ways which have a
T-value, that can be either true or false.
It is reasonable for someone to doubt either or both of these premises. Some philosophers of language,
like Emile Benveniste (see Supplement), believe language never reflects the world around us but only
our inner states, our individual and personal, subjective reactions to that world. Every statement is
preceded by an unspoken “From my point of view—”
For Benveniste there can be no truth claim. Statements may be authentic in that they truly represent
our inner worlds, or inauthentic in that they are distortions or deceptions about our inner worlds, but
not true for everyone or false for everyone. Even authenticity and inauthenticity are reflections of our
inner states—“It did not appear to me, from my observations, that you were authentic; others may not
perceive what I perceived.”
From Benveniste’s point of view, or we might say from the paradigm within which Benveniste operates,
there can be no arguments because there can be no truth claims. His assumptions about language and
the world preclude the existence of arguments as we have defined them because arguments can only
exist in a world where certain assumptions have been accepted.
Text versus Setting
As we already noted in Chapter 2, language exists in an abstract sense (langue) and in a concrete sense
(parole). So we always encounter language in something else which, for now, we’ll call “the world.”
If you are having an argument with your roommate regarding whose turn it is to take out the trash, that
argument is happening somewhere, at sometime. That somewhere and sometime have a bearing on the
activity. An argument in the afternoon after doing something fun together might have a softer, more
playful tone than one that takes place late at night. An argument may have a different tenor if one of
you has a romantic partner over, or a parent visiting.
If the argument is the text, then everything else is the context. “Con” means with and thus context
means “with the text.” Context is what influences both the production of texts—how we use language—
and the interpretation of texts—how we decode or understand that language.
Words or actions that make sense in one context can be wildly inappropriate in another. Context can
give us clues as to the meaning of a text and includes things like the historical situation, the immediate
exigencies and the zeitgeist or spirit of the age, the feeling of the moment. A speech given in the 1960’s
at the height of the civil rights and free speech and antiwar movements would have a different ring in
the 1980’s under Reagan and Thatcher.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 63

Context is not the same thing as setting, however. Like texts, settings are determined by the context.
Texts consist of what is said, the words used. Settings are the words not used. Settings are the
assumptions which make certain kinds of discourse, like arguments, possible.
Settings consist of assumptions, specifically assumptions about the world and assumptions about
arguments.
Assumptions about the World
You may have hear that when you make assumptions you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.” Only
stupid people, or asses, make assumptions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All language use, if not all intentional human communication,
depends on assumptions. When we make language choices, such as slang, we are making assumptions
about who a person is and what they’ll know and not know.
Although good arguers try to have as few assumptions as possible, to be reflective regarding what
assumptions are made, no higher level discourse is possible without making some assumptions. We
could not, for example, discuss energy policy without some shared assumptions about the world around
us. Where energy comes from and why it is important. We’ll talk about things like dollars and pipelines
and cars and everyone will know pretty much what we mean. Ordinary discourse—that is to say
language use where people aren’t being reflexive or thinking about their thinking—makes assumptions
along three main lines:
1) What is real (and not real);
2) What is possible (and impossible);
3) What is good (and not good).
What’s real.
Meaningful communication, if not all language use, depends upon a very high level of
agreement with respect to what is real and what is not real. It would be very hard to have a
conversation about health policy, or even things like food preparation, if one person believes
diseases are spread by bacteria and another blames malicious pixies. There is simply no
common ground.
High levels of agreement (also called points of stasis) often highlight or accentuate points of
disagreement. It is because we agree on things like dollars and cars and need for energy that our
disagreement over things like global warming are important and meaningful.
When we make assumptions about what’s real, we also make assumptions about the nature of
that reality, the way things that are real relate to other things that are real. Take, for example,
Harry Potter. Harry Potter exists but not in the same sense that the author who created him, J.
K. Rowling, or the actor who played him, Daniel Radcliff, exist.
Let’s us say that we are audience to an argument. The arguer is claiming we need more funding
for social welfare programs; the interlocutor counter argues that the welfare system is the
government trying to play Santa Claus. In order for this argument to be sensible, we need to
have a pretty good idea about what’s meant by government, by social welfare, and who Santa

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 64

Claus is. More importantly, from the interlocutor’s perspective, we need to know who and what
Santa is and we need to know that he is not real, that he is a fiction believed in by children.
Without those assumptions, assumptions about what is real and the nature and forms of reality,
the contra-argument makes no sense at all.
Claims about the real are generally fact claims and would also include things like dates and
names. Columbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety-two is a statement
about reality, about what is real. When we first think about arguments it is natural that we
should focus on the points of disagreement but, in reality, what makes arguments possible is a
high level of agreement on most questions of fact.
What’s possible.
Closely related and in many respects inseparable from assumptions about what is real are our
assumptions about what is possible. More precisely, we accept that some things are changeable
and others are not. If something is changeable, we probably also have preconceived ideas of
what it is that changes it, the forces or mechanisms involved in changing reality.
Think about human nature, for example. Can we ever really do anything about the problem of
bullying in schools if it is just human nature for kids to establish a social pecking order?
The argument suggests first that there is a reality called human nature. This reality determines
other realities: human behavior; bullying.
If human nature cannot be changed then bullying, no matter how much we don’t like it, is here
to say. It is the produce of something immutable. Fixing bullying exists in the realm of the not-
possible.
What’s good.
There are somethings we can change but shouldn’t. We make assumptions about what is, what
can be, and what ought to be. Our assumptions about what’s good necessarily assume the
opposites: what is bad. We are expected to be drawn to what is good and to be repelled by that
which we find evil.
Our assumptions about what’s good make it possible for us to make prescriptive or normative
claims (see Chapter Ethics). While it is easy to focus on cultural and individual differences, these
particular trees are visible only in the forest of consensus.
Consider an anti-tobacco campaign on television. You shouldn’t smoke because it will cause
serious health problems. Without the assumption that health problems are bad or that being
healthy is good, the argument would be nonsensical. The writers (arguers) behind this campaign
felt perfectly safe making that assumption, confident their audience will “fill in the blanks” and
complete the argument for them with the necessary premise (see also Enthymemes).
Together, our assumptions about what is real, what is possible, and what is good make up our
worldview. It is a picture of the world that we use to make sense of the world. Most of us have areas
where this picture is finely drawn, where we have very well-formed and specific ideas, and other areas
where our assumptions are sweeping and have little support.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 65

To unpack every assumption we make would require going over literally everything up to now, every
value defined and explained. Nothing could be just “common sense.” Of course that is ridiculous.
Assumptions don’t make anyone an ass. Rather, what argument tries to do is to reduce the number of
assumptions, to make only those that are necessary, reasonable, and shared by interlocutors and
audiences.
Rhetoricians and sophists also make assumptions—and often think about assumptions—very differently.
If one’s goal is to persuade or convince rather than to establish or prove, then unpacking assumptions is
sometimes just bad strategy. Consider debates over trade policy, for example. Economic nationalists
who favor protections for domestic workers and are often linked with rightwing politics may find
themselves on the same side of the debate as fair trade advocates and left-leaning internationalists who
oppose similar policies but for very different reasons.
By avoiding contentions assumptions, skilled rhetors and sophists are often able to make their claims
more persuasive or by suppressing issues which are likely to weaken already unstable political alliances
(see also Fallacy: Equivocation and Ambiguity).
Assumptions about Argument
All arguments make truth claims under conditions which make certain verification of those claims
impossible. A prosecutor asks a jury to determine the truth of a forensic claim: did person Y kill person X
and, if so, what that killing an act of murder? Juries are asked to do things that, from a position of
absolute certainty, cannot be done. We can’t go back in time and see. We can’t get inside other people’s
minds and know what they were thinking.
Some people would contend that, absent this kind of certainty, no truth claims can be made. All
knowledge is uncertain and any attempt to make truth claims is an exercise in futility. The Greek skeptic
X was famously remembered for saying…
So how can arguers make truth claims? The answer lies in the setting.
In addition to our assumptions about the world (real, possible, good) arguments make assumptions
about arguments or semantic assumptions.
Semantic assumptions concern conditions under which truth claims can be made. What kinds of claims
can be true or false? How does one establish the truth or falsity of a given claim?
One of the most visible places where see semantic assumptions on display is in our legal argumentation.
While none of us are legal experts, most of us are familiar with a number of the concepts associated
with the legal setting.
✓ The prosecutors are arguers for a claim—that person Y murdered person X. The defense is the
interlocutor. The jury is the audience.
✓ What makes a claim true? If all members of the jury can be convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt. If even one member cannot be convinced, then the claim is presumed to be false.
✓ What counts as evidence? First person testimony from witnesses but not second person
testimony (hearsay).
✓ What must the jury assume? The laws of the jurisdiction as explained by the judge.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 66

A jury cannot be asked if person X was a disgraceful person. That isn’t a matter of fact for a jury to
decide. Not anyone and everyone can be an expert. They must be vetted by the judge. Evidence may be
excluded as prejudicial or irrelevant.
These are all aspects of the setting. The setting establishes rules (formal as in legal settings) and norms
(informal as in personal or social settings) which establish rules of inference, define evidence, and set
the standards of proof.
In some settings, here again the law is a good example but we might also look at some of the physical
sciences too, these rules and norms are clearly articulated and often themselves subjected to debate. In
other settings, the conditions for good argument are amorphous and poorly understood.
This understanding of arguments as being set (in a setting) has some important implications:
1) All truth claims made and supported by argument are probable and qualified:
2) probable in the sense that they are based on the best evidence and reasoning given thus far and
subject to revisiting should new evidence or better reasoning be made available;
3) qualified in the sense that they meet the conditions for truth/falsity under a given set of
assumptions which may not hold true under other conditions.
To say that the arguments prove that person Y murdered person X really is saying, then,
Person Y (probably, within an acceptable margin of error) murdered person X (based on the rules of
argument assumed by all sides).
Key Concept
Stasis

The term stasis is more often used in physics than the study of argumentation or language. It means
“not moving.” In Latin, the term stasis meant more than not moving. It was the point before motion
began.

In arguments, we often focus on all the things we disagree on, the issues or facts on which we don’t
agree. If we think of arguments as tasks, as jobs to be done, and that task is to arrive on some
workable agreement as to what is true or false, then starting with our points of difference may be
impractical.

Good rhetors, those who are interested in persuasion, have long recognized the importance of
starting arguments by first establishing points of stasis, or point of agreement between those who
disagree.

Consider an argument about drug legalization.

Before we can begin, we should be on the same page about what we mean by “drugs” – if one of us
means only the soft drugs like marijuana or are we also including heroin and methamphetamine? We
need to be on the same page about “legalization” too. Do we mean free-for-all or are we talking
about heavily controlled like alcohol?

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 67

We also need to be in agreement about a lot of other things too if this argument is going to go
anywhere. For example, we probably have a lot of agreement or shared assumptions about things like
the period of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s (that it was a total failure).

The more points of agreement we have, the more points of stasis we share, the better the chance
that we’ll successfully complete our task. In the rhetorical treaties of ancient Greeks and Romans,
they talked about the importance of identifying points of stasis forensic arguments which involved
questions of both past actions (who did what) and the quality of those acts (what were they).

In developing points of stasis, we look for things:
1. What are the facts we agree upon? What is in dispute?
2. What are the definitions we agree upon? The qualities of things and the names by which
they’re called?
3. Who are the stakeholders? Why is the question in dispute and what are the consequences or
implications of the answer?

We don’t just focus on points of agreement to minimize our disagreement. We develop points of
agreement in order to bring into focus our disagreement.

Shared assumptions and beliefs are part of the setting of an argument. Sometimes, arguers leave
these assumptions unspoken. Unspoken assumptions, when they are important elements of the
argument, such as a premise, are called enthymemes.

Good arguers often find it important to explicitly state their assumptions, often in advance of the
argument, in order to eliminate distractions or tangents. Articulating the points of agreement, or
stasis, are a way of clarifying the argument.

Fields of Argument
One of the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century, Stephen Toulmin,
contributes that the setting of arguments exists on two levels. There are assumptions common to all
arguments, what Toulmin called “field independent” assumptions and those which vary from field to
field, or “field dependent” assumptions.
Field Independent Assumptions.
We have already considered some of the field independent assumptions of argument: that they are
verbal acts, that they assume an objective world according to which some claims are true and other
claims are false; all arguments are supported by reasons and evidence within a setting that defines
reason and evidence.
When we call these field independent, we mean that these are conditions of all arguments regardless of
the context. These are true of the arguments advanced by courtiers in the court of the first Chinese
Emperors and in the UN when it had to decide whether to sit the delegation from the PRC or Taiwan.
They are true whether or not one argues based on an understanding of Aristotelian logic or Indian

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 68

kamas on logic, the rational paradigm or narrative paradigm. Regardless of when or where, if there is an
argument, these things are present.
There are three other assumptions common to all arguments which are typically referred to as the Laws
of Thought:
Law One: Identity
All P are P
All three laws of though read like statements of the obvious. The law of identity states that a
thing is what it is. If a thing is a dog, then it is a dog. If it is a pencil, then it is a pencil.
While it may be obvious, the implications of the law of identity are important for arguers.
Suppose in this case that we are talking about dogs. To say something is a dog, then, is to say
that what is true of all dogs must also be true of this dog. If it is true that all dogs have four legs,
and I have a dog, then my dog has fsour legs. If it has three than either it is not true that all dogs
have four legs or my pet is not a dog.

Law Two: Excluded Middle
P or not-P
Of the three laws of thought, this one give students the most trouble. Once we establish the
identity of a thing we have also established its opposite, or its not—.
In order to see how this law works, let’s break it.
Suppose we identify a certain quality which we will call “tall.” What is the opposite of tall? If
something is not tall it is… If you’re like most people, your first impulse is to answer “short.” But
while short may be the opposite of tall, we cannot say that something which is not tall is by
definition short. In the US, a man who is 5’ 10 may not be tall but it would be odd to call him
short.
Let us keep going. Logic is binary. A person is tall or not-tall. Not-tall is more inclusive than short.
An animal that is not a dog is not necessarily a cat but every animal is either a dog or not a dog.
Keep in mind that while logic may be binary, the language often has nuances and range of
meaning. A false dichotomy is a binary which excludes a middle ground. For example, to say that
your teacher is either in their office or at the bar would be a false dichotomy. They could be
driving to the bar. But logically, your teacher must be either in their office or not in their office.
Not in their office would, in this case, mean the entire universe except that one office.

Law Three: Contradiction
P ≠ not-P

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 69

The final law of thought is contradiction. This may also seem self-evident. A thing cannot be two
contradictory things at the same time. If I am tall I cannot, at the same time, be not-tall.
Contradictions are the fatal flaw of any sound argument. No argument containing unresolved
contradictions can be a good argument. While contradictions can occur at any point in an
argument, the most important point concerns the truth or falsity of the claim: the claim is either
true or false; it cannot be neither or both.
Although all three laws are simple—so simple they almost don’t need to be said at all—they are
foundational. They are, however, assumptions. We might call them laws but in reality, we cannot prove
them. They are what are known as a priori assumptions meaning they must come before arguments.
They stand outside of argument, prior to it, and thus cannot be part of it.
Can these laws be broken or ignored?
Yes. But not really.
Some approaches to both logic and language reject one or more of the laws of thought. Skepticism (see
Chapter 1) is a philosophical school which asserts that no truth claims can be supported. Some
postmodernist philosophers, like the French historian of ideas Michel Foucault, contended the very idea
of truth was a limitation on what could be said, that truth was a discursive roadblock and we’d be better
off without the idea of truth and falsity. Others have problematized the binary nature assumed by these
three laws.
Rejecting the laws of thought, however, is not without consequences. Without assuming all three laws,
it is simply not possible to make arguments. Arguments are not expressions of a point of view or
statements which merely reflect the speaker’s standpoint or perspective. Arguments are about more
than competing points of view. Arguments cannot take place unless there is a better point of view and,
by logical necessity then, a worse one. If we are going to send person Y to jail for killing person X, our
only warrant for doing so is a genuine believe that Y is responsible for killing X as a matter of objective
fact not just a matter of perspective or opinion. If a nation is going to go to war, it should be because
there is a genuine belief that the enemy nation is in truth a threat.
This is not to say that skeptics and postmodern deconstructionists don’t make a good point. They do.
The whole idea of truth with a capital T is often slippery and problematic. If there is a truth, where does
it come from and who’s to say?
The answer is in the setting. Arguers, interlocutors, and audiences agree—too often tacitly when they
ought to be explicit—upon a set of shared semantic assumptions. The prosecutor and defense attorney
may disagree on almost everything but they must agree on the standards of proof, rules of evidence, the
process for vetting experts, etc. If there isn’t a high level of agreement on those kinds of assumptions,
one shared with the judge and jury, then arguments about guilt or innocence are impossible.
Field Dependent Assumptions
The rules, standards, and other assumptions which remain constant across all arguments, regardless of
context, are few. One of the ways argument scholars have conceptualized this is to talk about spheres of
human activity within which arguments take place. As the sphere of human activity changes, the setting
of the argument changes.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 70

To catalogue and describe the various spheres of human activity is not the work of argumentation
scholars but social scientists. We should assume that as we move from one sphere of human activity to
another, the setting of the argument changes. The argumentation scholar G. Thomas Goodnight
suggested three separate spheres, the personal, technical, and public. While these are broad and
Goodnight’s theory leaves a lot to be desired, they give us a starting point for thinking about how
circumstances impact settings.
When you argue with your roommates or friends or loved ones, this personal sphere is defined by the
relationship between the arguers, interlocutors, and audiences. Most of the assumptions about
argument go unspoken. Since the number of people involved tends to be small and the stakes of the
argument are limited, what counts as evidence is whatever those involved accept. Logic is sound if the
arguers involved accept it as reasonable. Rules and standards are enacted in the moment (although they
may develop and formalize over time) and subject to change or even contradictory standards.
This personal sphere contrasts with the technical sphere. We have in this chapter often used the
example of legal arguments to clarify points of theory. The legal sphere is a technical sphere. Technical
spheres are typically limited to areas of expertise. Law is a specialized, technical field of knowledge that
sets arguments within a field of knowledge. Legal arguments fit within that technical field of knowledge.
Law is not the only technical field. Biology, chemistry and the other hard sciences have their own rules.
So do sociology and psychology. Engineers and military organizations argue differently than academics.
Unlike the personal sphere, where there may be wide range in both knowledge and argumentative
ability and where the line between “proof” and “persuasion” is at its finest, the technical sphere
assumes all of the participants are already members of a community of experts. Writing in a biological
journal about the function of certain proteins, the arguer is a biologist arguing against an interlocutor
who is a biologist before and audience of biologists. Rules of argument, modes of logic, and forms of
evidence are much more likely to be explicitly stated and rigorously applied.
We will say much more about the public sphere in Chapter 9 when we talk about the role of
argumentation in civic life and the ethics of argument. The civic sphere is that space in which individual
interest intersects with the interests of the social-political-economic community or system.

Example:
Assumptions about what’s real, what’s possible, and what’s good

Good arguers work on unpacking assumptions. The failure to do so hampered much of the debate
surrounding same-sex marriage.

What kind of reality is marriage? None of us doubts that it is real but what kind of reality is it? And
how to assumptions about real influence assumptions about what’s possible and what’s good?

The table below is an extremely simplified version of how different political positions understand
marriage as a reality and what that means for it as an institution

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 71

How might these differences impact people’s ability to make arguments about same-sex marriage? Is
there any common set of assumption these parties all agree to that makes it possible for them to
engage in meaningful debate?

More importantly, how do we come to decisions about laws and policies if we disagree so vehemently
on such fundamental assumptions?

Rhetoric

There are few words that trouble communication studies students like rhetoric. The word is often used
by laypeople (those who have no formal education or training in communication studies) to mean
something insubstantial, pretty but not meaningful. In discourse, rhetoric is the opposite of substance.

Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of discovering, in a given situation, the available means of
persuasion. Consider the following example.

Supposed I want to convince you to quit smoking. There are all kinds of good reasons why you should. It
is bad for your health. It is expensive. It sets a bad example.

Which reason should I choose? How should I make my argument?

The answer depends on you.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 72

If you were a parent, the argument that by smoking you set a bad example may be convincing but that
might not be very persuasive to someone with no children or younger siblings. That doesn’t make the
claims untrue. They just aren’t very compelling.

Anti-smoking campaigns aimed at young people rarely talk about health effects in part because these
are already well known. Rather, campaigns will often highlight the corruption of the tobacco industry,
their tendency to prey upon young people, their manipulative strategies for getting and keeping
consumers, their greed. Smoking is made to look uncool rather than unhealthy.

Both arguments are logically sound:

You do not want to be unhealthy.
Smoking is unhealthy.
Therefore, you do not want to smoke.

And

You do not what to be uncool.
Smoking is uncool
Therefore, you do not want to smoke.

The study of argument is, to some degree, idealistic. Argumentation is concerned with whether or not
these arguments are sound. Is the logic valid? Is the evidence credible? In this case, the better argument
is probably the first one. There is a significant amount of credible evidence that smoking causes health
problems while coolness is a bit more ephemeral. There are experts on health. It is much harder to find
credible experts on cool.

So why do campaigns us the weaker argument? Because the audience in this case is more likely to be
persuaded by appeals to social standing than appeals to health or finances. Rhetoric is not about which
argument is objectively better or stronger but which one is more persuasive or appealing.

Rhetoric is a strategic activity in which arguments are in important, but not the only, tool available to
persuade or convince a particular audience, in a particular set of circumstances.

In argumentation studies, good arguments are sound and logical; they rely on credible evidence. In
rhetoric, an argument is good if it is persuasive or convincing.

While logic is smaller than argumentation, rhetoric is bigger; it includes more than argument.
Rhetoricians (people who study rhetoric) and rhetors (people who practice rhetoric) are interested in
arguments but they are also interested in:

• The selection of arguments – which arguments will be used?
• The arrangement of arguments – in what order will the used arguments be presented?
• The style or language of the argument – technical or informal? Grand and stylized or casual and
relaxed?
• The performance of the argument – oral or written? An animated delivery or formal?
• The clarification and set-up of the argument – background information, definitions, examples,
etc.

CHAPTER 3 SETTING 73

Arguments exist where there is a relationship between two or more people. The arguer makes claims
and supports those claims with reasons (logic and evidence). It is the audience who will adjudicate the
claim. Argumentation is concerned with establishing truth claims, with discovering what is more likely to
be true or false.

Rhetoric is concerned with persuasion, with the audience’s relationship to the truth claim, their
willingness to accept that truth claim. It is a subtle but important distinction. Argumentation is more
concrete than logic (see Not an Argument: Logic). Rhetoric is more concrete even; we use the word
historical because, unlike argumentation which is in a setting (see Chapter 2) that establishes criteria or
standards of argument, rhetoric is also situated in a given moment. It speaks not to a general set of
principles but to a specific audience, about a particular matter in that historical (material) moment.

The line between rhetoric and argument is not always a clear one (see Chapter 4 on refining arguments).
One student will interpret elements of the text as rhetorical, that is to say strategic, while another will
see the same element as evidence or application of logic. Reasonable people read texts differently from
one another. What is important is that, as you refine arguments, you filter the rhetorical or strategic
elements especially.

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 74

Chapter 4: Making Claims

The Problem of Natural Language
Natural language, the way we talk to one another when we are not thinking about how we are talking, is
sloppy. Text messaging is an extreme example – misspelling, abbreviation, lack of punctuation, etc. – but
most of our communication is relatively informal and consequently sloppy. Communication is also
indexed.
Communication scholars use the term indexed to refer to communication which references, but doesn’t
always fully unpack, other communication. The index is a verbal or nonverbal cue which directs
interlocutors and audiences to incorporate other ideas or assumptions. Indexes make communication
simpler, more concise and include things like allusions, inside jokes, or references. Consider the
following example:
I won’t be able to attend the company get-together on Friday because it is my anniversary.
In this case the excuse, the reason why the speaker can’t attend a work-related activity, is because there
is a conflict, the speaker’s anniversary. We, as audience members reading the excuse, don’t need to ask
“anniversary of what?” because in the United States, the word “anniversary” is almost always a
reference to a person’s wedding anniversary. More importantly, the speaker in this case, doesn’t need
to explain why an anniversary is or why an anniversary is important. The cultural and interpersonal
significance of wedding anniversaries is something generally understood by most audiences.
Refining Arguments
Most of the time, when we argue, we are not thinking about arguments but the issues we are arguing
about. We are often passionate and engaged with the issues, driven by personal concerns and
emotional force as well as by logic and evidence. As a result, our arguments are sometimes bad ones but
even good arguments are often fragmentary, make assumptions, and word things in ways that make
argument scholars cringe.
In order to understand arguments, we need to translate the text of arguments into structures which
make them intelligible as arguments. The first step it so identify the claim being made by the arguer. It is
important to start with the following principles:
1) In an argument, there can be only one claim
There can be one and only one claim which animates the argument. Argumentation scholars have used
a number or words to identify this claim including:
• Thesis
• Question
• Standpoint
• Proposition
• Resolution
• Conclusion

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 75

All texts have an ineliminable degree of subjectivity. Two intelligent and informed people can read the
same argument in different ways and come up with different, reasonable interpretations. Argument
analysis begins with making an interpretive choice.
2) Claims must be declarative sentences with a truth value
A truth-value means the claim advanced by the arguer is recognized by the setting as one which is either
true or false, not an entirely subjective statement.
3) The truth-value of the claim is not empirically verifiable; there is doubt
Reasonable people do not argue about things they can simply look up or verify independently.
Reasonable people may argue about which report is more credible but this is not the same as arguing
over a fact. Joe’s report of the fact is more credible than Steve’s report of the fact is not the same as
saying the fact is true or false even though these claims may be closely related (see Fallacy: Many
Questions).
4) Argumentative claims can be refined to a clear logical structure
Structure of sentences and claims matters. How claims are worded sets up argumentative burdens and
requirements. How we word claims is the starting point for logic and inference.
Sample Argument

Read the argument below. What is the arguer’s claim (thesis)? What kind of evidence does the arguer
use to support that claim? How are the reasons structured to support that claim?

One of the biggest problems I see in immigration policy is a deep and pervasive
misunderstanding of migration, why people move and why the come here.

I have been lucky enough to actually spend time with people in Central America who have
family members who have migrated. I’ve met people who have not only made the journey to
the US but who’ve been deported and sent back home. I’ve been able to talk to them and
hear their stories. The most surprising fact…that we are not their first choice and, for most
migrants, we’re their last. All the people I spoke too, people with mothers and brothers who
left home, all the people who were planning to migrate, and none of them picked the USA
first.

Central Americans want to go to Mexico. Nicaraguans look for work on Costa Rica or El
Salvador. They speak the language. It is closer to home. The culture is different but not so
different.

Spain is expensive but still a good option.

If there is literally nowhere else, they come to the United States. And it isn’t for freedom and
it isn’t for welfare. It is to make money to support their families back home. I don’t know
anyone who wants to migrate, to leave home, to go to a place where they’re called “illegal”
and “spic” and “rapist” and accused of being a freeloader. Can you imagine? Walking a

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 76

thousand miles, beaten and robbed along the way so you can work for crap pay and the
constant threat of deportation…because you’re lazy.

No one wants to migrate. When they do, they want to stay close and come home soon. Until
we realize that, our immigration policy is going to fail and fail and fail.

The structure of an arguable claim
Analyzing arguments is like being a translator. We look for clues in the text and, using those clues and
what we know about arguments, we translate, or refine, the argument text. The refined argument, also
called the ur-argument, is the bare bones of the argument. All of the rhetoric, the clutter, the non-
argumentative elements are stripped away and the argument’s structure is revealed.
Subject Term
What is the argument about? What is the main point or idea that is being interrogated. Are we talking
about who was at the party or the party itself?
The subject term should be clearly expressed in the simplest possible terms.
Look at the sample argument on previous. What is the subject term of the argument? Is this an
argument about immigration or an argument about people in the US who don’t understand the reasons
why people migrate? Reasonable people might disagree. As an argument critic, you’ll need to look at the
context close and make the best interpretation you can.
For now let’s assume this is an argument about immigration policy in the United States. The arguer is
contending that US immigration policy is doomed to fail because it doesn’t take into account the
reasons why people migrate in the first place.
Subject term: US immigration policy
Quantity and Quality
When refined, all claims will have a clearly identifiable quantity and quality.
The subject term identifies a class or category of phenomenon. It is something that exists and can be
defined. Before we can argue about it, we need to know if we are talking about every member of that
class or only some of them members of that class.
The quantity of a claim must be either universal or particular. There are no other quantities. When we
are talking about the class as a whole, we use the word ALL to express that. Claims which refer to all
members of the subject term are called universal. Claims which refer to only some members of the class
are called particular and identified with the word SOME.
In the example argument above, the arguer is either talking about some aspects of the immigration
policy or the immigration policy as a whole. Are some parts not working or the whole program a bust?

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 77

The quality of the claim is either affirmative or negative. There are no other qualities. An affirmative
claim is one which says something about the subject term, about qualities that the thing in question has.
A negative claim identifies qualities the subject term does not have.
Copular verb
In middle school, you learned what verbs and nouns are. You’ll need to recall those lessons here.
A verb is the action or linking. It is what is happening. A noun is what it’s happening to.
In logic, we refer to things as they are, as states of being (see the Law of Identity). We talk about what
things are, not what they will be. This limits the number of verbs we have to work with considerably. In a
logically refined claim, the only verbs we use are forms of the verb “to be” also known as a “copular”
verb, a verb that couples things together. May be plural and it can be expressed in either the past tense
or present tense:
Singular present → is
Plural present → are
Singular past → was
Plural past → were

When you’re refining a claim, the only acceptable verb is copular, is, are, was, or were. There are no
other options.
Predicate term
The subject term is what the argument is about, the matter under consideration. The predicate term
says something about the subject term.
When refining a claim, it is important to remember that the predicate term must be expressed as a
noun. This can sometimes seem clunky and awkward when we write out claims but it is important
because the verb “is” can sometimes refer to associations or characteristics of a thing but not really the
thing itself:
Jim is short.
Jim is the teacher.
Although seem similar, the word “is” in these two sentences is actually two different words. In the first
sentence, the “is” is one of association or connection but not identity. Jim has a certain quality but that
quality is not one that necessarily indicates Jim. Lots of people may be short. We could not reverse the
order of the sentence and have it still mean the same thing: Short is Jim. Short is not a noun, it can’t be
the subject of a sentence.
The second example uses the “is” of identification. It could be replaced with an = and still mean the
same thing. Jim is the teacher. The teacher is Jim.
The claim
A claim is a universal or particular subject term linked by either sameness or difference to a predicate
term.

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 78

In the example above, on immigration, we could express a claim that reflects the arguer’s standpoint in
one of four ways that all make sense, more or less:
Universal Affirmative → All US immigration policy is an unworkable solution
Universal Negative → No US immigration policy is a workable solution
Particular Affirmative → Some US immigration policy is an unworkable solution
Particular Negative → Some US immigration policy is not a workable solution

Notice that each of the four claims is an expression of the same general idea but expressed in different
ways. In interpreting arguments, we try to find the best or strongest interpretation of the argument (see
Principle of Charity in interpretation).
Special case: Proper nouns

The subject term of a claim must be expressed as a noun that refers to a class or category of thing
that exists in the world and can be defined. Some dogs or All cats.

What do we do about proper nouns? What if the claim was something like:

Jim Dimock is the best argument teacher.

Our first impulse might be to say this is a particular affirmative claim. It doesn’t talk about all teachers
of argument, only one.

But the quantity of a claim always refers to the subject term. There are many argument teachers but
“argument teacher” is the predicate, not the subject. Predicates don’t have quantity or quality.

It may be counter-intuitive (the opposite of what seems obvious) but “Jim Dimock” is a universal. It
refers to a class that only has one member. There is only one Jim Dimock and thus when we talk
about him we are referring to all of the Jim Dimocks.

Proper nouns are always treated as universals even if the refer to singular entities or objects.

The Square of Opposition

Figure x

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 79

The square of opposition is a tool logicians and students of argument use to both test their refined
claims and to begin the process of inference.
Claims can be expressed as having two quantities, universal and particular. On the matrix, the universal
claims occupy the horizontal bar at the top while particular claims are on the bottom. Affirmative claims
are on the left; negative on the right.
If I interpret the sample argument (see page x) as being about immigrants, as opposed to immigration
policy, I could reasonably interpret the arguer’s claim as:
All immigrants are people who move for economic reasons.
Is this a reasonable interpretation? Does it capture what the arguer is talking about, the reasons and
evidence that he/she is providing? Does it make sense? These are important questions but they are
questions about literacy. Did I read the text and make a reasonable guess as to what the author was
trying to say?
The next step is to begin looking at the text as an argument, not just an expression. We need to ask
structural questions. Is the interpretation of the claim worded properly:
✓ Is it singular?
✓ Does it clearly identify a quantity?
✓ Does it clearly identify a quality?
Our next step is to put it on the square and see what its contrary, contradictory, alterns are.
Contrary claims are both universal but differ in terms of quality. So the contrary of a universal negative
claim is a universal affirmative. Particular claims are not contrary to one another because both may be
true at the same time. Some immigrants might come for economic reasons; some may come for other
reasons.
A contradictory claim differs in both quality and quantity. So the contradictory of a universal affirmative
claim is a particular negative. The contradictory of a particular affirmative is a universal negative.
Alterns are claims which differ in quantity but not quality.

Figure y

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 80

If we can generate the contrary, contradictory, and alterns of the claim we have identified, we have
started the process of analysis. We can start making inferences about the argument and begin to
identify the conditions under which the claim might be supported. We can start to make statements
about the argument.
For example, in this case, the claim is expressed as a universal affirmative. The arguer isn’t talking about
some immigrants but about all immigrants.
Making inferences
Once we have identified the claim and expressed it in a logical form, with a clearly expressed quantity
and quality, we can begin to say things about the argument that are not immediately obvious about the
argument. The theory lets us say things about the argument.
First, two contrary claims cannot both be true.
Second, contradictory claims cannot both be true.
Third, if a universal claim is true, its altern is always also true.
Fourth, if a particular clam is true, its altern may be true.
Suppose an arguer makes the claim “Some dogs are animals with fleas.” Notice that it might be easier or
more eloquent to say “Some dogs have fleas” but this doesn’t have a copular verb.
If that claim is true, we must also be able to say:
The claim is particular affirmative. It’s contradictory – No dog is an animal with fleas – must be
false. If some do, that it cannot also be true that none do.
Its altern, that “All dogs are animals with fleas” may be true. Just because some do, we can’t
conclude all do.
Its own contrary (on the bottom of the square we call them sub-contraries) might be true or it
might be false. Some dogs do. It is possible all dogs do but it is also possible some dogs don’t.
Fallacy
Many Questions

One of the most poorly explained formal fallacies is called many questions. A fallacy occurs anytime
what appears to be a single claim assumes multiple claims. A commonly used example of the fallacy
goes something like this:

When did you stop beating your spouse?

This is called “many questions” because the question assumes a fact for which there has not been (at
least so far) any supporting evidence. The question assumes we have already established that you
have, at some point, beaten your spouse.

The example is a bad one for a number of reasons. First, in logic, the word “question” doesn’t
normally refer to an interrogative statement (who, what, where, why, when, how) but to the claim

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 81

which is in question. The example is a better representation of a sophistic question, a question which
is intended to imply or establish the truth of a claim without supporting it. Typically such questions
are done to derail communication and change the focus of the discussion. They are not
argumentative and so technically they cannot also be fallacies. They are sophisms.

The fallacy of many questions occurs when there is confusion about what the actual claim is and often
this is because arguers are not clear and advance similar, often related statements. One example I
have encountered on many occasions concerns student debates over marijuana. Consider how closely
related the following statements are:

Marijuana is not harmful.
Marijuana should be legal.
Marijuana has many health benefits.

In a debate—especially an informal argument—claims often come up organically as part of the ebb
and flow of the argument. We move easily and often without notice from one subject to another.

If we are going to rigorously analyze arguments, however, we need to keep in mind that these three
statements, while similar, are not identical. To say something is not harmful doesn’t make it healthy
and many things that have health benefits can also be harmful. There are many things which should
be legal but are harmful and things that are not harmful but should still be controlled. The three
statements overlap. Evidence which is used to support one claim could be used to support the others.

When the claim shifts during the course of the argument, from one claim to another, or when we are
trying to debate two claims at the same time, the argument becomes ambiguous and therefore
fallacious.

One of the most common areas where this fallacy manifests is in disagreements over fact claims. Fact
claims are statements that refer to material, empirically verifiable phenomenon. Suppose we are
considering the following claim:

Brett was at the party on Friday night.

This is a statement with a truth-value (Brett was either there or not-there) but it is not a claim that is
supported by logic or inference but by empirical evidence. Someone saw him at the party.

But suppose we did not see Brett. We need to rely on the testimonial evidence of witnesses who
were at the party. We may have some witnesses who insist they saw Brett and others who say he was
somewhere else.

While our principle concern may be whether or not Brett was at the party, the actual disagreement
(see Stasis) is over which witness is more credible:

Brett was either at the party or not at the party
Mary says she saw Brett at the party
John says he saw Brett at the park

However

CHAPTER 4 CLAIMS 82

Mary is objective and disinterested with no reason to lie; Mary is known to be honest
John is Brett’s friend and known to lie to authorities to help his friends

Therefore

A reasonable person would conclude that Brett was probably at the party.

By focusing on the stasis, the claim that is actually in dispute, we are able to make better arguments.
By convoluting the distinction between the claims “Brett was at the party” and the claim “Mary is
more credible than John” we commit the fallacy of many questions.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 83

Chapter 5: Evidence

Arguments are about claims. Claims are statements that have a truth-value. Not all claims that have a
truth-value are arguable.
We do not, for example, argue about metaphysical claims. Is there a world beyond space and time?
Could you all just be creations of my own mind, I am living in a dream? Are we in the matrix?
We can’t argue these claims, or even some more fundamental claims like the thee Laws of Thought.
Logical arguments assume logic works, therefore logical arguments cannot prove the validity of logic
itself. We can accept metaphysical questions or reject them but there is no ground to argue them.
On a related question, we don’t argue about claims that have no truth value. Are parfaits better than
cake? Is Batman really a super hero? Some claims are true because they reflect subjective states of
being. What we like or don’t like or believe or reject. We don’t argue about these claims because they
have no objective reference points. The same goes for what fictional characters or historical figures
would or would not do. This is not to say that we may not, as part of such discussions, engage in
arguments over questions that do have a truth value, but claims which are purely speculative or at best
guesses about what may or might be, are not the domain of argument.
Finally, we don’t argue about fact claims. We argue with fact claims. A fact, by definition is a claim that
has a truth value which can be verified by empirical observation or experience. The qualification is the
important part of the definition; its differentia.
A fact claim makes a statement about the world that is supported by verification, not communication.
Suppose for example, that I had a jar filled with marbles and promised extra credit to the students who
could tell me, exactly, how many marbles were in the jar. Not close or almost. Exactly.
What’s the best way to answer that question?
Count them. Use your hands and your eyes. One, two…
Fact claims are claims that we don’t argue about. We verify. It is an important distinction. What year did
Columbus arrive in the Americas from Spain? Look it up…1492. Did Italy fight on different sides in World
War I and World War II. Yes. Google it.
But people argue about facts all time? Don’t they?
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that people often argue about things that can and should be verified and
done with. The more facts arguers and interlocutors agree on, the better the arguments. Good arguers
recognize and important distinction:
The report of the fact is not the fact.
All fact claims can be verified by direct observation or experience. That isn’t how most fact claims are
verified. Supposed we were to be in disagreement over a historical question, such as the assassination
of President John Kennedy, about which there has been a great deal of speculation and dispute. Two

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 84

people might agree on the fact claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby. We can
see this happen on film. The film verifies.
With respect to the number of shots fired, however, some witnesses said they heard three shots and
others four. Reasonable people who are reporting different perceptions of the experience. This does not
mean that, for some people four shots were fired (which would mean a second shooter, a conspiracy)
and three shots were fired for other witnesses.
The fact claim—Three shots were fired—is verified by appealing not to our own first-hand experiences
or perceptions but by an account of someone else’s experiences. It is not the fact which is up for debate
because facts cannot be debated. That is the nature of facts. It is which account of the facts should be
accepted.
Facts cannot be debated.
Reports of facts can be debated.
What is in dispute is not the facts themselves but which report of the facts is to be believed. Informed
and prepared arguers/interlocutors often run into disagreements over the facts. Sometimes, in an
argument, questions regarding facts are bracketed (set aside temporarily; accepted conditionally; “if”)
so that the argument can proceed. Even good argument may come down to fact claims which we are
not entirely certain of.
What is important to remember is that the verification of facts is something we have an interest in, it
matters to us, but as students and scholars of argument, facts are not themselves not the subject of
argument. We don’t argue about whether or not smoking cigarettes causes cancer. That is a question for
experts, who may make arguments about reports of facts or about the implications of facts or the
strength of data. We can make informed and critical statements about the qualifications of experts, the
credibility of witnesses, and the scope of authorities.
Who do we believe and why?
There is no good argument without well-supported facts, information from sources which are
considered credible not only by arguers but by interlocutors and audiences. That’s difficult to do in
today’s contentious and divisive public discourse. It is hard to get someone who thinks Infowars is good
source accept the reporting in the New York Times.
Argumentation literacy requires us to think about where our information is coming from and the
strengths and weaknesses of our evidence. We use the word evidence to refer to reports of facts or data
that are presenting in support of another truth claim.
So if the claim is—Smoking cigarettes is an unhealthy habit—and in support of that claim, I provide you
with information published by the Department of Health, then that information is evidence.
The first distinction we need to make is between what are known as first-person accounts and second-
person accounts. We will then distinguish between three types of evidence arguers use: testimony,
expertise, and dogma.
First-Person vs Second-Person

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 85

First-person accounts are reports by those who actually have the experience or knowledge themselves.
An arguer who reports on their own experiences, who used those experiences to support the claims
they advance is using first-person testimony. An arguer who also did research on a topic of interest, who
hold certifications in the area in question is giving first-person expertise. A teacher who clarifies course
policies in the syllabus is a first-person authority.
In arguments, the arguer or the interlocutor are considered the first-person. All other evidence is
second-person. The evidence comes not from someone party to the argument but from a second
person.
Most of us raised in the United States are familiar with the children’s game telephone. A message is
whispered from person to person. As the message moves down the chain, it will change. The changes
may be subtle and small at first but, the longer the chain, the more distorted the message becomes.
Details disappear. Others details seem to come from nowhere. What was asserted tentatively becomes
absolute fact…
The children’s game illustrates a simple idea, that reports closes to the fact tend to be more credible
than those furthest from the fact. A first-person account is generally more credible than a second-
person report; a second-person report that has only passed through one or two people is, at least
presumptively (see prima facie), more credible than one that has been filtered through many people.
Newspapers, as a general rule, rely on combinations of first-person accounts and direct quotations from
first persons, the strongest kind of second person account. Rarely do you see journalists citing other
journalists when reporting the news. Editorials, which offer opinions and perspectives, and sometimes
arguments, about the events of the day, frequently cite from newspapers and other credible news
sources. There is no hard and fast, field independent rule for when to use first person accounts and
when to use second person accounts. Those norms are determined by the setting of the argument.
Testimony Expertise Dogma
First Person An eyewitness, a
person sharing their
experiences or
observations.
An expert speaking on
their own conclusions;
a doctor on the
meaning of an x-ray or
lab result; an engineer
on the strength of a
bridge.
An authority speaking
in their own voice; the
Constitution or the
Bible.
Second Person A second party quoting
an eyewitness’s
testimony; a
newspaper written by a
reporter who
interviewed people at
the scene.
A second party, not
necessarily an expert in
their own right,
quoting other experts;
a journal article citing
research done by other
experts.
The authority is not
quoted in its own
voice; an excerpt of the
Bible or a paraphrase
of First Amendment.

Types of Evidence
All evidence is either first-person or second person. In terms of arguments, we can broadly classify
evidence as belonging to one of three types: testimony, expertise, or dogma (see Table). Understanding
the type of evidence is important because each type of evidence functions according to different rules.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 86

It is important to be able to describe arguments accurately because each type of argument is evaluated
differently.
Testimony of Witness
Testimony is evidence provided by a witness. Witnesses are able to give first-person accounts which are
referred to as narratives. Arguers use narrative in a couple of ways, not just testimonial evidence and in
this textbook, the narrative form and function are elaborated on in greater detail in Chapter 9.
Witness testimony is a paradox for argumentation students and scholars. We must first recognize that,
in most of our discourses but in public discourse especially, the testimony of witnesses is incredibly
persuasive. Logically, we have be able to assume that those who were there and experienced directly
are more credible than those who heard the story from someone else.
Consistently, however, studies have demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable
forms of evidence. Witnesses give conflicting testimony about the same event with equal conviction and
sincerity. Witnesses misremember. They see what they expect to see, not always what’s there. Despite
such studies, eyewitness testimony is very persuasive. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, trial juries will believe witness.
We are reliant on testimonial evidence for most of what we know about the world. Our news is
testimonial evidence. History books.
Special Case:
Artifacts

In argumentation, evidence refers to reports of facts about the world. This includes statements based
on observation (witness testimony), conclusions about the world (judgments or opinions of experts),
and dogmatic statements (authority).

Evidence is not limited to statements. How do we classify material objects or things which may also
be used in support of claims. In contemporary criminal procedure, for example, forensic scientists
look for things like fingerprints, carpet fibers, and DNA. This is also evidence.

How do we classify this evidence?

A fingerprint is a material object. When used as evidence, we call these material things artifacts. An
artifact is often not symbolic but a sign. It doesn’t say anything but must be understood and
interpreted. It is important to distinguish between the thing, such as the fingerprint, and statements
about the thing. It may be a witness who tells us where the fingerprint was found while an expert
would tell us how we know whose fingerprint it is. Statements about the thing are not the thing.

Rarely do we consider artifacts independent of statement from other witnesses or experts. In and of
themselves, when we look at artifacts, we consider them witnesses; the artifact testifies to some fact.
A fingerprint testifies to the fact that a person was in a certain place and touched certain things. A
fingerprint on a door handle testifies to that that person touched that door handle.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 87

Evaluating testimony
The philosopher Aristotle address the question of credibility in his book On Rhetoric. His interest was in
ethos, or the character of the witness giving testimony. This character consisted of the speaker’s
reputation, what was known about them before the argument and of things the speaker did during the
argument which spoke to their credibility.
When considering testimony, students and scholars of argument look at what they know about a
witness to answer two questions:
✓ What is the quality of the experience to which the witness testifies?
✓ Is the witness reliable?
The first question goes to the depth and range of the witness’s experiences. If a soldier was giving
testimony regarding their experiences in a war, we would be interested in the nature of the service. Was
it overseas or stateside? Combat or behind a desk? A week, a month, or a year? These are relevant
questions about the experience the witness describes.
Vantage point, perspective, state of mind, and other material concerns play a role in the ability of the
witness to relate their experiences accurately. Circumstances like time of day (was it dark?) and social
context (what else was going on?)
Just because a witness can give an accurate account doesn’t necessarily mean they will give an accurate
account. The second question we ask regarding testimony concerns the witness’s character regarding
their propensity to give inaccurate testimony, not only to lie, but also to withhold information, or even
shade the truth. Does the witness have any motive to be less than honest?
Imagine, for example, a fight that broke out at a party. Many people may come forward to testify as to
what they saw and heard. The testimony of an objective witness who just happened to be at the party is
more credible than the testimony of the best friend to one of the combatants. The testimony of a snitch
or informant who receives money or some other benefits for their testimony—and often noting if they
haven’t got good info—is less credible than an honest citizen who comes forward to testify at great
personal risk. A lawmaker who owned a significant amount of stock in a company would be judged
harshly if they attempted to make laws regulating that company without knowledge of the public.
Questions about character can be tricky (see ad hominem fallacies). When do questions about a
witness’s background and interest stop being relevant and become a distraction? That is hard to say and
undoubtedly field dependent (see ad hominem). It is important for arguers and interlocutors who would
make character an issue to establish the relevance of their interrogation of a witness’s
knowledge/experience and character.
Second-person testimony
First-person testimony is the relation of a personal experience, a direct account of what the witness
experienced. Most of our information about the world, and most of the information we make use of in
arguments is not first person but second person. Second person testimony is testimony communicated
by someone other than a witness. The most common forms of second person testimony we encounter
are news reports. A reporter might be a witness to events, reporting upon what they saw, heard, or

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 88

otherwise experienced directly. More often than not, however, a newspaper article will include what
reporters call “quotes” or testimony from eyewitness and others.
There is no such thing as “third-person” testimony. Let us say, in a public debate, that a candidate
(arguer) uses as evidence a column in a newspaper, which cites a report compiled by a state agency
which collected first-hand accounts. Our arguer is three degrees from the original account:

We call both of the intermediating witnesses second-person but differentiate them by degrees. Second
degree second-person testimony was received directly, without intermediating persons (the researcher),
third degree (the newspaper article), and so on.
While credibility (character) of second, third degree, etc. is important, our ability to assess the quality of
the original witness’s experience is limited. Our concern with testimony is always that witnesses may
select details of the experience in biased or misleading ways—this is true even if they are making every
effort to be honest in their testimony. With second-person accounts, we have two dangers: that the
second-person witness will select, perhaps unconsciously, those details which support or reinforce their
point of view or preconceived ideas AND that they will go further and select only those witnesses whose
accounts support the conclusions already decided upon.
When it comes to evaluating testimonial evidence, it seems safe to say that the more degrees of
separation there are between the actual event/experience and the audience, the less reliable the
testimony.
Expertise of Judgments of Experts
In the 1992 movie My Cousin Vinny, actress Marisa Tomei won an Academy Award for her portrayal of
Mona Lisa Vico, fiancé to defense attorney Vinny Gambini. At a pivotal moment in the trial, Vinny puts
Mona Lisa on the stand as an expert witness. Skeptical of her knowledge, the prosecuting attorney
demands the right to vet her, to test her qualifications as an expert. In one movies most memorable
scenes, Mona Lisa not only dazzles the courtroom with her impressive display of knowledge but
humiliates her critics who wanted to dismiss her because of her gender, her clothes, and the way she
talked.
Tomei’s character is not the only one to give evidence at the trial. Several people claimed to have seen
the two innocent defendants fleeing the crime scene. Vinny systematically discredits the eyewitness
testimony by showing how the material conditions—dirty windows, tree branches, bad glasses—cast
doubt upon what they saw and what they heard.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 89

But Tomei’s evidence isn’t based on what she saw or what she heard. She was nowhere near the scene
of the crime when it took place. How can she give evidence?
While the language of courtroom drama may still call Mona Lisa Vico a “witness” and her evidence
“testimony” we, as argument scholars, need to clearly differentiate between the testimony of witnesses
and the expertise, or the conclusions and judgments of experts.
Vico is treated differently than other witnesses in key respects. She is first vetted by the court in order to
prove that she is an expert. Witnesses testify about the experience, what they saw or heard. Testimony
relates facts. Expertise is about making judgments. Witnesses relate facts. Experts related informed
opinions or judgments about facts.
Let us say we go to a doctor with a sore throat. When a doctor tells us that we have a virus, not a
bacteriological so we should get rest and drink fluids instead of taking an antibiotic, her argument looks
like this:

Many of you have been done an enormous disservice by your previous teachers, who in an effort to
teach you to make better arguments, have told you that facts are good and opinions are always bad. The
effect of this shoddy instruction, in addition to making my job much harder, is that many of you will
convolute the distinction between the two into something like facts are statements which are true and
have evidence and opinions are claims that can’t be true or false so there can’t be evidence.
Fact claim1: Ice cream is on sale at the market
Opinion1: Raspberry Ripple is the best ice cream on the market
The latter claim, called an opinion, is of no interest to argument scholars because it is a subjective
statement. It reflects the inner world of the arguer. It may be “true for you” but that truth doesn’t mean
it can be applied to me.
Fact claim2: Raspberry Ripple ice cream is a dairy product
Opinion2: Adults should eat 2 – 3 servings of dairy per day
The opinion isn’t a fact. It is a belief that certain people have arrived at. It is, however, very different
from Opinion1 above. Opinion1 is an expression of the subjective world of the person who said it. It has
no objective, external point of reference or “T-value.” Opinion2 is also a belief but it does have a T-value,
it conveys a belief about the external world and can be supported by external points of reference. It

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 90

must be argued for; it cannot be intuited (for more on the relationship between arguments and
scientific conclusions, see Chapter 10).
We trust the conclusions of experts by virtue of their knowledge, experience, and understanding.
Experts may look at or gather facts (data) in specialized ways or make inferences from facts based on a
wider, more informed understanding of the subject matter.
A doctor is an expert in human health. They may see the same observable facts as other people but they
are able to draw conclusions based on a wider, fuller understanding of the human body. They also know
what kind of questions to ask, where to look for data which would confirm or refute their conclusions.
Evaluating Expertise
Even the best doctors make mistakes. For a serious diagnosis or a radical treatment, you would be wise
to look for a second opinion.
We evaluate expert’s statements using the same essential dimensions of ethos we use to test witnesses:
knowledge and character.
With respect to knowledge, a witness’s knowledge is assessed in terms of the quality of their
experience. An expert’s knowledge is assessed in terms of the quality of their training and experience in
the domain of knowledge in question. What constitutes adequate education depends on the field. For a
medical doctor, we would ask where she went to school, if she has any certifications or specialized
training. We would also want to know how much experience she has, how long she’s been in this field, if
this is the first time she’s encountered anything like this.
My mechanic is also an expert. I am not sure if he ever went to any school but is experience with cars is
unparalleled. There are many ways to acquire knowledge and many ways to measure knowledge. As
critics of argument, our concern is with the depth and breadth of knowledge not with degrees and
certifications.
Just like witnesses, knowing is only half the battle. We also want know if our expert is unbiased and
objective. Like witnesses, all experts have a point of view and a perspective. They should never be
thought of as omniscient but as interested individuals in the world. We who rely on experts for their
informed opinions should reasonably be interested in whether or not our expert has a stake in the
outcome of the argument.
In My Cousin Vinny, Mona Lisa Vito gives her expert opinion out of the goodness of her heart, and her
commitment to her the defense counsel. In most trials, experts are paid not only to appear and testify
but to do the work that allows them to testify with confidence in the first place. A forensic scientist in a
murder trial is compensated for their time, the time doing research and running tests and the time spent
in trial. Many juries have worried about the opinions of “hired gun” experts who testify for a fee.
Unsavory corporations, such as tobacco companies and big petroleum, have a reputation for funding
research which they then use to challenge the prevailing opinion. Researchers for the cigarette
companies find no clear links between tobacco and health problems. The scientists in the employ of oil
cartels are skeptical of climate change and have serious doubts about the viability of green energy.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 91

As with witnesses, we should always be conscious of the relevance of questions concerning character
and status. Irrelevant questions are often raised to cast doubt on experts. For example, when President
Trump criticized Judge Gonzalo Curiel suggesting that he was “a Mexican” (Curiel was born in Indiana)
and therefore could not be expected to be objective, he was raising an irrelevant question, or ad
hominem, rather than relevant questions about the qualifications of an expert.

Special Case:
Statistics

When making arguments about public and social life, it is sometimes important to get a sense of the
big picture. How many kids go to school in the United States? Of those students, how many are
succeeding in math and how many need help reading? Which candidate is more likely to win the
upcoming election?

Statistics refers to numerical aggregates of empirical information or data. In argumentation, especially
public argument, data is extremely important and often essential to good decision-making.

Suppose, for example, I want to know how many people work at Midwest State University. The
human resources department tracks those numbers.

As an argument critic, should we take those numbers as authoritative? The human resource
department at MSU has the official numbers. If there is conflicting data between HR and the faculty
union, we would undoubtedly treat the HR numbers as more credible data. Does this make them an
authority?

Alternatively, the number of employees is an observable, empirical fact. We could, if we needed to,
simply count them. This is the kind of thing witnesses do.

The best answer, however, is expertise.

What is probably confusing is who the expert is. While statistics are collected by professionals, such as
economists or sociologists, and the proper compellation and the interpretation of statistics requires a
certain level of competence, the expert is the method.

What makes statistics different from observations is the method by which the data are collected and
sorted. A methodology, by definition is an approach to collecting information about the world which,
when applied by different competent researchers, should produce the same results.

A survey, for example how many dentists recommend a particular kind of gum, does not ask every
single dentist but a representative sample of dentists (see Inference, Chapter 5). Organizations who
specialize in data collection, such as the Gallup Poll or the Nielson Ratings, develop and apply
methods of collecting accurate data from a limited sample sized. It is the method which produces the
results, not the people asking the questions.

The more complex the methodology, the more the persons applying and analyzing the data need to
be experts. So a professor of sociology with many years of experience would be more qualified than a

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 92

graduate student attempting the apply the method for the first time. If the survey method is flawed,
however, it doesn’t matter how much experience the researcher has; the results will be in accurate.

Dogma of Authority
We can expect laypeople, audiences untrained in argumentation theory, to blur the distinction between
testimony and expertise. We should assume that people will use the word “authority” when they
probably should be using the word “expert.” For us, authorities and experts could not be more different.
Experts give us judgments based on their expertise but those judgments are still based on data. They are
arguments about which there may be more than one informed and credible opinion. Authority is by its
very nature singular. At the point where we conclude that one person is the authority, then there are no
other authorities. Unlike experts, the conclusions of authorities are pronouncements not arguments.
If you have encountered the word dogma before there is a good chance it was associated with religion
or some other rigidly defined school of thought. Sometimes people use the world to mean something
like “irrational” as in “dogmatically clinging to faith instead of reason.”
Let us suppose we have a concept that, while it is pretty clear and generally understood may be fuzzy
around the edges, like cheating. Somethings we know are cheating but others could be a bit of a gray
area. Is writing a paper that works for your English 101 and your Speech 101, printing it for one class and
reading it for another cheating? Some people might say yes. Others no. Which definition do we use?
As a Minnesota State University Mankato student in a classroom at Minnesota State University
Mankato, there is no doubt. It is the definition in the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities.
That document is has authority in this context. We have already agreed (as part of the setting) that this
document is authoritative in this context.
Authority means “the final word” and it is always contextually or situationally determined. If you were at
St. Cloud State, the MSU Mankato Student Rights and Responsibilities have no authority at all. It is just a
piece of paper. While we may have good reasons, logical rationale, for a particular authority or even a
dogmatic claim, what makes dogma is position or power. There may be disagreements but, on this
point, the decision has been made and it is final.
Authority is problematic for argument theorists. We don’t like it. While the MSU definition of cheating
may be reasonable, its power as evidence isn’t based on reason. The University has the right to define
cheating and, as part of joining this community we all formally agreed to their authority. What gives the
University this authority is our consent or agreement. It has the right to define cheating, in this context,
because we have given them that right.
Another example might be the United States Constitution. While it may be interesting to people outside
the US, its authority is limited to a given territory. Your First Amendment rights to free speech are
protected only so long as you’re in the US. In Mexico, those rights are determined by the Mexican
constitution, which has authority in Mexico. It isn’t a question of which constitution is “right” or “better”
or “true” but which country you happen to be in at the time.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 93

Authority settles questions in ways very differently from either expertise or testimony. It is a right or
power to have the final say. That right or power must be conceded by all parties to the argument—
arguers, interlocutors, and audiences—in advance of the argument.
Fallacy
Argumentum ad Vericundiam

In Latin, the word vericundiam referred to modesty. The English philosophers who first articulated
this fallacy were concerned with two different bodies of authority which they thought people were
too modest (or chicken) to challenge: religion/the Bible and the ancients like Aristotle.

The use of authorities, which would include sacred texts like the Bible, to make claims that are non-
dogmatic, is a fallacy of misplaced or misused authority.

Evaluating dogmatic evidence
In a court of law, many of the definitions are established before the trial begins either by statue (actually
written down by the legislature) or by precedent (early rulings by the court). These statements are
dogmatic in that all of the participants have agreed to them—even if only tacitly—as a precondition of
the argument.
While we evaluate ethos—the knowledge and character—of witnesses and experts in similar ways.
Authority is very different. It is based on an entirely different set of principles and so we assess it
differently. With witnesses and experts, we want to know how much they know and how the learned it.
With authorities, we want to know whether or not they are actually the authority.
✓ Is the authority final or is there a higher authority?
In a classroom, a teacher may seem like the final authority. The rules are written down in the syllabus.
On some questions, the teacher’s authority is final but on other matters the teacher and student alike
are bound by University policy. On still others, the student may appeal the decisions of their teacher all
the way up to state authorities, including the Minnesota Supreme Court.
A higher or superseding authority would have more weight. An authority can be overruled by a higher
authority.
✓ Is the statement in question within the jurisdiction of the authority?
All authority is contextual or circumstantial. I have authority in my class but not another professors.
Policies in the Department of Communication Studies don’t apply in English. Rules made by Minnesota
State University don’t apply on the other side of the hill at Bethany College. All authority is bounded or
limited; this is called the scope of the authority.
The term we use to talk about these limits is jurisdiction. Jurisdictional questions concern the range and
scope of the authority. Does the person or group in question have the right (authority) to have the final
word on these questions?

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 94

Consider the following example:
A student at Minnesota State University Mankato is subject to the authority of the University, on some
matters, even when they are not on campus. A student cited for underage consumption of alcohol while
home on winter break could find themselves in front of the university J-board when classes start back up
in January.
The University exercises jurisdiction over some kinds of offenses no matter where they happen. You may
not know this but you agreed to this when you became a student. It is in the fine print that says
something like “and I agree to abide by all rules and policies blah blah blah.” But MSU has no jurisdiction
over other kinds of offenses. Drugs, sexual assault and other violent crimes, for example, violate
university policies as well as laws. That speeding ticket you picked up at one of those camera speed
traps in Iowa, however, are not within the University’s jurisdiction.
Sample Argument
Authority and the Future of the Supreme Court

While all nominees for the Supreme Court are contentious, few have been as controversial as Brett
Kavenaugh.

A yearbook produced at the time of his consideration testified to his having been a wild teenager who
freely admitted that he drank beer. However, he and his supporters argued, that was OK because, at
the time, the drinking age in Maryland was 18. It was perfectly legal for 18 year olds to drink so what
he was doing might have been wild but not illegal.

Kavenaugh’s opponents counter that, in 1982 the drinking age in Maryland was raised to 21, so at the
time of the parties in questions, in 1983, Kavenaugh would not have been old enough to drink legally
because he had just turned 18.

In my home state the drinking age was raised from 19 to 21. Like Maryland, the law didn’t go into
effect overnight. Everyone over 19 at the time the law went into effect was “grandfathered” in, still
able to buy and consume beer (liquor had been off limits to anyone under 21 for some time). There
was a two year gray area were some people under 21 could drink and others couldn’t. There were
similar elements in the Maryland law. My expertise here is limited to my own experiences with similar
laws at that time in my home state.

Prima facie, because Kavenaugh was under 21 at a time when the drinking age was 21 years of age,
he was violating the law. Kavenaugh and his supporters may have an opportunity to rebut if under the
phase-in period Kavenaugh was similarly “grandfathered” in.

The law that was in place at that time, and the exact wording of the law are relevant because the law
has the authority over who was and who was not legally allowed to consume beer in Maryland in
1983. The only matter under consideration is what the law actually says. No one is asking, for
example, what New York’s laws at the time were or if the United States should have a less legalistic
approach to teenaged alcoholism or if Prohibition wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

If the claim is,

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 95

Brett Kavenaugh is a person who drank beer in 1983

then the yearbook is an artifact, a form of witness, which testifies to that fact. It is evidence that he
did drink beer in 1983. If the claim is:

Some states are states which phased-in age increases

then the judgment of an expert is evidence of this claim. Not every case of expertness requires a
degree. In this case being old enough to remember the nationwide campaigns to increase the drinking
age may be enough. Obviously a legal historian would be better.

Finally, the claim:

Brett Kavenaugh’s consumption of beer in 1983 was an illegal act

is entirely contingent upon the status of the Maryland law at the time. Maryland, and no other person
or entity had the authority to determine who could and could not consume alcohol in that place at
that time.

Describing and Evaluating Arguments
The purpose of a theory is to give us a framework or a set of tools that we can use to make sense of the
world around us. A theory of argument should let us say things about argument that we don’t see in the
text. Theories help us answer the great question: What’s going on here?
We have a text. We read it. What’s going on here?
Answer: An argument?
If it is an argument, no matter what the text says you know certain things already.
✓ There must be a claim. What is it?
✓ The arguer is making assumptions. What are they?
✓ The arguer is giving reasons. What are they?
Words like witness, authority, ethos, and expert are what theorists call a taxonomy, a list of theoretical
terms. They provide you with a vocabulary that you use to begin talking about arguments.
Theories, though, are more than just a list of terms and explaining is not like guessing the parts of a cell
on a seventh grade bio quiz – Can I only us the word ventricle once?
Theories establish relationships between concepts.
So if you see something in an argument and think it might be evidence of the claim, you can ask yourself
what kind of evidence best describes it. Does it look like a report of a fact? Might be testimony. Is it a
judgment or conclusion? Might be expertise.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 96

Once you answer that question, you are able to answer even more questions. If it is dogma, there must
be an authority because all dogma requires authority. If this is testimony there must be a witness. Who
is the witness? What do you know about them?
Theories don’t just let us talk about arguments; they let us draw conclusions. When we have a witness in
front of us, now know what kinds of questions to ask about the credibility of that witness. We also know
something about what kinds of questions are irrelevant. We know that an expert should be held to a
different set of standards than a witness and that the degrees of separation between the experience
and the report will impact its credibility.
These are always things we can talk about when we talk about arguments and evidence.
Furthering your description and analysis
Micro-level theories talk about things in their smallest formations. Micro-descriptions of arguments look
at each piece of evidence, considering its source and its credibility on a kind of case-by-case basis. Meso-
level theories step back, not far but in the middle range. They don’t look at all the arguments (meta) but
at a set of arguments, such as a single argument text.
A good example, and one I will refer back to at other times, appears on pages xx – xx at the conclusion
of Chapter 6 (How Good Is the Economy…Really?).
In paragraph 7 the arguer includes a link to the source of one of the claims, a column by Catherine
Rampell. Rampell, in this case is not a witness but an expert. I know this because of the types of claims
she’s making—judgments not reports of experiences. By following few links, I find where she went to
school (Princeton) what she studies (economics), that a number of other publications think she is
credible and that she’s been nominated for a number of awards in economic research and writing.
In assessing the argument on a micro-level, I would say this is a pretty strong one but could be a lot
stronger. The claim made here, which concerns causation and economic outcomes, is important enough
to the overall argument that I should have had to go back and find out who Rampell was on my own; it
should have been in text.
But just because paragraph 7 is strong and, on further examination seems well supported, what does
that mean about the overall argument? Just because part of the argument seems sound, does that
mean the argument as a whole is good?
A meso-level description and analysis builds on the micro, looking at how all the parts work together
inside the frame.
Types of sources
One of the most basic ways to describe source material is to sort it by the nature of the publication:
First-hand accounts are based on observations and experiences of the arguer and can be
evaluated as testimony. While testimony is often credible and persuasive, it is also always
limited in perspective. One person can only have one point of view. Strong arguments rarely rely
on testimony from a small number of witnesses. It is not just the number of witness that matter
but number of perspectives or vantage points that matters.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 97

Periodicals include newspapers, magazines, and other regularly updated media sources and
news outlets including traditionally broadcast media like CNN and CBS.
Periodicals are so called because they come out regularly, on a periodical schedule. In our
society, they play two overlapping and related functions. They provide (disseminate, distribute)
information necessary for it to function and the provide commentary upon (process, make sense
from) that information. These are often concomitant with a third social institution,
entertainment.
Comedians like Trevor Noah and John Oliver perform all three functions in overlapping,
sometimes conflicting ways.
They are the reporters of facts in the sense that they are sources of information about the world
for millions of people. They report on things which have happened and, while they often report
on fictional events as well, the audience is supposed to be able to differentiate between real
news and humors asides. While they do report some facts, much more of what takes place is
commentary upon the facts as reported elsewhere.
Many periodicals look like news but are really more about commentary. Well-known media like
Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity do report on the news but function primarily to comment
upon the news, to make sense of it and give their opinion in addition to relating facts. There is
no sense in which either Maddow or Hannity is pretending to be objective or balanced. This is
partisan news coverage.
Finally, some media outlets, such as newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post,
who make a point to provide objective, fact-based news with a minimum of opinion or
commentary.
Periodicals are good sources of information particularly when the subject matter under debate
is contemporary. The best thing about periodicals is currency, the newness or up-to-date-ness of
the information. It is important to know what kind of source you’re using, especially in context.
Rhetorically, citing The Daily Show in a college paper is probably not going to work. Some news
outlets, like Infowars, keep their audiences by giving them what they want to hear while others’
like ProPubica depend on a reputation for accuracy.
Journals and other academic publications may look like newspapers or magazines but you
should notice a few key differences. First, while some magazines and newspapers will include
things like footnotes or in-text citations, scholarly and academic works always include
references and lists of works cited or references.
The most important distinction, what gives academic journals their credibility, is a process of
refereeing, sometimes called “peer review.”
In a newspaper or webpage, an editor has the final say over what is and is not published. He or
she has broad latitude to make editorial decisions about what is published and how it is framed
and presented. Editors represent the interest of owners and stockholders.
A refereed publication on the other hand, must go through a process of review most often by
other people in the same field. So if CNN decides to give an economist a guest editorial, that is

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 98

the decision of the editors (producers) at CNN. If that economist wants to publish in an
academic journal, their work will be read and critiqued by other economists. The more
reputable the journal, the more prestigious its review boards and more expertise its reviewers
bring with them.
Journals are typically non-profit so they are more objective than periodicals in that sense. They
often take months, if not years to publish so they rarely are new, up-to-date information. They
tend to be much longer (20+ pages is not uncommon) and are written at a high level of
complexity. They are dense and hard to read, especially for non-experts.
Position Papers and Reports are issued research organizations and think tanks. They often look
like journal articles—the authors are experts in their fields, they have footnotes and reference
pages, they are long—but they are not.
A position paper or report is published by an interested party. The American Civil Liberties
Union, for example, is a pubic advocacy group who does research and shares information with
the public in order to influence public opinion and shape policy. Most advocacy groups
represent a clearly defined point of view and the research reports they publish are written in
support of that program.
Some groups, like the Pew Research Center, make a point of being objective and share their
research data with other information outlets, like newspapers, who distribute their findings.
Others, like the Heritage Foundation, make a point of advancing social and political goals.
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are great sources of information for middle school research
papers. At the college level, these are generally considered appropriate for background research
but should not be used or cited as part of grown-up scholarly work.
No college student should ever be using Wikipedia or Dictionary.com in their classroom work.
That is just not acceptable. Rhetorically, it undermines your ethos; it says about the writer “I
don’t know what college level writing looks like.”
There are some dictionaries and encyclopedias that are written specifically for professional
fields and disciplines. Black’s Law Dictionary is one example. It is written by legal professionals
for legal professionals. As a researcher, I own and have at my disposal, several
academic/scholarly dictionaries. I use them when I encounter a new or unfamiliar concept or
when I want to familiarize myself with something I haven’t worked with in a long time.
If a dictionary or encyclopedia is referenced, it should always be one that is written for a
scholarly, professional audience. One clue is authorship. Unlike standard desk references, such
as Webster’s, professional encyclopedia’s typically include authorship with each entry. Cite
them like works in a collection or anthology.
Government documents are one of the most underutilized sources of information and research.
At the state, local, and national level governments collect data and issue reports. Most of this is
to help law makers, businesses and citizens make good decisions. The Department of Justice is
the most authoritative resource on crimes statistics because no one else collects as much raw

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 99

data. If you want to know about PTSD and veterans, that information is located in the records of
the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
Because much of the data originates with government agencies, it is often unfiltered. Before
someone can say “X% of veterans who served in Blank have PTSD” someone needs to sit down,
look at all the records of veterans who served in that place, and determine how many of them
have been diagnosed with PTSD. Someone has to count. What they counted was in government
records.
Clarification
Bias

You may have noticed that I don’t talk a lot about bias. I don’t divide source material into objective
and biases sources and tell you only to use one.

First, we should not use the word “biased” when we mean to say “untrustworthy.” Bias is like a finger
on the scale. It is a tip or a lean. Some tips are slight. Others are heavy.

In public arguments, charges of bias are used to discredit and refute or rebut sources of information.
If I were to claim, for example, that right-wing extremists commit far more political violence than left-
wing extremists, I could cite research by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an advocacy group many
conservatives have charged is biased.

In this context, biased too often means “disagrees with me” and therefore “wrong.”

But if by biased one means “providing false or misleading information” then this is provable charge:
show not the bias but the falsity. If what you mean to say is that the information is not trustworthy
because the source is known to lie or to manipulate information, you need to provide evidence of
what is an extremely serious charge.

Assessing the evidence – Seven standards
Good arguers make a habit of stepping back and looking at an argument as a whole and thinking about
evidence. This is true both when they argue and when they read and evaluate other’s arguments.
How strong is the argument as a whole? Is it generally well researched and informed or are their gaps in
their knowledge? Throughout this textbook, we’ll learn and practice ways of stepping back and thinking
and ways of zooming in and focusing on something. The following is a set of standards we can use to
weigh the overall quality of an argument’s evidence especially when that argument is extended or
complex and cites several different sources of evidence.
Reinforcement – If one person says something then the value of the statement as testimonial
evidence is based solely on the ethos (knowledge + character) of that witness. But even a
generally shady witness becomes credible when there is another witness.
In order to reinforce one another, however, witnesses or experts must be independent of one
another. Two witnesses who come in together and say they saw the same thing are not as

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 100

credible as two witness who say the same thing even though they don’t know one another. A
second opinion from a doctor should be a totally different doctor, not one in the same clinic
looking at the same charts and results as Doctor One.
As a rule: more is better. Two witnesses will not be as good as three. Three experts are not as
good as four.
Breadth – More is better still if it isn’t just more of the same. Diversity of sources of information
is just as important. The single best way to address concerns and problems with bias is to cite
from a wide range of sources. If an arguer is only citing from publications produced by a single
think tank, or a small number of ideologically similar think tanks, that lacks breadth.
The same is true if an arguer only gets their information from news magazines but has no direct
contact with the journals or government documents or personal testimony those news sources
accessed. Or if all the sources come from secondary news reports and commentary rather than
Even an argument that only uses scholarly journals lacks breadth. How much breadth is required
depends on the setting. In public arguments, we tend to expect high levels of breadth.
Depth – Complexity with which issues are addressed and especially the degree of depth to
which sources are allowed to go. So a summary of what a source said in your own words would
lack depth; an extended quotation directly from the source would have more.
The opposite of depth is concision or the degree to which sources are kept short and superficial.
The more concise a source has to be, the less it is able to capture or relate the complexity of a
topic or concept.
Transparency – Concerns the arguer’s sources of information. Where did the facts come from?
How was the data collected? Who did it? In academic writing, we use in text citations and
reference pages because academic writing places a great deal of emphasis on transparency.
News outlets, too, often require named sources in order to break a story but will sometimes us
unnamed sources. This use of unnamed sources has obvious implications for credibility.
While commentators and editorialists may be vague about their sources, referring perhaps to a
writer or theorist but not a specific work or page number, other sources require extensive
documentation of sources. How much information is expected, how it is sourced and shared, are
aspects of the setting of the argument.
As a general rule, an arguer who is open about where they got their information and provides
specific details which allow interlocutors and audiences to track that information back to it
source, is transparent. Opacity, vague and unclear sources, sources which can’t be followed up
on, is not good.
Currency – How recent or timely is the information? Is it up-to-date. The setting here is
important. Newspapers put currency at a premium where as journals are slow. In some settings,
information more than a few months old is worthless while ideas in academia may endure for
generations. Then disappear and come back again even more credible for being old.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 101

The question of currency doesn’t mean newer is always better. It means timely. Does, or should,
when the information was gathered or written influence its credibility or usefulness?
Precision – Referring to the level of detail, precision is closely linked with both transparency and
depth. The more detailed we are, the more complex we’re able to be. Every point of detail,
moreover, is a fact that can be checked and verified.
Precision also demonstrates the degree of the witness or expert’s knowledge. A witness who is
able to relate a high level of detail demonstrates a good memory. An expert who gives lots of
specific information shows how much they know about the subject.
Charity – There is an approach to teaching writing and assessing arguments that stresses
balance. While that reflects some settings, such as freshman comp, it is much more of a
rhetorical concern than an argumentative concern.
Arguments are not fair and balanced relations of data. That is a different kind of
communication.
All arguments presupposed contra-arguments. If everyone agreed, there would be no argument.
The existence of arguments presupposes counter-arguments. It is not the responsibility of the
arguer to advance and defend the interlocutor’s case. It is the responsibility of the arguer to
preserve a space wherein the interlocutor can make their own case(s).
Charity is a kind of fairness. It asks arguers, audiences, and interlocutors to act in such a way as
to preserve the integrity of argument itself as an imperfect but necessary alternative to
coercion. If we lose an argument we can make another. If we can’t argue anymore, or if
argument cease to produce even grudging agreement, the only tool left in the box is force.
Charity does not ask us to make our opposition’s case for them but to respect them and one of
the first steps in respecting is recognizing. Arguers may, in clarifying their arguments, identify
points of common ground (also called stasis) where arguers agree with interlocutors. Arguers
may also engage in refutation, responding to interlocutors with evidence and reason.
Both these rhetorical strategies are presumptive of:
✓ The intellectual ability of the interlocutor (aka, they aren’t stupid)
Points of stasis demonstrate we do have some agreement with our opposition. They are not
entirely ignorant or intellectually incapable of argument. Remember, we don’t argue with
pets or infants or vacuuming robots. If we don’t believe that a person is capable of
processing information, of sifting facts from falsehoods, of assessing credibility or logically
arriving at conclusions, then we shouldn’t be arguing with them.
Likewise refutation assumes that, in the presence of better information or stronger
reasoning, our interlocutors will see their error and change their minds. They are capable of
acknowledging the better argument.
Even if we disagree, even if our disagreements are passionate and intense or where we feel
like values and rights important to us are in jeopardy, we recognize that our opposition is

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 102

still capable of being moved by evidence and reason and that means we leave a space for
counter argument.
✓ The good will of the interlocutor
When we talk about ethos of both witnesses and experts, we talk about knowledge and
good will or character. A witness to an accident has to be willing to truthfully relate what
they experienced. An expert is an expert because they base their conclusions on a
knowledge of the phenomena, not because they respond to the interests of the highest
bidder.
In the same vein, an arguer is only an arguer if they mean for the issue to be settled by
reason. By entering into an argument we are saying that we believe those with whom we
disagree will, yield to the better argument.
Charity concerns the way that arguers treat those with whom they disagree. Charitable
arguments invite counter arguments, they treat interlocutors as reasonable people who are
capable of making and weighing arguments (see also ad hominem arguments).

Fallacy
Ad Hominem

Few fallacies are as widely known as the ad hominem. From the Latin “to the man” the ad hominem
fallacy, sometimes called ad hominem attacks.

Although it’s well-known, it is not necessarily well-understood. Too often, critics will decry any
unpleasantness as an ad hominem but especially things like name-calling or personal attacks.

Remember first that fallacies are logical errors or failures of reasoning. Formal fallacies are errors in
the structure of formal logical syllogisms. Informal fallacies belong to one of two classes, non sequitur
(too little) or ignoratio elenchi (too much; irrelevant information). To the degree they are fallacious,
ad hominem belong to the latter class.

An ad hominem is directed at arguers or interlocutors not at arguments. For example, Donald Trump
famously assigns denigrating nicknames to his opponents, often in debates: “Crooked Hillary.”

Name calling and other techniques can be effective strategy, and are almost always sophistic.
Whether or not name calling is ethical or unethical, when it crosses a line, is determined by the
setting. In my own experience, British debaters allow for and even encourage some name calling—
they call it wit—where as US debaters generally demand more decorum.

Not all questions about a person’s character or intelligence are irrelevant. If an arguer gives evidence
either as a witness or an expert, then the arguer’s ethos is a relevant issue. When Donald Trump says
people shouldn’t believe his former lawyer Michael Cohen because Cohen is a liar, that is a relevant
consideration of his character. A person who is a proven in some situations, could be expected to lie
in others.

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENCE 103

Fallacious ad hominem arguments function introduce irrelevant information to the argument in order
to distract from or uncritically consider facts which have no bearing on the integrity of a witness.
When confronted with Michael Cohen’s statements about Trump’s involvement in felony campaign
finance violations, Senator Orin Hatch asked if the prosecutors for the Southern District of New York
was a Democrat. His argument was that the DA for SDNY was not a credible source of information
because of his political affiliation, that because he is a Democrat, he cannot be objective in
investigating a Republican President.

An ad hominem argument is fallacious if it introduces information which has no bearing on the
arguer’s ethos. It may or may not be ethical or strategic. Those are important, but separate
considerations.

Tu quoque. “You also.”

Also sometimes called the argument from hypocrisy, tu quoque is a species of ad hominem which
puts an argument or evidence up against other statements or actions taken by the arguer (or
witness/expert).

So for example, when Donald Trump’s criminal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, dismissed the charges made
by Cohen and the SDNY that Trump committed criminal violations of campaign finance law, Giuliani
minimize the concern by pointing out these were minor offenses with little or no actual substance. It
isn’t like Trump killed anyone or robbed anyone.

Giuliani, as an expert on matters of law, was quickly challenged based on his own history as both a
Federal prosecutor and the Mayor of New York when he was the nation’s leading proponent of what
is called the “broken window” theory of crime and law enforcement: even small crimes create
circumstances for larger ones. To prevent lawlessness that leads to gang violence and other serious
crime, Giuliani lead the effort to prosecute vigorously even the smallest criminal offenses, such as
jaywalking and littering and “broken windows.” Since the 1990s, this policy has put hundreds of
thousands of people—mostly people of color—in jail for minor, non-violent offenses. This is
inconsistent with his assertions that wealthy politicians should not be prosecuted unless their crimes
are violent.

Arguments tu quoque are, like all ad hominem, relevant or irrelevant, fallacious or an important
question of ethos, depending on the setting and the argument itself. To prove that the advocate of a
position or policy is a hypocrite doesn’t prove the policy is a bad idea. A person who advocates for
stronger anti-marijuana laws while smoking weed may be a hypocritical jerk, but that doesn’t mean
they are wrong. A person who advocated for tougher enforcement once but now argues for leniency
may have been wrong then and right now.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 104

Chapter 6: Logic

In argumentation, we often talk about logic and we will use a number of ideas based on logic. The study
of argumentation, however, is not the same as the study of logic.

Logic is semantic, which means that it is concerned with the conditions under which claims (statements
which have truth-value) can be made. Consider the following sets of statements:

All cats are animals that eat mice.
Fluffy is a cat.
So Fluffy is an animal that eats mice.

And

All dogs are animals that fetch sticks.
Fluffy is a cat.
So Lucy is an animal that fetches sticks.

The first set of statements are logically related to one another such that if the first two statements are
true, that all cats eat mice and Fluffy is a cat, then the third must be true as well. The “So” makes sense.
This is not the case with the second set of statements, however. There is no reason to believe that Lucy
fetches. At this point, we don’t know what kind of animal Lucy is.

The first set of statements are logical, set up in a formal structure called a categorical syllogism. The
second set of statements is not structured in any logical way. From them no reasonable conclusion can
be draw.

Understanding these conditions is the study of logic.

Logic and argument are closely related. Both are concerned with statements and with truth-values. All
arguments, to some degree or another, depend on logic because reasoning requires logic. Good
arguments depend on valid logic.

But there are some important differences too.

While argumentation and logic are concerned with truth-values, logic is abstract and often symbolic
whereas argumentation is concrete and deals with words. The distinction is often tricky. Language (see
Chapter 2) is living and active. It exists in the world and is influenced by all kinds of factors which are not
necessarily linguistic (context).

Consider, for example, the following statements:

Jim is1 the teacher of this class.
Jim is2 bald.

In the first statement, is1 functions like an = in mathematics. We could reverse the structure of the
sentence and it would still make sense: The teacher of this class is1 Jim.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 105

This is not true of the second statement; is2 does not function like an equal sign. It is descriptive. Jim is
associated with, or has the characteristic “baldness.” But baldness is associated with many other people,
not just Jim.

We could, moreover, add still one more sense of the word is to complicate our thinking:

Jim is3.

This third sense of the word is merely says that there is a person, identified as Jim, who is, who exists in
some form.

In our day-to-day conversations, we are aware of these distinctions even though we rarely bring
attention to them. We understand them based on the nature of what is being said, the situation, and
other contextual factors. Logicians, however, attempt to reduce these factors and, where possible, to
eliminate them entirely.

The study of logic is abstract. It isn’t concerned so much with specific cases but with formal rules and
processes. It is interested in the difference between is1, is2 and is3. Argumentation is concerned with
whether or not you should leave your pet mouse alone in room with Fluffy.

A logician is interested in semantic questions—what makes something true or false?
Argumentation is about the truth or falsity of a particular claim in response to an actual set of conditions
in the world.

There is another important difference between logic and argument. While both logic and argumentation
are studied from a number of different academic fields and disciplines, logic is more closely related to
philosophy and psychology while argument is more often identified with composition and the study of
social behaviors.

Logic is ultimately about how the mind, or the human brain, work. Argument is about how we work
together.
Logic
Abstract
Symbolic

Solitary

Argument
Concrete
Verbal

Social

Logic is about inference. It is about movement, moving from things we are sure of to things which are
also true. We become certain about what we did not know.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 106

Suppose you wake up and need to walk to class. Should you bring an umbrella? You start with evidence.
Look outside. Is it cloudy? Logic is how we move from data, or information we know, to conclusions
which we didn’t know. It is cloudy therefore I conclude it might rain and, assuming I don’t like to walk in
the rain, I should bring an umbrella to school.
Logic is about movement.
Types of Logic

There are two types of logical reasoning, induction which in its highest form is like science, and
deduction which is much more like math. The two forms of logic differ with respect to the certainty of
their conclusions.
Deduction is a form of logic wherein, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Induction is a form of reasoning wherein if the premises are true, the conclusion is only probably true.
We’ll look at each of these forms of logic separately, starting with induction but first it is important to
clarify some important concepts.
All logic uses statements, like claims. We refer to these statements as premises, which are the reasons,
and the conclusion, which is what we move to based on the premises. Generally, premises are those
things we know and the conclusion is what we want to discover.
Good logic, logic which make sense, is called sound or valid, not true or false. Claims can be true or false
but reasoning—or moving from one claim to another claim—is sound or unsound, valid or invalid.
Finally, while it often sounds clunky and ineloquent, when we are talking about logical premises and
conclusion, it is useful to refine premises and conclusions to use the logical form of a claim – subject
term is/are predicate term – because that helps us see the movement more clearly.
Induction
Inductive reasoning, or induction, is also sometimes called informal logic because its validity is not
determined by the form or structure.
Induction reasons from observations or experiences to general principles or rules. Because it begins with
limited data, it cannot produce certain results.
For example, let us suppose that you are driving down the highway and, without warning, your car starts
to lose power. You give it more gas but it just keeps slowing down. Looking behind you, you notice that
the exhaust coming from your car is thick and white.
You probably cracked a head. Is that certain? No but it is probably true. The conclusion, “(All) your car is
a vehicle with a cracked head” is not at all certain. However, I have blown up a few engines in my day.
Loss of power after the engine has been working hard and white smoke are observations which, in my
experience, are associated with a particular type of broken car: a cracked head.
Is that certainly true? No. It is probably true.
Premise: Car was working hard and then lost power (this is observed data; testimonial evidence)

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 107

Premise: Cars with cracked heads seem to be running fine but then quickly lose power
(observation/personal experience; testimonial)
Premise: Car had white smoke (observed data; testimonial)
Premise: White smoke is produced when coolant leaks into the combustion chamber (explained
to me by an auto mechanic; expertise)
Conclusion: This car is a car with a cracked head.
The conclusion is not certainly true. The premises are based on observations, experiences, and
assumptions. The veracity (truth/probable truth) of the conclusion is based on the quality and quantity
of available data.
Even if our premises are certain (and empirical data is always subject to some level of doubt), a single
new data point could radically alter our conclusions.
Consider another example. This time, let us assume that you come home and discover your kitchen
garbage can tipped over, mess all over the floor.
Premise: The only creature in the house is your beloved dog (observed data)
Premise: Dogs sometimes get into garbage cans (observed data)
Conclusion: Your dog is the animal that got into the trash.
This conclusion is probably true. A single bit of new information, however, could radically change our
conclusion or cast doubt on the certainty of the conclusion.
Premise: The dog door was open (observed data)
Premise: There are small raccoon footprints by the dog door (observed data)
This new evidence, doesn’t prove the dog is innocent but it certainly casts doubt on our initial premise,
that your beloved pet was alone in the house. If the dog wasn’t alone, we can’t logically conclude the
dog did it.
Factors influencing the validity of induction
Induction is logic wherein, no matter how certain we are of the premises, the conclusion is only
probably true. It is important to keep in mind, however, that “probability” doesn’t necessarily mean
untrustworthy. Most of the things we believe with absolute certainty are, from a logical or scientific
perspective, only probably true.
A layperson, for example, might say it is certain that the sun will set in the west today. We have been
observing the sun set in the west for thousands of years with no variation. But we cannot say with
certainty that there will never be any variation or change. We assume there is no possibility of it being
different. But we can’t prove it.
When we talk about valid induction, then, we are looking for degrees of probability. Sometimes, our
conclusion will be virtually certain, like the probability that the sun will be setting in the west. Others are

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 108

much less certain. Generally speaking, two factors influence the level or degree of certainty we can
expect from inductive reasoning: the quantity of data and the quality of data.
More data is better. One of the most common forms of induction is the use of a survey or sample to
draw conclusions about a whole group or population. Students are used to filling out teacher
evaluations at the conclusion of each semester. A teacher who has only taught for one semester has
only a snap shot of how a relatively small group of students felt on a particular day. That teacher
probably won’t be able to draw any valid conclusions about their teaching.
A teacher with a dozen years of experience, surveying three or four classes with 20 or 30 students in
each class, has hundreds and hundreds of surveys. The quantity of data improves the quality of the
conclusion. Not only can we make more precise conclusions but degree of certainty we have in those
conclusions is higher.
If I observe hundreds of fossils, I can make better inferences about the animals who left them then if I
have only observed a few fossils. If I have worked with dogs for years, I can make better inferences
about their behavior than I would be able to make if I’d only worked with one dog. More observations,
more data, produces more certain or trustworthy results.
Good data is generalizable. Survey takers attempt to randomly sample the population they are
surveying to make sure that the data set—the people surveys, the dogs played with, the stars
observed—are representative of the population the survey taker is interested in.
Suppose, for example, a survey taker was attempting to discover whether or not a community was open
to gun control legislation or opposed new laws regulating gun ownership. If our survey taker were to
stand outside the local grocery store at noon and ask one hundred people, that would be a lot of data.
But it would only survey the kind of people who shop at that particular grocery store at noon. Our
results would vary widely if the grocery in question were a Walmart as opposed to a Whole Foods.
The data set from which we draw inferences must be like the population we are attempting to describe.
If we survey only people outside Walmarts, then the population of our data set won’t look like the
community we are trying to learn about.
Example versus Analogy

A great many people – including other argumentation scholars and theorists – fail to differentiate
between analogies, which are argumentative, and examples, which are clarifiers. Examples do not
make arguments or support arguments. Examples cannot be used as evidence.

While many people use the word example and the word analogy interchangeably, we use different
terms to make clear that they serve two different functions.

Analogies and examples have a lot in common. Both take on a narrative form (telling a story; see
Chapter 9). They may be fictive (made up, not true or real, sometimes called “hypothetical”) or actual
(based on real, “historical” actualities). Because examples and analogies are relatable, they are often
used by rhetorically, or strategically, by arguers. Arguments that are clear, intelligible, and make sense
are often more persuasive than other arguments. Examples, in particular, can help audiences to
appreciate complex arguments.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 109

Relatability and clarity are important and good communicators always keep those principles in mind.
It is important, however, for argumentation students, to focus on the soundness of the argument
rather than how well they like or appreciate the strategy with which the argument was developed. A
convincing argument is not necessarily a sound argument.

Arguments from analogy
Surveys are not the only, or even most important, kind of induction and you will learn much more about
what makes a good survey in your courses on research methods and we will cover more on the scientific
method in Chapter 10. The most basic and common form inductive argument are the use of analogy.
Arguments from analogy proceed from what we call a case. A known or well understood case is
compared with an unknown case. We don’t use the word example here because examples and analogies
may seem similar but have very different communicative functions (see below). An argument from
analogy is based on similitude, or the likeness between the cases. It is inferential because it is can
generally be assumed that likenesses in some aspect of similar cases are predictive of other likenesses.
Analogic arguments, or arguments from analogy, are different from things like surveys but they operate
using the same essential logical structure, inductive reasoning. Surveys tell us something about a sample
population, and we infer that what is true of our sample is true of the whole because the sample is like
the whole. Analogy reason inductively from one or more cases to other cases based on relative
similarity.
Factors influencing the validity of analogic arguments
Analogic arguments are based on points of convergence, or specific points or indicators of similitude, or
likeness, and points of divergence which indicate dis-similitude or difference.
Analogies based on similitude are stronger or weaker based on points of convergence between the two
cases. In order to establish the strength of a comparison, an arguer would be expected to show more
points of convergence. A contra-argument would contrast these with points of divergence.
Consider the sample argument below. The arguer claims “All gun control legislation is action which
supports a totalitarian state” is supported by an analogic argument comparing two cases, existing gun
control programs and Nazism. The argument assumes that Nazism and totalitarianism are synonymous,
that if something is Nazi, it also totalitarian. That gun control advocates want to register firearms is a
point of convergence between that case and the case of Nazism. It is what establishes that one case, gun
control, is like another, Nazism.
In an analogy based on similitude, points of divergence indicate a less strong argument. The 1938 law
referenced in the argument actually expanded access to guns and the quotation attributed to Hitler was
probably never said, at least not by the Nazi leader. These points of divergence suggest the case,
Nazism, is dissimilar or unlike the case of gun control.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 110

Analogic arguments can also be based on dis-similitude, also sometimes called arguments a fortiori,
(Latin for “to the stronger”). Analogies based on dis-similitude build on both points of convergence and
key points of divergence in order to build a strong argument.
For example, many years ago when I competed in debate tournaments, my partner and I based our
arguments on the expertise of a certain government official. Our opposition argued that our expert had
only recently been convicted of lying to Congress. We tried to argue the circumstances where wholly
different (points of divergence which weakened the similitude). Our opposition countered that, a person
who would lie under oath, when the penalties were quite sever, would be more likely to be suspect
when they were not under oath, when there was no legal incentive.
Analogic arguments are inductive. They deal in probabilities, not certainties. In this example, the
argument goes to that probability, the likelihood that the claim is true is increased by a key point of
divergence.
Arguments based on dis-similitude are still analogic. The opposition’s argument in the example above
would still need to show that the expert in question was giving similar types of statements, statements
where they had an incentive to be deceptive in their statements. A person who lied to their child about
Santa Claus would not necessarily lie to Congress about US policy. But a person who would lie to
Congress about US policy should probably not be taken seriously when speaking to the press about
those same policies.
Analogic arguments based on similitude are strengthened by points of convergence and weakened by
points of divergence. Those based on dis-similitude are also strengthened or weakened by points of
convergence and divergence but are strengthened by key points of divergence.
Before closing, it is important to keep in mind that in most cases, analogic arguments manifest in
discourse as narratives. They come in the form of short, often very succinct stories sometimes even
fables or myths, popular wisdom. So when arguing about welfare policy, someone might contend “there
was a time in this country when people pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.” The statement,
an analogy to the effect that rising out of poverty by one’s own effort is both possible, because it used
to happen, and suggest that it is better, because it was a method of an earlier and presumably better
time. A lot packed into a single sentence.
An interlocutor might question the punctuation of such a narrative (when was this point in time exactly)
and what is foregrounded (the successes of a few) and what is backgrounded (the failures of the
overwhelming majority). Analogic arguments are strong, and often very persuasive, but they also
subject to many of the same concerns we see with the narrative form (see Chapter 9).

Sample Argument from Analogy

Many opponents of gun control have made the argument that gun control is totalitarian, that it not
only infringes on people’s rights and limits their ability to protect themselves, but it also prevents
people from resisting oppressive regimes.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 111

The argument is based on a comparison, or likeness, between current gun control regulations and the
Nazis in Germany.

Former head of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, argued that “In Germany, Jewish
extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.” Upon signing the
law, Hitler reportedly said:

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our
streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

Premise: The Nazis were bad, thus any policy supported by the Nazis is presumptively bad.

Premise: The Nazis supported gun control.

Conclusion: All gun control is bad policy.

Gun control is bad because it is like, or analogous to, Nazi policies and Nazi policies are bad.

Arguments from Cause and Effect
Imagine that you are standing beside a pool table while a friend takes aim on the white ball. Your friend
used the stick to hit the white ball. The white ball moves across the table, hits the red ball. The white
ball stops. The red ball starts moving on an trajectory and at a speed which can be mathematically
determined by the speed and direction of the white ball.
The white ball caused the red ball to move.
British philosopher David Hume pointed out that we don’t really see causation. We can only hypothesize
how energy moves from one ball to the other. We can measure the loss of energy and we can measure
the energy gain on the other side but we can only infer that the energy moved from one to the other.
This is a logical, reasonable inference but an inference nonetheless.
It may not seem like much of a criticism and most people quickly move on to the next point, missing the
importance of Hume’s critique. First of all, causation is not empirical. We don’t see it. We infer it. This
makes causal reasoning very different from observation or perception. This means that even simple
causal relationships are open to debate. Second, because causation is inferential, new data in the form
of more observations or better observations, may radically alter our understanding of relationships
between different variables.
Understanding causation
Causation is something we infer from our observations of the world around us. Reasoning from what we
see is always incomplete and partial. Even if we measured something, like rainfall, every day of our lives,
that would be an infinitesimally small fraction of the days. Yet, we make good predictions based on our
observations and we will, as a species, continue to do so.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 112

Understanding causation begins with variables—any two things which can be in relation to one another.
One of these is the cause (x) and the other is the effect (y). So x causes y. In the sample argument below,
for example, X would be using drugs and Y would be a fried brain.
(1) X must come before Y
In order for us to be able to say that smoking caused poor health, we need to be able to
demonstrate or assume that the drug use must come before the fried brain. A person who had a
fried brain and then used
(2) X must be in a relationship with Y
A relationship suggests that the two variables, in this case a frying pan and fried egg or drugs
and a fried brain, are correlated with one another. Changes in one are linked with changes in the
other.
(3) The relationship between X and Y must be a causal relationship;
There are three distinct forms of causal relationships: necessary, sufficient, and necessary and
sufficient; two other relationships are also important: catalysts and spuriousness.

A necessary cause is one in which, for the effect to occur, the cause must also occur. In the
sample argument, drugs are not a necessary cause because there are many other ways to fry
your brain other than using drugs.

If a person has chicken pox (effect), they have necessarily been exposed to the virus (cause).
Everyone one with chicken pox was exposed at some point to the virus. We can always assume
the cause from the existence of the effect because it is a necessary cause. However, not
everyone exposed to the virus (cause) experiences the condition (effect).

The importance of a necessary cause is that, where we know a cause is necessary, the presence
of the effect (if it is visible, we can see it) guarantees the presence of the cause, even if we can’t
see it. If smoking cigarettes is a necessary cause of smelling like tobacco smoke, then smelling
tobacco smoke means I can say with certainty that someone was smoking.

A sufficient cause is one where, if the cause occurs the, the effect will certainly occur although
the effect may be caused by something else. A guillotine (cause) will always result in death
(effect) but the effect (death) can be caused by other things too, such as an accident. Not every
death assumes a guillotine but every successful use of the guillotine results in death.

In the same way a necessary cause lets us reason backwards from effect to cause, a sufficient
cause lets us reason forward. If partying too hard is a sufficient cause for flunking out of school, I
don’t need to wait around to see what will happen if you party too hard.

A necessary and sufficient cause is one that has both relationships. If the cause exists, the effect
will certainly exist and, if the effect exists, it can be assumed that the cause also exists. If one,
then necessarily the other. So for example, a candidate with the most votes (cause) will win the
election (effect). The most votes is both necessary, because without the most votes the
candidate cannot win, and sufficient because if they have the most votes they have met all the
criteria to be the winner; nothing else is needed.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 113

Catalysts are not causes but they affect causation. In many chemical reactions, for example, the
use of heat can hasten a cause and effect relationship. The important thing to keep in mind is
that a catalyst often looks like a cause.

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), something you’re likely to have at home in a first aid kit, is relatively
unstable compound which will, on its own, break down to form more stable compounds, water
(H2O) and oxygen (O2). If you leave the cap off on your hydrogen peroxide bottle, it will weaken
in strength as it gradually becomes more water and less peroxide.

If you add a third compound to the equation, potassium permanganate (KMnO4), it will provide
all kinds of oxygen necessary to turn an H2O2 into H2O an O2. The potassium permanganate
doesn’t cause the reaction. It rapidly hastens what would have happened without the catalyst.

A spurious relationship is one in which there is no relationship between the perceived cause and
the effect. A spurious relationship is one in which there may appear to be some sort of
causation when there is not.

Spurious relationships or false causes are often easy to see in hindsight. In the fourteenth
century, for example, a devastating plague struck Europe. Known as the Black Death, the disease
was transmitted by fleas. Constrained by a medieval mindset that, lacking a theory of germs
blamed supernatural forces, convenient targets were often blamed for the spreading sickness.
Terrified villagers would often take out their fear and hatred on Jews and other ethnic
minorities, accusing them of poisoning wells (spurious cause).

Variables may be in a spurious relationship. They may look like they are connected in some way
when, in reality there is no relationship between them. This illusion is often created by framing
the relationships in ways that eliminate the consideration of other details.
Valence
Arguments from cause and effect, or effect to cause, are depended upon the valence of the effect. The
word valence, in this context, means attraction or the degree to which we desire or are repelled by
something.
Health and welfare, for example, have a strong positive valence. We can generally assume that most
people want to be healthy and well. Conversely, to be ill and unwell, are negatively valenced. We cannot
conceived of someone choosing to be ill or unhappy. The idea suggests an underlying pathology. Only a
person who was already sick would choose to be sick.
When we argue from cause to effect, the desirability or positive valence of cause is directly related to
the valence of the effect. It is effects which determine the valence of causes. Studying for the exam, a
cause, is only desirable to the extent that passing the exam, the effect, is desired. If you could care less
about the outcome of the exam, it is unlikely that you will find much need to study.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 114

When analyzing arguments, notice that arguers will often develop co-ordinate lines of argument to
bolster or strengthen that valence. A well-known anti-smoking campaign, “Tips from a Former Smoker,”
features disturbing visual images of bodies, and especially faces, ravaged by cancer. The purpose of the
disturbing visual image is to bolster the negative valence of the effects. Because the audience can
predictably be repelled by the effect, it is hoped they will be avoid the cause.
All cause and effect arguments, then, are dependent on the valence of the effect. Valence, whether
positive or negative, is part of that body of assumptions about the world – what’s good – that make up
the setting of the argument. Arguments which bolster the valence of an effect are thus often motivated
by rhetorical concerns; the need to make the argument persuasive and compelling rather than just
sound.
Sample Argument from Cause to Effect

A famous anti-drug commercial from the late 1980’s compared the effect of drug on the brain to an
egg in a frying pan:

“This,” said the somber announcer holding up an egg, “is your brain.”

He cracks the egg and drops it on a hot skillet where it immediately begins to sizzle and pop.

“And this,” he says, “is your brain on drugs.” Pause dramatically. “Any questions?”

The argument is unambiguous. Don’t use drugs. They will fry your brain.

Review – Inductive Logic
Inductive logic is basic, rational thinking. It looks at the world and attempts to figure out what is going
on. Because our view of the world is limited, we have only a fraction of the data to look at and,
consequently, new data have the capacity to completely disrupt our thinking.
Inductive logic cannot, under even the best conditions, produce the same kind of mathematical
certainty that deductive logic produces. Claims supported by inductive reasoning are, at best, probably
certain. That probability may be tenuous, only slightly more likely than an alternative claim. In many
cases, however, that probability is merely theoretical. The probability that gravity will work tomorrow
the way it works today is, unless you’re a theoretical physicist or metaphysician, a certainty.
In arguments, inductive reasoning features in to basic ways. Arguments from analogy are based on
making inferences from one case to another. The strength or weakness of analogic arguments is
determined by points of convergence and divergence. Arguments from cause and effect are stronger or
weaker depending on the arguer’s ability to establish a causal relationship between variables without
spuriousness.
Deduction
Deductive reasoning is also known as formal logic. Induction, or informal logic, is informal because its
validity is based on the nature and form of the data, not the structure of the logic. Deduction is about

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 115

structure. If the structure is sound, the logic is valid. If the premises are known to be true and the
deductive reasoning is valid, the conclusions are certainly true.
Induction under the best conditions produces probable conclusions. Deduction produces certain
conclusions.
The Syllogism
The form of deductive logic is called a syllogism. All syllogisms consist of three and only three claims.
These claims must be worded, or refined, into properly worded claims—subject term, copula, predicate
term. Two of these claims are called premises. These are what is known or assumed to be true already.
The third claim is what we are hoping to learn or know. This is the conclusion.
✓ Three claims
✓ Two premises
✓ One conclusion
The relationship between the premises and the conclusion depends on the type of syllogism. While
logicians make a number of distinctions regarding syllogisms, here we are looking at three: categorical,
hypothetical, and disjunctive.
Categorical syllogisms
The most basic form of syllogism is the categorical syllogism. The two premises are called the major and
minor premise. While all deductive logic looks and feels a bit like math, often using letters as stand-ins
of ideas or concept within an invariable form, this is most true about the categorical syllogism.
All syllogisms have three claims. A categorical syllogism is also distinct in that is clearly has only three
terms. Each term is used only twice.
The terms are called the major term, the minor term, and the middle or mediating term. In the image
below, the minor term is (A), the middle term is (B), and the major term is (C). Notice that the major
term is the predicate term of the conclusion. The Middle term appears in both premises but not the
conclusion. The minor term appears in the minor premise and the conclusion.

The structure of a categorical syllogism is rigid and formal because the semantic power of the form. If –
and that might be a big if – the premises are true the conclusion MUST be true. Take the following
syllogism for example:

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 116

The major premise of this syllogism is clearly false. Pigs don’t fly. They syllogism is valid, however. It’s
form is correct. The premises of a syllogism are always conditional – IF. If the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
Seven Rules
A categorical syllogism must follow seven rules in order to be formally correct, or valid.
1) There must be three and only three term.
The middle term, the major term, and the minor term.
Each term must be used twice.
2) If one of the premises is particular, the conclusion must be particular
3) If one of the premises is negative (no; none) the conclusion must be negative
4) If both premises are negative, no valid conclusion can be drawn
5) If both premises are particular, no valid conclusion can be drawn
6) The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises
7) No term can be distributed in the conclusion that was not distributed in the premises
Of these rules, the first five are reasonably self-explanatory. Rules 6 and 7 require an understanding of
distribution.
Distribution, in logical terms, means applied to a category as a whole.
Consider the following example:

In this case the middle term–people who wear hats—is not distributed. Truckers are not the only ones
who wear hats. All truckers wear hats, that term is distributed. But we don’t know anything about all
people who wear hats. It is an undistributed middle term. Thus the syllogism is invalid or fallacious.
Arguers rarely speak or write in syllogistic form. We, as argumentation students structure our arguments
around syllogisms because it makes our arguments stronger. As critics, we translate arguments into
syllogisms in order see, and test, the soundness of the reasoning. It is a tool we use to deconstruct and
make sense of argument texts.
In the sample deductive argument, the arguer makes and supports claims about religion. It is a
compound coordinate argument, arguments within the argument support the primary claim or thesis.
While the arguer may have been thinking about syllogisms when the argument was written, we really
cannot get inside the arguer’s head. We don’t really know what he was thinking.
We, as critics of argument, use our knowledge of syllogisms to translate the argument text into its ur-
argument or the root, unfiltered structure of the reasoning. Our understanding of syllogisms gives us the
ability to describe and evaluate the argument on a theoretical level.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 117

Sample Deductive Argument

The following is adapted from a blog post by a writer going by the name Herman Ito. This sample
begins with the text of Ito’s argument as written. This will be followed by a refinement of the
argument text which translates the text into is deductive form.

All religion is mystified racism. Setting aside the obvious historical falsehoods they invariably attempt to pass off as
factual—Hebrews were never held captive in Egypt, there was no “slaughter of the innocents,” any more than the
world sits on the back of a giant turtle—it is an inherently destructive force. Around the world, monuments to
gods and spirits are beautiful monuments to human engineering. But when you look at a cathedral or a mosque or
a pyramid, that it isn’t a sanitation system or a hospital or housing for the homeless. Every society that built them
also suffered from inequality, virtual if not literal slavery, magnificent wealth and power for some and short lives
of brutal labor for others. These great buildings, these cultural achievements are wonders to be hold but every
brick is food taken from the mouths of the poor.

And in essence, at its core, religion is a whisper from a being no one sees to a select few. There are humans all
over the world but this group—this one group of all the humans on earth—gets to learn the truth of it all. They get
to be saved and all others will burn or disappear or wander alone or do it all over again or whatever. One special
group was chosen by god to not suffer. One group.

Even if that group’s mission is to convert all the other groups, tens of millions, maybe even billions, will not hear
that message in time. They’ll burn. Or whatever.

So if you’re in that group…why not kill them all? They’re going to burn (or whatever) anyway. If god (or whatever)
was that interested he (she, it) would have come to them first. Or at all.

We were picked. We are special. We got to hear it directly from god before anyone else.

That is the first and most important feature of any religion. You’re better than someone else. After that, taking
what they have, destroying who they are…well that just makes sense.

Refining the Argument

The first step in analyzing an argument is always identifying the primary claim or thesis of the
argument. This should, in the earliest stages of analysis, be kept simple and worded in logical form. In
this case:

All religion is a bad thing

This could be more precise. We could talk about it being a corrupting social force or an institution but,
at the early stages, it is enough for us to identify it as being about religion—that is our subject term—
and Ito is certainly opposed to religion. It would be difficult to come to any reasonable interpretation
of this text that did not conclude it was about opposed to religion.

Quantity and quality. Notice the thesis as refined has a clear quantity (universal) and a clear quality
(affirmative). This will make refining the logical structure of the argument easier. When possible, it is
generally easier to work claims affirmatively than negatively. So a thesis No religion is a good thing is
just as strong as the thesis All religion is a bad thing but the affirmative universal is easier to work
with, as an interpreter and critic, than a negative.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 118

The second step in analysis is recreating the logical structure. How does Ito logically support his claim
that all religion is bad? In order to answer this question we will need to look at what the arguer says
and try to make some guesses about what he assumes to see how the argument fits together. In
order to do this, we’ll need to differentiate between subordinate claims, evidence, and sometimes
clutter. Not everyone will see the argument the same way, especially the more detailed the
description. What may seem important to one audience member/critic will be rhetorical in another’s
reading.

Figure A (below) is one reconstruction of the argument based on a categorical syllogism:

Figure A

Notice the set of statements in the left-hand column, the two “if” statements and the “then”
statement. These are what we call qualifiers. They allow us to distinguish between two dimensions of
good argument—factual accuracy and sound logic. Logic cannot tell us about the truth or falseness of
historical, conditional statements. It cannot say anything about religion. If, however, it is true that all
religions are racist and if it is also true that all racism is bad then, logically it must also be true that
religion is bad. Qualifying statements remind us that logic is only part of the formula for good
argument.

In this case, as refined here, the logic is sound. The truth-value of the premises needs to be developed
further. It would require a more focused refinement that zooms in on the details and accounts for as
many features of the text as possible.

Figure B

The minor premise of our principle line of argument (Figure A), that all religions are racist, is
supported in the argument text (see paragraph 2) which can be translated more closely as a co-
ordinate deductive syllogism (Figure B).

Breaking the arguments down, translating them into their basic syllogistic reasoning, allows audiences
(critics and students) to see the ur-argument or the bare bones of the reasoning structure and
evidence used to support the argument.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 119

Hypothetical syllogisms
The hypothetical, or if…then, syllogism is a variation on the form. It still follows all the rules of a
categorical syllogism but does so with a conditional major premise:

Notice that the syllogism has three claims with three and only three terms: A, B, and “there,” a simple
confirmation of existence.
The conditional major premise has two parts. The “if” is called the antecedent. The “then” is the
consequent. In the syllogism below, the antecedent would be the existence of smoke. The consequent,
the logical conclusion of the antecedent, is the existence of fire:

Like the categorical syllogism, the conclusion is certainly true if the premises are true. Structurally, it
gives us as audience members (critics) a way of breaking down, analyzing, and testing arguments.

Disjunctive syllogisms
The disjunctive syllogism also follows all the basic rules of a categorical syllogism. Like the hypothetical
syllogism, it is the major premise which differs. It is an either-or syllogism.

OR

The key to a disjunctive syllogism is the relationship between A and B, the disjuncts. In order for the
syllogism to produce a valid argument, the disjuncts must be such that one must be true and the other
must be false. Both cannot be true, nor can both be false.
Consider the following example:

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 120

In this case, there cannot be a third option (such as driving from the store to the salon). Nor is it possible
for both to be true at the same time (the salon cannot be inside the store). The confirmation of one
disjunct means the certain refutation of the other.
Arguers and critics should be especially alert to fallacies of false disjunction. Rhetors, and especially
sophists, recognize the power of simplistic black-and-white reasoning. In reality, choices are rarely so
simple. If there are more than two options, the elimination of one would not necessarily and certainly
establish the truth of the other. Students of argument should brush up on the law of the excluded
middle when working with disjunctive ideas.
Arguments from Definition
Definitions come before arguments; they typically function as clarifiers in order to establish common
ground in anticipation of disagreement (see Chapter 7). Sometimes, however, definitions function as
arguments or, more precisely, provide the premises for argument.
Definitions often form the foundation of deductive arguments. In the sample argument above, on
religion and racism, the coordinate syllogism defines racism. Racism (definiendum) is a belief (genus)
that identifies one group as inherently superior to other groups (differentia). Ito’s whole argument
depends upon this definition of racism. The differentia which distinguish racism from other beliefs forms
the logical bridge, the minor premise, which connects “religion” with “bad.”
Arguers sometimes will need to advance definitions and support them with evidence, such as the
opinions of experts (definition by dictionary). Contra-arguers or interlocutors may not accept definitions,
they may need to be supported by coordinate lines of argument. In a longer, more developed argument,
Herman Ito may have elected to refute the contra-definition of religion as being based on love, whereas
all racism is based on hate:

When arguers and interlocutors disagree on definitions of terms, they must argue in support of their
respective definitions just like any other claim. Good arguers will rely on the criteria outlined for strong
definitions.
Often, however, arguers will imply definitions, relying on common sense assumptions about what terms
mean.

Enthymeme

In his treatise on rhetoric, the philosopher Aristotle criticized other theorists for failing to consider the
enthymemes which are “the flesh and blood” of rhetoric.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 121

An enthymeme is unspoken because it doesn’t need to be. It sits at the intersection of argument and
rhetoric, of assertion and assumption. Enthymemes are common sense, obvious. They go unspoken
because, most of the time, to speak them would be unnecessary.

Suppose you wanted me to babysit your pet mouse. I wish I could, but I cannot. I have a pet cat
named Fluffy who might eat your beloved pet. I don’t need to point out that cats eat mice. This is
something everyone knows and to point it out is not only unnecessary, Aristotle warned that to do wo
would not only waste time but insult the intelligence of our audience.

Two kinds of enthymeme

Logical enthymemes are the product of the logical structures used to create arguments. They go
unspoken often because they are simple and obvious. As a student in a math class, you may have had
a teacher who always required you to “show your work” and wouldn’t let you skip even simple
arithmetic steps.

Logical enthymemes are skipping steps. Not showing your work.

As a rule, arguers try to avoid enthymemes as much as possible. As students and critics of argument,
much of what we do when we refine arguments is going back and filling in the skipped or missing
premises or steps in the argument. Speaking what the arguer elected to leave unspoken.

Just like math, skipped and missing steps are often the place where arguments go sideways, where
the validity of the argument breaks down. Simple structural errors, like simple arithmetic mistakes,
compound and undermine the strength of the argument.

Arguers keep enthymematic premises to a minimum. There will always be assumptions and no
argument can be expected to address every contingency (see Chapter 2: Setting). Rhetors, and
especially sophists, may liberal use of enthymemes especially cultural enthymemes.

Cultural enthymemes draw upon the storehouse of cultural knowledge and assumptions which may
or may not be supported by empirical evidence. They are want members of a particular social or
cultural group believe to be obvious, not requiring evidence or support, while for others the assertion
may seem patently absurd.

Consider the immigration debate in the United States. Often, the underlying assumption, or
enthymeme, is that migrants believe the U.S. is their first and best option for a better life. The belief is
that most people in other parts of the world—especially poor and dangerous parts of the world—
want to resettle in the United States.

Arguments about immigration often presuppose what seems to us, in the US, like common sense. We
are a great country, perhaps even the best, so why would people want to go anywhere else?

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 122

Having worked with Central American migrants, however, this “common sense” assumption is largely
false. Most migrants become so out of necessity; they would rather stay home. If they have to leave
they would rather go to a country closer to home, a country where they speak the same language and
eat the same foods. Most migrants plan to relocate temporarily, planning to make money to bring
home and invest in their native country, not permanently settle.

The “common sense” picture of immigration is often wildly out-of-synch with the reality of the
situation. What is important to notice is how the assumptions work. If an arguer assumes immigrants
want to come to the US because it is somehow inherently better than other places, they rarely have
to produce evidence which supports that claim. That all migrants, especially from Latin America,
intend to settle in the US permanently, is something a rhetor, or sophist, can assert with little chance
that audiences will expect or demand evidence. It can be “safely said.”

The contrary picture, one which challenges popular assumptions about the world, can be expected to
face challenge. It is not common sense and its assertion demand evidentiary support and even then
may be dismissed because it challenges the fidelity of the immigration narrative, one which depends
on America being the realization of what all nations aspire to be.

While arguers try to avoid enthymemes and to unpack assumptions whenever possible, rhetors often
rely on them. Arguments are more like to be persuasive, even if less sound, when they keep focused
on the thesis and avoid unnecessary debate over tangential issues. Sophistry, on the other hand,
makes liberal use of assumptions and strategically avoids, whenever possible, examination of
assumptions.

Because it is concerned with winning the argument rather than establishing the truth-value of a claim,
sophistry seizes on the strategic advantage of enthymemes and assumptions without regard for the
veracity of the premises. For example, a lot of racism is based on simple ignorance of others.
Demagogues, or political sophists, prey upon that ignorance to instill and capitalize on fear.

Cultural enthymemes provide us with a framework for understanding the world around us. Because
they go unspoken, however, they are often difficult to unpack or question.

Fallacies

Fallacies present argumentation pedagogues (people who teach argument and think a lot about
teaching arguments) a lot of trouble.

The first list of fallacies was produced by Aristotle who called them “sophistical refutations” and since
then, much of what passes for critical thinking is teaching students to list off the various ways they could
be wrong. It would be like teaching people to drive by having them identify all the things they aren’t
supposed to hit. Still, examples of fallacies are often fun and relatively easy to teach. Without a solid
foundation in logic and framework for understanding argument, such courses often confuse more than
instruct.

More concerning, however, is the historical usage of fallacies and instruction in fallacious reasoning. In
his book on the subject, Aristotle suggests that one learn fallacies in order to avoid them. In this sense

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 123

we talk about fallacies as unintentional, as in accidental or in error. The fallacious arguer did not know
they were being fallacious.

As he moves through his list of fallacies Aristotle does more than point out mistakes an arguer might
make; he talks about discursive strategies debaters might use to win arguments or manipulate
audiences. He is interested in, although mostly to condemn, the intentional application of faulty
reasoning. Critics have charged that in teaching fallacies, many pedagogues are actually only pretending
to be ethical guardians. The moral outrage is a mask for instruction in unsavory technique.

Definition of Fallacy
The definition used here is one based on Aristotle and consistent with rationalistic paradigms or theories
of argument. Because there are lots of ways of thinking about arguments, many of them sloppy and ill-
informed, we must first dispense with some not-fallacies:

Errors of fact. Fallacies are errors in logic and logic is distinct from evidence. To base an
argument on a factual error, even one commonly supposed or believed, is not fallacious, just
mistaken. For scholars and critics of argument, the line between testimony and induction is
bright.
Violations of social norms. All arguments take place in settings and within contexts that are
social, political, and economic. This setting includes formal rules (such as parliamentary
procedures) and informal norms (such as using titles like “Sir” or “Madam” under some
circumstances but not others). Violations of these norms or rules are situated in the setting, not
the argument.

Not-arguments. Nonsense, repetition, verbal aggression and other forms of coercion… These
are not fallacies. A fallacy must at least look like or appear to be an argument.

So what is a fallacy?

A fallacy is an argument which appears to be sound but is not.

Let us enumerate each of these parts to put a fence around this idea.

An argument. A fallacy is not a single claim or assertion. It is an argument and thus includes a claim and
some reasoning, in the form of evidence and logic, in support of that claim.

The appearance of soundness. One of the big problems in teaching fallacies is that most of the examples
are really silly. They are obvious errors on first look. A fallacy is often prima facie sound.

A bit part of the study of fallacies, then, is psychological rather than logical. Why do we accept unsound
reasoning? What makes it look and feel sound to us?

Not being sound. What defines a fallacy is error – intentional, unintentional, or a-intentional. The logic
by which we connect one statement to another is faulty in some way.

Two Types of Fallacy
Formal Fallacies are not called formal because they have names or because they are stuffy and old-
fashioned; they are violations of the rules of form and structure.

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 124

A formal fallacy violates one of the seven rules of formal logic.
1) There must be three and only three terms.
2) If one of the premises is particular, the conclusion must be particular
3) If one of the premises is negative (no; none) the conclusion must be negative
4) If both premises are negative, no valid conclusion can be drawn
5) If both premises are particular, no valid conclusion can be drawn
6) The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises
7) No term can be distributed in the conclusion that was not distributed in the premises

For example, a categorical syllogism can have three and only three terms. Each term must be used
twice.
If all threats are verbal acts
And if all teachers are people who make verbal acts
Then all teachers are people who make threats
Obviously, the syllogism is unsound. But why?

The syllogism violates rule #1; it has five terms: teachers (used twice), threats, verbal acts, people who
make threats, and people who make verbal acts. Subtle changes, additions or subtractions,
modifications of tense, or even closely related homophones can lead us to adding terms to the rigid
structures of formal logic.

Formal fallacies are the least common logical errors. Most of the fallacies we encounter, as well as the
ones overwhelming studied in critical thinking and writing classes, are informal fallacies or fallacies of
inductive logic. These include the “fallacies ad-” such as ad hominem, ad vericundiam, and ad
ignorantiam (covered elsewhere in this book).

While there is some value in identifying common errors and avoidable mistakes, the list could do on
forever. Worse still, the names and definitions of fallacies are themselves amorphous, often subjective
in their application. In this book, we are hoping for a workable definition of fallacies so, while we
highlight some terms you’re likely to have encountered elsewhere to show how they fit within the
theory herein, we are really only concerned with two informal fallacies.

Informal reasoning can go off the rails in two ways. It can provide us with insufficient reasoning (non
sequitur) or irrelevant information (ignoratio elenchi).

Insufficient Reasoning. Fallacies non sequitur would include things like question begging
(believing you have enough reasoning whey you don’t) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (thinking
you’ve established causation when you haven’t) but also things like collection and division,
ambiguity and equivocation, and many others.
Fallacies non sequitur involve a gap in the logic, not merely a lack of evidence.
Irrelevant Information. Fallacies ignoratio elenchi include information which seems like it may
or should have bearing on the argument but doesn’t. This would include fallacies ad populum
(who cares what “everyone thinks”) and ad hominem. Irrelevant information often works with
insufficient reasoning, covering up gaps in logic with what appears to be good reasons.

Describing Fallacies
A critic of argument should tread carefully when calling arguments fallacious. In particular, when
attributing intent, we should be charitable in our assessment, erring on the side of “unintentional” or at

CHAPTER 6 LOGIC 125

least a-intentional (which brackets questions of intent) unless we have strong evidence of sophistry or
other unethical practices.

First, summarize the argument as presented. No description of fallacies can proceed unless we know
what the argument is supposed to be. We need to see it and understand why and how it appears to be
sound. At minimum, describing a fallacy requires identifying the asserted claim and the reasons given in
support of the claim.

Second, the nature of the fallacy should be explicated. How is this not sound reasoning? Why does it
look like it is sound?

Finally, we need to impact the analysis: so what? Not every fallacy is fatal. In a compound, complex
argument, some of the reasons may be fallacious while others are perfectly sound. Some fallacies
weaken an argument—no fallacies strengthen an argument—but don’t necessarily invalidate the
argument. To say an argument is fallacious puts you in a positon of following through on the criticism.
What does the conclusion that the argument is fallacious mean in terms of the overall case?

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 126

Chapter 7: Structural Descriptions of Argument

Arguments appear in the world as texts. To refine an argument is to analyze the text to identify the
argumentative elements—claims, reasons/evidence, and assumptions—and demonstrate how those
elements relate to one another. A structural description of an argument begins with the claim and maps
the logic of the argument, identifying the nature and form of the logic that connects evidence and
assumptions to those claims. It attempts to strip an argument down to it’s bare bones so that we can
see how it works.
There is no single or best way to map an argument. Socrates likened it to being a skilled butcher, looking
for the joints rather than cutting away at random or without a plan. Look for where things seem to
“naturally” come together.
You should never try and analyze an argument without reading it from beginning to end. Expect to read
a text you’re analyzing more than once and to focus in on a few important sections or elements. Rather
than trying to capture everything. Analysis is about asking “what’s going on here” and then looking for
the answers.
Analyzing an argument begins with identifying the claim being made. Arguers don’t always say directly
what their point is. They imply or suggest; sometimes they say one thing and mean another. As an
analyst, you need to interpret the text and put the claim in a clear, workable form. This will guide and
direct your analysis as you break the argument down and see how its parts fit together.
In this chapter, we will start by looking at ways to separate the argumentative and nonargumentative
elements of a text. Then, we’ll look at some of the forms that argument can take. Finally look at how
arguments fit together in complex and compound structures.
In order to help, there is an argument at the conclusion of this chapter. That argument is broken down
and analyzed and referred to at several points in this chapter. You should read that example argument.
Because all arguments are different and because all of us read arguments differently, you should not
feel like your attempts to structurally describe an argument need to look like mine. Many argument
theorists have developed schemes for mapping out the flow of arguments. Most of them are
idiosyncratic. The only thing that matters is clarity. When you analyze an argument, you must provide
your reader with enough information—textual and visual—to understand the analysis you’ve produced.
We need to be able to read your map. If we can read it, it’s a good map.
Part 1: Argumentative & Non-argumentative Elements of a Text
Some arguers are conscious of themselves as arguers and the texts they produce as arguments. They
may display a high level of knowledge about arguments and structure. They may lay out evidence and
connect it to conclusions clearly.
Most will not.
Many times, arguers are only vaguely conscious of their role in the argument. Rarely will we encounter
arguments where the structure is plainly visible. More often, we will encounter—even in good

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 127

arguments—weak reasoning, leaps of logic, unpacked assumptions, and bad evidence. We will also
encounter nonsense, irrelevant claims, pointless examples, and absurd claims.
Argument texts will also include materials which is not argumentative. Argumentative texts will include
other elements which are important to identify and filter out of our analysis:
Organizers. Organizers are elements of a text which orient the audience. The two most common
organizers are introductions and conclusions. Remember, more complex texts will include internal
previews and reviews throughout. These also function as organizers.
Critics of argument should also recognize things like headers or footers, page numbers, tables of
contents and other textual features as part of the text which don’t make or advance an argument but
make it easier for us to read and process it.
Clarifiers: Clarifiers also make a text easier to read. Clarifiers are not arguments. They set up arguments,
make complex arguments clear and intelligible to interlocutors and audiences. Different audiences will
necessarily require different clarifiers. Clarifiers adapt the text to the audience.
There is no limit to the ways in which something can be clarifies or better explained but there are some
commonly used strategies:
Definition. A whole chapter of this book is dedicated to definitions. Definitions may be used as
arguments or as premises of arguments.
Often, however, good arguers take time to define concepts and terms to make sure that
audiences and interlocutors approach subjects with a shared understanding. This is especially
important if concepts are complex, new or unfamiliar, or if the arguer is using a term in an
unusual or technical way.
Definitions may be short and simple or extended. When you encounter a definition, ask yourself
what that definition is doing in the text. Is it setting up an argument or is it an effort to avoid
ambiguity? If it is the latter, then treat the definition like a clarifier.
Contextualization. To put issues in context, or to establish what has been agreed upon already
is often an important first step in making an argument. Why is this argument taking place? Who
are the relevant participants or stakeholders?
To contextualize often requires us to go to our assumptions, especially to those points of stasis
which we intend to build on in our argument. Contextualizing is like a reminder for audiences
and interlocutors, making clear what needs to be argued and what doesn’t.
Partition. To partition is to refine the claim and in particular to distinguish between the claim
and other, perhaps closely related claims. Arguers sometimes want to be clear, especially to
audiences, what claim needs to be adjudicated and what doesn’t. I might argue, for example,
that I think smoking is harmful that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal.
Revisit the fallacy of many questions. This is an easy error to fall into when arguers (and
sophists) are unclear about what exactly they are arguing. All arguments begin with a claim and
arguers interested in validating claims are clear about what those claims are.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 128

Example. While there are numerous ways to clarify, the example is unquestionably the most
common and useful. Often paired with narrative, the example takes an abstract or general
principle and makes it more concrete or definite to an audience.
Both examples and analogies make use of the narrative form and both involve comparison but
they are fundamentally different. Analogies involve inductive reasoning. They are evidence and
logic. If the analogy is sound, and if there are sufficient strong points of convergence between
the two things that are like, then we can draw reasonable conclusions. If humans are like mice,
then what is true of mice is also true of humans. Analogies are arguments.
Examples demonstrate. Their function is to make the ideas easier to understand and thus often
accompany evidence and logic. Examples do not and cannot stand on their own. The removal of
the example, on the other hand would make the argument more challenging to interpret but
not essentially weaker.† An arguer might present data about crime to demonstrate it is a
problem. A story about how one victim experienced that crime doesn’t make the argument but
helps make it feel real.
In addition to narratives, keep in mind that visual examples are also common means of
clarifying. Graphs, charts, photographs and other images can function in many ways but they are
especially powerful clarifiers.
Clarifiers and organizers are, by nature, both rhetorical. They don’t make the argument. They make the
argument easier to process. They don’t make the argument more or less sound. They make the
soundness more apparent. Clarifiers, however, may also be sophistic. To clarify is to simplify. To zoom in
on a detail is to lose perspective. To step back and get perspective sacrifices detail.
The same tools we use to clarify—images and narratives—are also pathetic (pathos laden). They often
sacrifice logical and evidentiary content, the stuff of argument, for emotionally dense forms of
communication. They are more likely to incite emotion than a well-formed syllogism. Sophists prey upon
powerful emotions as levers of human action.
Junk: We should always read arguments charitably, that is to say we should start with the presumption
that we are looking at a sound argument. That will not always be the case. It should not be our starting
point.
Inevitably we will encounter arguments that are not sound and we will encounter poor writing. Most
arguments will include tangents, dead ends, unnecessary and counter-productive rants, and stuff we
simply don’t know what to do with.
This is junk. Even the best arguments will include some junk. As a critic, a significant part of your effort is
to sift and separate the relevant and important dimensions of argument from the tangents and asides

† It is important that students learn to distinguish between their getting an argument (subjective understanding
and appreciation of it) and it being a good (strong, prima facie) argument. “This argument was easy to understand”
is not a statement about the argument about the speaker’s relationship to it. “Hard to understand” and “could be
better if it had a few more examples” is a relevant criticism of the arguer’s rhetorical choices but say nothing about
the strength or weakness of the evidence and logic relative to the claim within this setting.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 129

and other non-argumentative elements. Junk, because it isn’t supportive of the overall argument, often
works against arguers and critics. It distracts and mis-orients the audience.
As a critic, to recognize that some elements of the text are not worth our attention, lets us focus on
those things that are important.
Part 2: Types of Argument
Most of the time, when we talk about arguments in the abstract, as we do in argument textbooks, we
deal with simple arguments. A simple argument makes a single claim and supports that claim with a
single line of reasoning. Complex arguments involve multiple claims and multiple lines of reasoning.
Most of the time, criticizing arguments as they appear in natural language and real-world settings,
means looking at complex arguments.
But complex arguments are really just simple arguments strung together to make a coherent whole. So
the analysis of complex arguments is really just learning how to take what is complex and break it down
into its simplest elements.
Pro-arguments and Contra-arguments
One of the first important distinctions you’ll need to make is to determine if the argument you’re
reading is a pro-argument, sometimes called the confirmation, or a contra-argument, also called
refutation. Most of the time, when we are talking about arguments, we’re talking about arguments
which confirm or support a claim or thesis. Often, however, arguers will engage in contra-argument
which does not confirm a claim but refutes a claim advanced by interlocutor.
All arguments assume interlocutors. If there is no one to disagree with an argument, if the claim is
accepted, then there is no real need for the argument.
Simple arguments assume the interlocutor is passive, that they have not made their own case.
Refutation is an argument wherein the end is not to establish the strength but to weaken the strength of
another claim vis-à-vis that which was advanced by the arguer.
To advance a claim which can be situated on the square of opposition means that it must necessarily
have a contrary and a contradictory. Consider the sample argument at the conclusion of this chapter. If
one interprets this claim as a universal negative:
No US economy is a strong economy‡
then its contradictory claim:
Some US economy is a strong economy
and its contrary:

‡ Notice the awkward wording. This would be more eloquently worded something like “The US economy is
fundamentally not sound.” The wording is intended to capture the totality of the claim, that the economy is not at
all sound rather than sound in some areas but not others (a particular claim as opposed to a universal), while at
the same time putting it into a logical form consistent with the form of the Square and with syllogistic reasoning
and formal logic. While it doesn’t sound pretty, this awkward wording lets us see the argument more clearly.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 130

All US economy is a strong economy
must both be false. If either claim is true, then the original claim cannot be. It must be false.
A simple argument may advance the claim and give reasons why it is probably true but a complex
argument which not only supports the claim but which refutes the contradictory and contrary theses
would be considerably stronger.
Refutation, moreover, is inherently ethical. To refute, rather than to ignore, acknowledges the existence
of reasonable points of view which contradict our own. It recognizes that being wrong doesn’t make a
person unreasonable and that, with new facts or information, they might be persuaded to accept the
claim we have advanced as more probably true than that which they had previously advanced.
Forms of Refutation
Refutation is an argument against a claim. It does not advance a claim but challenges the veracity (the
probability that it might be true) of a claim advanced elsewhere. To that end, it is in nearly all respects
the same as pro-arguments. Refutation applies reason and evidence to support a conclusion in the
context of shared assumptions about the world and about arguments. Refutation involves evidence and
the credibility of witness and experts. Refutation is interested in forms of reasoning and whether or not
assumptions are reasonable. We will use many of the strategies for describing pro-arguments to
describe contra-arguments although there are some additional terms we can add to our theoretical
toolbox.
Contra-evidence
Arguments are about probability. Evidence establishes the probability of a claim being true, or more
likely true than false. The stronger the evidence the more likely the claim is true. Refuting the evidence
calls into question the strength of the evidence.
Keep in mind that evidence is not the same as facts. Facts are empirically verifiable even if only in
theory. Evidence consists of reports of facts. Contra-evidentiary arguments to call into question the
conclusion of the argument by challenging reports of fact.
Contra-evidentiary arguments often concern matters of ethos, or source credibility. In the lead up to the
US invasions of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq in 1991, witnesses testified to Congress about what was
happening in Kuwait after Iraq invaded the small, oil-rich kingdom. Later it was discovered the witnesses
were paid by a public relations firm hired by the Kuwaiti royal family. That fact, that the witnesses were
motivated by payment rather than moved by experience or patriotism, raises doubts as to their integrity
as witnesses.
In the early 1990’s, three teenagers who would come to be known as the West Memphis Three, were
convicted of murdering two young boys. Central to their conviction was the conclusion of an expert, a
retired police officer named Dale W. Griffis, that the murders were part of a satanic ritual. Griffis, an
expert on the occult, had no actual credentials. His degree, it was later revealed, was from a
correspondence college; he had never attended a single class.
While these examples challenge reports of fact, they merely suggest the evidence does not support the
conclusion. They do not actually refute the claim. If the claim is, in the case of the West Memphis Three,
that “These murders are satanic ritual killings,” that Griffis has no qualifications to make such a claim

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 131

does not mean the claim is false. They very well could be satanic ritual killings but the judgment of
Griffis doesn’t support that conclusion.

Contra-evidentiary arguments are strongest when they do more than call into doubt evidence; at their
best they provide better evidence. If a person is accused of murder based on the testimony of a single
witness, the testimony of two witnesses to the contrary is better. If one expert with limited experience
comes to a conclusion, a contrary conclusion supported by two experts with much more experience
would have more evidentiary support.
Contra-reasoning
Contra-evidentiary arguments challenge evidence advanced in support of a claim. It is possible,
however, that the facts may be accurate or agreed upon but the conclusions drawn from those facts are
at odds. Contra-reasoning can be either inductive or deductive and is advanced both negatively,
challenging the soundness of the interlocutor’s argument, or affirmatively by offering an alternative
reasoning.
One of the obvious challenges to reasoning would be pointing out fallacies of logic or other errors in
reasoning. It is important to keep in mind that fallacies often appear as sound logic but are, on some
basis, not sound. Whether or not a line of reasoning is fallacious may be a claim in need of support, an
argument that needs to be advanced and defended rather than a report of an obvious fact. Whether or
not an argument is fallacious may be a reflection of the interpretation, which like all interpretations is
inherently subjective (see also Principle of Charity).
Fallacy:
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Arguments based on ignorance.

You might know someone who believes in Bigfoot. That person does so despite ample evidence that
such a creature could not possibly survive without leaving any durable trace of its existence—a bone
for example.

Of course, we can’t disprove that Bigfoot exists either. Just because we haven’t found a bone doesn’t
mean such bones don’t exist or that one won’t be found.

The criticism does suggest that the claim “No Bigfoot is real” is not certainly true, is a criticism that
could be levied at any argument. All arguments could be refuted if new evidence was discovered. One
Bigfoot skull would be contra-evidence.

The lack of evidence, however, is not itself evidence of anything. We cannot infer from our inability to
prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist that Bigfoot does exist.

This fallacy is sometimes expressed as:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 132

Arguments appear in natural or ordinary language, often advanced by persons with little or no
reflexivity. Most arguments will have fallacies or other logical flaws. While a simple argument may be
submarined by a single fallacy, complex arguments with multiple lines of reasoning may be weaker but
still sound.
Occam’s Razor
You may have heard of Occam’s razor before. It is a logical tool that argument critics and others
used to weigh arguments. That is pretty important. If you have only a single argument, you have
only one side of the scale. Occam’s razor can’t tell you if an argument is sound; it is used to
determine which argument is sounder when there is more than one argument to consider.
Occam’s razor is typically expressed as, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the
better explanation. So there are two criteria that need to be met when applying the razor:
(1) All things being equal
Occam’s razor only comes out when we have already exhausted other alternatives for weighing
arguments. If, for example, one argument is supported by well-respected witnesses and credible
experts and the other by charlatans and grifters, then Occam’s razor isn’t needed.
(2) Simplicity

Simplicity is here used in a technical sense, not the way most people use it. On television and in
movies, when people talk about Occam’s razor, it is often to justify choosing not the simplest
argument but the most simplistic.

In logic, simplicity is also called parsimony and it refers to the number of assumptions. An
argument with few assumptions is simpler, more parsimonious, than an argument with more
assumptions.

Consider an archeologist who discovers a seashell in a cave high in the mountains. It would be
simpler to argue that it was magic that moved the shell. Hypothesizing Paleolithic trade routes
are complicated. But the existence of trade routes is not an assumption; they have existed
among humans for thousands of years. Magic, on the other hand, has virtually no empirical
support.

The two explanations differ in that one relies on unsupported assumptions; the other is based
on things for which we have empirical evidence. The first explanation is simplistic, not simple.
The second arguments meets the test for simplicity.
Contra-contention
Contra-contention arguments, also called direct refutation, advances and supports a claim which, if true,
would contradict the interlocutor’s position. In a courtroom, a defendant might refute the claim that
they are guilty of murder by trying to prove that they acted in self-defense. If the claim “Jake’s action
was self-defense” is true then then the claim “Jake’s action was murder” cannot also be true.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 133

The square of opposition is a useful guide in that it makes it easy to identify contradictory and contrary
claims. The key to direct refutation is, however, not just a logical incompatibility but mutual exclusivity.
The two claims must be incompatible such that probability of one being true reduces the likelihood of a
competing claim being true.
This mode of refutation thus requires two steps. The first looks much like pro-argument and can be
described in terms of its logical and evidentiary forms. The second step is to establish the mutual
exclusivity of the claim supported and the claim it purportedly refutes.
Contra-setting
Also called meta-arguments, arguments to the setting challenge what at first may have appeared to be
shared or agreed upon assumptions.
In the context of a legal argument, for example, jurisdictional matters are extremely important. Imagine,
for example, a traffic accident on a country road between two states. If State A has laws which establish
Driving Under the Influence at .08 and State B uses .1, then where exactly that traffic accident took place
is an important question. The change in context came with a change in authority (the right to define the
standard by which a DUI is measured).
An argument that admitted the fact, that Driver 1 had a blood alcohol content of .085, would logically
result in a conclusion Driver 1 was legally drunk but only in State A. If Driver 1 was to argue that State B
had jurisdiction, the Driver 1 would admit the fact but challenge the conclusion based on a change of
jurisdiction.
Meta-moves are important because they introduce substantive challenges to assumptions. Arguments
generally seek to minimize assumptions and bracket their impact on the evidence and reasoning.
Arguers make assumptions but are always wary of them. A meta-move returns to assumptions, calling
into question that which was taken for granted.
Sophistic use of meta-moves
All forms of argument and, thus all contra-arguments, can be used sophistically. Sophistry is
strategic, like rhetoric, and concerned primarily with winning rather than proving or persuading.
A sophistic meta-move would be an effort to change the context or setting of the argument to
one in which the sophist’s claims would be more persuasive or compelling. In the early 1990’s,
when football and movie star OJ Simpson was on trial for murder, his defense team sought to
move the trial from a county where the jury pool would be overwhelmingly white to a county
where the jury pool would include more people of color. They believed their arguments, which
concerned racism and police corruption, would be stronger in that setting.
Meta-moves or contra-setting arguments do not always need to be particularly cleaver or be
sophisticated. A meta-move can be as simple as changing the subject, distraction, irrelevant but
interesting examples.
Contra-Valence

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 134

Valence refers to attraction (positive valence) and repulsion (negative valence). The end of a contra-
valence argument is not the evidence or reasoning but the feeling, the subjective response of the
audience to the argument.
Classical argument and rhetorical theorists like Cicero, who lived in Rome in the first century, often
referred to refutation by wit. Wit means not just humor but intelligence. A wit is smart and funny. To
refute by wit, then, entailed both some argument contra-evidence, reasoning, or setting (the intelligent
part) with something intended to influence the audience’s feelings about the argument.
Refutation by wit works on two levels. First, that we’re attracted to people who are smart and funny.
We like them—have a positive valence. Because we like them, we are more likely to like the arguments
they make. Second, we don’t like (have a negative valence) people who we think are beneath us in some
way, because they are unintelligent or uncultured. Thus, we are less likely to like the arguments those
people make.
In the documentary Flock of Dodos, filmmaker Randy Olson is critical of fellow evolutionary biologists
who, he contends, are losing the public debate to creationists and others not because the logic and
evidence is against them but because of their attitudes. In the public sphere, evolutionists often come
across as cold, stiff, and intellectual snobs. Worse, they too often concentrate on ridiculing those they
disagree with rather than addressing the argument (see below; Silence). Scientists who, in Olson’s
opinion, should be winning the debates, where losing in the public sphere because people found them
unlikeable. Credible evidence and sound logic lost to people where more relatable and nice. Olson’s
critique highlights some important features of refutation by appealing to the valence of the argument:
(1) Rhetorical (and Sophistic)
Wit, and other affective dimensions of communication such as sincerity or openness, are often
used by rhetors in an effort to persuade audiences and sophists as part of their effort to triumph
over opponents. We can use humor to make ourselves more relatable to audiences (a positive
valence towards ourselves) and we can use humor to denigrate or opponents (a negative
valence toward our interlocutors).

While good arguers will raise reasonable issues of character related to the testimony or
expertise of arguers, verbal acts which function primarily to make others look bad or bolster
ourselves, are not only non-rational, to the extent they appear rational they are fallacious (see
Irrelevant Argument).

(2) Powerful
Whether we like it or not, non-rational dimensions of communication, like humor and other
strong emotions are powerful persuaders. Advertisers and demagogues have long known that
logic and evidence make good arguments but emotions move us.

Consider, for example, the strategy used by anti-tobacco campaigns targeting youth. While
logically, we should be more worried about addiction and long term health impacts, arguments
targeting social fears have been found to be more effective: you’ll be left out, you’ll look gross,
etc.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 135

(3) Risky
Arguments from wit and humor are often powerful but, like all powerful tools, they are often
difficult to control.

The evolutionary biologists in Olson’s Flock of Dodos should have had a great deal of credibility;
they have academic credentials, publications, and other standard measures of expertise. They
undermine their credibility by looking, not funny but mean spirited. Rather than getting the
audience to feel a negative valence regarding the object of ridicule, they arouse the audience’s
sympathy of the victims. The intended valence is reversed.

The same could be said of an arguer who, in an effort to appear more intelligent used the MS
Word synonyms function to find bigger, smarter sounding words. Instead of looking smarter,
they only prove they don’t really know what the word means and end up looking foolish instead.
Inauthentic performances, when revealed, invariably result in the audience disliking the rhetor
more, not less.
Silence
Refutation is inherently ethical. Not every refutation is an ethical one but the very idea of refutation
requires arguers to take seriously the ideas of others. To refute is to recognize the interlocutor as a
reasonable person who, even though we may disagree, is open to argument. If we provide better
evidence or stronger reasoning, we should win our interlocutors to our point of view.
Silence as a mode of refutation is thus always ethically suspect. It assumes that some arguments, or
some people, are not worth our time. This doesn’t mean silence is always unethical but it always raises
certain ethical concerns.
Not responding to an argument also, potentially, a sign of weakness. While it is a strategic (rhetorical or
sophistic) concern, looking unprepared or uninformed undermines an arguer’s ethos.
Under some circumstances, however, silence in the face of an argument may be the best choice, both
strategically and ethically. What makes refutation ethical is that it recognizes and legitimizes other
arguers, it recognizes them as reasonable people who are amenable to argument.
What if they aren’t?
Let us take the case of the Holocaust, the murder of more than ten million people, including political
opponents, and racial minorities, especially Jews and Roma (Gypsies), and many others. While there are
volumes of evidence which conclusively demonstrate the historical fact of the Holocaust, some groups
such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists, who deny this fact and have, at various times, attempted to
prove that it never happened.
Should we debate the historical truth of the Holocaust?
While an uncompromisingly scientific perspective would say that doubt must be perpetual and certain
arguments for free speech stress the value of unpopular points of view, many would argue that to
debate such a contention would give legitimacy to that which is absolutely illegitimate. It would treat as
reasonable that which is absolutely unreasonable.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 136

Consider a simple analogy. Let us suppose we wanted to debate the Nazi genocide. If we bring one
arguer on stage to say “Yes, it happened” and another to say “No, it didn’t” this would be fair—one
arguer/interlocutor to represent each side.
But a one-on-one debate, while fair, would distort the debate too. By putting two points of view side-by-
side, it suggests a certain equality. The two sides are fundamentally unequal. There isn’t a lot of
evidence on both sides or a reasoned debate between informed and reasonable people. There is
virtually no credible evidence on one side. The Holocaust deniers have been refuted, over and over
again for decades. While arguably, both sides have political motives, those who deny the Holocaust
predictably argue from perspectives which tacitly support abhorrent groups, such as neo-Nazis and
hate-groups.
Although it may be subtle, there is a difference between ignoring an argument/arguer and choosing not
to respond to or address certain arguments or lines of reasoning. To consciously choose to not respond
to an argument is not the same as ignoring those arguments, particularly if that non-response is
communicated to audiences. It recognizes the argument and identifies silence as either the most
strategic or the most ethical response.

Part 3: Compound & Complex arguments
Most arguments we encounter in textbooks like this one are simple arguments. A single claim supported
by a single line of reasoning.
In public discourse, however, arguments are rarely simple. While all arguments come down to a single
claim or thesis, other claims may need to be established as a matter of course. Arguers may support
claims with multiple lines of argument or evidence in order to strengthen their argument. In describing
arguments, and in evaluating them, it is important to identify the thesis, the central or most important
claim in the argument, and to differentiate between co-ordinate and subordinate lines of argument.
Co-ordinate arguments
Sophism:
Straw Argument

Long known by the gendered “strawman,” the term indicates a sophistic refutation. A straw argument
is a refutation in which the arguer sets up a weak argument and then tears it down.

A straw argument or a straw refutation is intended to look like a refutation but isn’t because it
focuses on a weak case. It makes the arguer’s case appear stronger.

Straw refutations will look like actual refutations—looking at evidence, the quality of reasoning, and
so forth. It will invariably, however, look at the weakest evidence or the least credible sources. Rather
than attempting to undermine the strength of the logic, it focuses on the gaps or weaknesses. Straw
refutations create distractions, follow tangents, and avoid principle issues under the cover of
clarifying assumptions or standards.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 137

Let us suppose that we both want to drive the car. “I should drive,” you argue, “because I am the better
driver and because it is my car.”
This is a complex argument because, although there is single claim (universal affirmative):
I am the person who should drive the car
There are two entirely different and independent reasons why, in your opinion, you should drive. We
can describe these arguments in a few different ways. For example, we could use a hypothetical and a
categorical syllogism to describe the two distinct arguments (which we’ll call Argument1 and
Argument2).
Argument1

Argument2

Argument1 and Argument2 to are co-ordinate arguments. As in most cases, the prefix co- indicates a
level of equality between them. They are co-ordinate because the do the same thing; they are oriented
at the same goal or end.

It is not always the case that co-ordinate arguments are mutually reinforcing or redundant. In this
example, the two arguments perform the same task; they both support the same conclusion. Redundant
lines of argument bolster or strengthen an argument by adding additional reasons and thus increasing
the probability that the claim is true. They also make the argument more persuasive, “piling on the
evidence” and appealing to wider audiences
In other arguments (see Describing complex arguments below), the arguments stand together like
pillars. Sometimes, the structure is strong enough that one pillar being weak, or falling down even,

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 138

won’t collapse the whole argument. In some arguments, the loss of even a single supporting argument
can bring the whole thing down.
Importantly, the co-ordinate arguments don’t contradict one another; they work together. Co-ordinate
lines that work against one another, or that are in friction with one another, undermine the coherence
of the argument. The less coherent an argument is, the weaker it is.

Subordinate arguments
The prefix sub- indicates below or under. A subway is under or beneath the way. Subordinate arguments
run below the argument and support it the way a foundation supports a building. A subordinate
argument does not support the primary claim or thesis but instead supports some underlying point or
claim.

Let us suppose your claim “I am the more experienced driver” is not self-evident but needs to be
supported. After all, I am much older than you. I’ve been driving a long time. You’ll need to provide
some kind of evidence or reasoning to support the subordinate claim, that you’re more experienced
even though I have technically been driving a lot longer:

A person who drives for a living is, prima facie, an experienced driver. Being a delivery driver with lots of
experience, however, doesn’t get to the claim “I am the person who should drive the car” without the
intervening categorical syllogism (Argument2). It doesn’t support the thesis but an intervening
argument.

Describing complex arguments

Describing complex arguments is something you learn to do. You don’t get good at it by trying it once. In
this sense, it is like any other skill, intellectual or otherwise. Practice always makes you better. You can’t
expect to be perfect without effort. Remember, especially when you start, to keep it simple.
✓ Find the thesis
✓ Put it in logical form
✓ Look for the simplest, coherent structure
We call the expression of the argument in its simplest, most basic form the ur-argument:

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 139

The Sample Argument at the conclusion of this chapter (“How Good Is the Economy…Really?”) can be
described in a number of different ways which make sense. It uses a number of different syllogistic
forms. The ur-argument, or the argument expressed in its simplest form (see Fig. 1) is a categorical
syllogism. Notice that it conforms to the seven rules of a syllogism.

The major premise – No economy that is not good for everyone is a strong economy – is enthymematic
in that it is assumed by the arguer but neither advanced as a premise nor supported by arguments. The
arguer does say, in the second to last paragraph, “So, if by a ‘strong economy’ you mean one that
disproportionately favors a small minority at the top, then yes, we have a ‘strong economy’” but this is
as close as they come to making the argument here.

It is important that this part of the argument is missing. While prima facie, this seems reasonable the
argument would obviously be stronger if it were supported. It is such an important part of the argument
that it should have stronger backing. However, the arguer’s attitude or tone in the quoted passage
suggests that they do think it is obvious, that it can be presumed and it does appear to reflect certain
values such as equality and fairness that are obviously part of the setting. While not a fatal flaw in the
argument, it is a vulnerability.

If I were to assume, as a setting, something like a blog where the arguer is writing for a general
audience, then the argument is reasonably strong. I doubt it would pass muster in more academic or
scholarly publications but it clearly wasn’t written for that audience. There are no footnotes or in-text
citations, for example. Applying that standard, I think the argument is prima facie a strong one although
there are a number of places it may be vulnerable to rebuttal.

The arguer uses a number of clarifying examples and uses graphics as both evidence and clarifiers.
Figure 2, for example, is a clarifier. The bright colors provide some really clear contrasts and make the
arguer’s claim, that rich people benefit from the stock market much more than poor and middle class
people, really easy to understand. The argument is really supported by the internal link to an NPR
article. While ideologically this is left, the data is cited by NPR as Gallup poll data, which is pretty centrist
and generally considered objective.

In terms of breadth, the argument is supported by links to articles from CNN, the Pew Research Center,
and Forbes. Including the NPR report, there is a reasonable ranged of moderate sources although there
is left lean. Forbes is more libertarian; not exactly hardline conservative. Given the emphasis on values
like equality, however, that is hardly surprising. The links themselves make the evidence transparent. I
was able to follow the NPR source all the way back to the original Gallup data.

The strongest part of the argument is also the simplest: rising stock markets are really only a benefit to a
few people. The claim is supported by testimony from reporters who collected the data (made the
observations).

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 140

Structurally, the argument is long on refutation. The arguer invests very little time in supporting their
thesis. The arguer’s affirmative claim, in its simplest or ur-argument is:
An economy that benefits a few over the many is an unhealthy economy, and;
The current economy is one that benefits a few over the many, therefore;
The current economy is an unhealthy economy.
So the rest of the argument is refutation. First, the arguer refutes the claim that even though the rich
benefit a great deal more, the middle class and poor still benefit.

While the arguer explains trickledown economics clearly, the argument is really ad ignorantiam. There is
no evidence of trickledown working. They are shifting burdens, demanding proof that it works and, in
absence of that evidence, asserting failure.

That is a weakness in the overall argument. I think, however, that if this is a reflection of how
trickledown works, and it feels right to me, that seems to be how people who support the theory talk
about it, then the argument is actually strong.

The argument then hammers at the logic of trickledown economics. The arguer uses argumentation
from analogy to make contra-logical arguments. By adding details to the analogy used as a clarifier – the
expanding railroad – the argument undermines the logic by which trickledown economics is purported
to work.

The analogic argument is then supported historical facts, a shift from the fictive railroad engaging in
stock-buy-backs to the reality of stock-buy-backs in the present economy. This fact is supported by data
from CNN Money.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 141

Figure 2: Complete Map

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 142

Sample Argument
How good is the economy…really?

It wasn’t that Republicans weren’t prepared. They had what is in any election one of the most
powerful weapons in their rhetorical arsenal: a strong economy.
Indication of thesis:
Subject term “strong
economy”

In a political landscape where there is almost no common ground the “strong economy” is one of
the few points on which everyone seems to agree. The Republican Party, in the weeks going into
the election, desperately hoped the President would stay focused on the economy. Instead, they
got dragged into a fight over the Supreme Court nominee from Animal House and caravan of
Central Americans.

Clarifier/
Stasis; establishes
agreed upon
assumptions
The Democrats couldn’t have been happier. Questions about the “strong economy” could at best
elicit a “yeah…but” from liberals. Their best argument, one that is increasingly running out of
steam, is that Trump is riding the economic wave that Obama and [fine print] Ryan and McConnell,
created. The debate isn’t about whether or not we have a “strong economy” but who gets the
credit.

Two indicators are typically highlighted when we talk about how good the economy is doing: the
stock market and the employment rate. Let’s play with these two concepts.

Organizer/
Preview of argument
As the graph below indicates, the Dow Jones has certainly risen since Trump took office in January
2017. Why wouldn’t it? The party who has historically favored business interests controlled the
Presidency and both houses of Congress and most of the Court. Under those conditions the worst-
case scenario would be no new regulations or increased enforcement. It wasn’t like under Trump
appointees approved by McConnell, the regulatory agencies were going to get tougher.

Graph =
visual evidence

Figure 1

No question the stock market has gone up. It hasn’t been unprecedented but it’s up. One reason is
that massive tax cuts increase profits. Corporations are worth more because they automatically
make money, even if they do nothing to grow in any material sense of the word.

Evidence is expertise;
explanation of stock
market
First, only a little more than half of Americans (52%) own any stock at all. The growing stock
market doesn’t mean anything for 48% of the people in the United States. They still feel the effects
of rising costs, which also come with a growing economy, but get none of the benefits (more on
that later). The second graph shows who owns how much stock. The bottom 90% of the
population own less than ten percent of the available stock. The richest one percent of the
population has 38% of the stock all by itself.

Contra-evidence; new
facts on distribution of
stock ownership

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2018/05/01/the-stock-market-under-trump-vs-obama/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.799104477f87

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 143

Figure 2

Graph = visual
representation of data
expressed in text
Helping the stock market means helping rich people and doing less for people who aren’t rich.

Imagine you live on wages. Tax cuts at the top and cutting regulations mean that your life probably
got harder. Your schools have fewer resources. If you’re the one percent, of course, this seems fair
because you don’t send you kids to public school anyway. Down the line, declines in quality of
education can be offset by increased wealth—special math tutors, music lessons, and other
educational supplements. The wealthier you are, the less likely you are to benefit from public
services.

Wealthy people don’t ride busses. What do they care if there are fewer of them?

Pro-argument;
confirms the thesis
that by demonstrating
that the tax-cut
strategy hurts lower
income people while
helping the wealthy
The whole theory of trickle-down economics, however, is that cutting taxes and regulations will, in
the long run make more money; that be reducing the tax rate we actually increase revenue.
Growing stock markets mean more production. More workers get hired. More wages get paid.
More tax revenue is collected.

Clarifier/
Internal narration
which explains and
clarifies the
opposition’s position
The fact that this has never happened seems not to have weakened the faith. Like a predicted
apocalypse that never appears, the right wing continues to believe.

The whole idea of trickledown economics depends on the reinvestment of corporate income into
production. Let’s say one of the companies is a railroad. By cutting regulations and taxes, you
encourage the railroad to expand. More track means more workers need to be hired. More steel
needs to be produced. The unemployed are put to work. Those who work benefit from the effects
of a shrinking labor pool—higher wages.

This is important. Defenders of this economic theory may have a blind spot for actual data but they
love their theory. It is the invisible hand at work. More production requires more workers. As we
put people to work, unemployment drops and wages go up.

In theory, tax revenue should also go up. Cutting taxes on a few people at the top means more
taxpayers at the bottom. So it all equals out.

It doesn’t. This has never ever worked. It has been tried many times. It has never equaled out.

It doesn’t work because rising wages are the opposite of a growing stock market. Rising stock
markets mean profits are up. Companies are doing well. Rising wages mean either falling profits or
rising prices, also called inflation.

Causal Argument
Inflation is bad for everyone. It means wage increases get eaten up by cost increases. I make a bit
more but everything costs a bit more too. It also means that the value of money in the bank, or in
the stock market, goes down too. A million dollars’ worth of bonds is still worth a million dollars,
but a million dollars won’t buy as much as it did before. Everyone loses.

Narration, statement
of fact.

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 144

As long as these two go up at the same pace, we as wage earning working people should feel
nothing. This is the ideal to which the powers that be aspire: an economy in which profits at the
top go up and up and up while wages and inflation keep pace with one another.

In a perfect economy, wages and costs would remain constant while profits would go up.

Narration;
In our hypothetical railroad, for example, expanding track would assume that there are places
where more track would be productive, that it would lead to even more profits. But what if there
is no place we might want to take a train that we can’t take one now? Is it really the lack of track
that is holding that expansion back?

internal clarifier
explaining how trickle
down works
And what if the railroad could increase profits without building more track? Historically one of the
ways companies did this was by shifting to automation. Using the new profits to shift away from
human labor to machines means long-term reductions in labor costs. Stock market goes up. Prices
stay stable, wages go down.

In the current economy, the one that’s apparently so healthy, the scheme is called “stock buy
backs.”

Narration; defining
stock buyback
programs
Say our railroad is worth $100M and there are 1,000,000 shares in the company so each share is
worth $1,000. Most of the time, to make that share price go up, the value of the company would
need to go up. Reinvestment, expansion, and growth mean the company is now worth $105M.
Each share is worth $1,050.

So a tax cut that saves the railroad $5M is the same as a producing $5M in news revenue except,
unlike the new revenue, it didn’t cost anything to get it. It’s like free money.

If it is reinvested in the company in terms of new rails or engines or higher wages, then that money
doesn’t go to the stock holders. Some of that extra $5M is going to someone else.

Argument from
analogy
If, however, the railroad takes that $5M and buys its own stock, that is 5,000 shares. So the
company remains worth $100M but the number of stocks has dropped to 95,000. Each stock
certificate is now worth $1,052.63. They make $2.63 more per share by buying back stock. Just a
bit more.

More importantly, the stock buyback is guaranteed. No other unforeseen market force will
undermine those gains. No track will be laid while in the meantime someone finds a more energy
efficient means of transportation which make rails worthless. None of the money needs to go into
the pockets of workers. Every dime goes to stockholders. Immediately. No expansion of the
railroad. No higher wages. No more employees or unions just a guaranteed 5.263% return on your
investment.

Under some previous trickle down schemes, like Reagan’s plan in the 1980’s, companies were
incentivized to avoid such schemes. Not so with the latest rounds of profit boosting tax cuts and
deregulation. In 2018 alone firms have put close to $1 Trillion into stock buybacks. Great for
investors but pretty much meaningless, if not outright harmful, for the other 80% of the people in
this country.

Evidence:
Testimony
So a growing stock market isn’t necessarily a sign of a healthy economy. It certainly helps those
who are invested in stock but full employment should matter to everyone and especially to those
at the bottom of the income scale.
Organizer – transition
to coordinate
argument
Which brings us back to the second sign of a “strong economy,” the low unemployment rates.
Currently, the unemployment rate is a bit under 4%. When Trump took over the White House, it
was right around 5%. So with no data about the quality of that employment—whether it is fulltime
or part time, if it they have health insurance—then we have, at best a benefit to about 1 to 1.5% of
the population who were unemployed but now are working. The rest of the unemployed, the

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/17/investing/stock-buybacks-tax-cuts/index.html

CHAPTER 7 STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS 145

underemployed, those who haven’t seen a wage increase in a decade but watched costs go up,
they get nothing.

Falling unemployment is supposed to benefit all of us, however. It is a core tenant of the neoliberal
economic religion: the law of supply and demand. As more of us go to work, the available supply of
labor goes down the magic invisible hand makes the demand, in this case wages, go up.

That hasn’t happened. The implied benefits of increased employment have yet to materialize. It
might be enough to make a true believer lose faith.

Clarification/
narration
The third table, taken from the Pew Research Center, compares wage growth with purchasing
power over the last half century.

Evidence: Testimony

Figure 3

The average wage in 1964 was only $2.50 per hour, compared with $20.27 today. The purchasing
power of $2.50 in 1964 dollars is pretty close to what $20.27 gets you in 2018 dollars. So while the
stock market, throughout this period, expanded, wages remained comparably flat.

Evidence:
Testimony
And even “average” here is misleading. If you make a dollar an hour and I make two, raising my
wage to $3 means that, on average, our wages went up by fifty cents, a considerable increase for
you, on paper. In reality, however, you got a pay decrease. Inflation still went up so things cost
more but your wages remained flat.

According to the Pew Research Center, weekly wages for the lowest ten percent of working people
have gone up 3% since the year 2000. If we look at the lowest 25% of workers, that has gone up a
little more, 4.3%. If you put that against the average inflation rate over that period, or about 2% a
year, then real wages have gone down. They’ve gone down a lot.

But among the top ten percent, real wages and benefits have gone up by 15.7% in the same
period, or $2,113 a week or roughly five times the weekly earnings of the bottom tenth.

And again, looking at the top 10% is misleading. Those gains are, even in this group, waited to the
top of the income scale. According to Forbes, in the 1950s a typical CEO made 20 times the salary
of the average worker. Last year, the CEO of a top US firm made 361 times more than the average
worker.

Forbes =
politically / economically
conservative
(ethos)
So, if by a “strong economy” you mean one that disproportionately favors a small minority at the
top, then yes, we have a “strong economy.” The voters who took to the polls on Tuesday, the blue
drops of water that collectively formed a tidal wave, are overwhelmingly those who have gotten
little or nothing from it. We don’t have a strong economy if by strength you mean balance or
equity. Wild disparity in income and purchasing power are unlikely to lead to a healthier economy
either.

Evidence of implied
major premise
What the midterms show is that the data don’t reflect what’s actually happening. We have not a
healthy economy but one on life support and our leadership seems to be brain dead.

Organizer/
Review
Restatement of thesis

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay-skyrockets-to-361-times-that-of-the-average-worker/

CHAPTER 8 DEFINITIONS 146

Chapter 8: Definitions

The word definition comes from the Latin for “drawing a fence around” and that is what definitions do;
it is how they work. A good fence does two things: it collects and it divides. When we define the word
“tree” for example, we are saying “this is what trees are” and “this is what trees are not.” They are an
important part of every argument. So we waited until Chapter 8 to talk about them.
Definitions play three important roles in argumentation. First, we define terms in anticipation of
arguments. They are what we call a priori, coming before. We often see definitions at the beginning of
argument, establishing them up front in order to clarify the argument. Another reason why we define
terms is to establish premises of the argument. We argue from definitions. They are part of the
argument. Finally, it is important to recognized that definitions are not facts. They cannot be observed.
They are not empirical. Reasonable people disagree over how to define terms. So definitions:
✓ Clarify arguments
✓ Make arguments
✓ Are argued
The Basic Structure of a Definition

A definition always has three elements an can be expressed as a formula: definiendum = genus +
differentia:
The definiendum – the term to be defined
The genus – the class or category to which the definiendum belongs
The differentia – the distinguishing characteristic; what makes the definiendum different from
the other members of the genus.

A good definition will always include all three elements. They are the collection (genus) and division
(differentia).
Sample Definition1
Refugee

According to the United Nations, “a refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her
country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for
reasons of race, religion, nationality political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”

Definiendum: Refugee
Genus: A person who has left their country; the same class as an emigrant, or
migrant worker
Differentiae: Forced to leave (not a choice) AND
Forced to leave because of (a) persecution; (b) war, or; (c) violence
OR a well-founded fear of persecution…

CHAPTER 8 DEFINITIONS 147

Modes of Definition

All complete definitions identify the definiendum, genus, and differentia(e). There are a variety of
methods arguers use arrive at a good definition. As a critic of argument, and an arguer, your ability to
identify those modes of definition will help you understand, and describe, arguments better.
Dictionary. This is a pretty obvious mode of definition. For most of us, this is the first place we
go when we want to define a term. Dictionaries also include other useful information such as
guides to pronunciation, will used the word in a sentence, and sometimes even the words
history or etymology (see below).
A dictionary is a catalogue of uses. Typically, dictionaries number definitions in order of their
most common usage. So definition 1. is the most common usage of the word, 2. the next most
common, and so on.
This expresses both the strength and weakness of dictionaries. When we encounter an
unfamiliar term, we can look it up and see how most people who use the word used it. It cannot
tell you how the word is being used in any particular case.
Dictionaries as evidence
In an argument, a dictionary is a source of evidence. Most dictionaries are a form of testimony in
that they record their observations of the word’s usage; how the word is used. Specialized areas
of knowledge, however, often develop their own vocabulary. Black’s Law Dictionary is a
standard desk reference for lawyers and paralegals. It doesn’t just define the term, it says how it
should be used in a particular context.
It is not always easy to tell these specialized dictionaries from lay dictionaries or desk
references. Sometimes expert or specialized dictionaries are called encyclopedias (but not all
encyclopedias are expert dictionaries). One important thing to look for is authorship; most
expert dictionaries attribute authorship for each individual entry. This is also important to keep
in mind when you are citing sources.
As arguers, and argument critics, we will often turn to these expert dictionaries in developing
and analyzing arguments. We should assess these reference materials the same way we assess
other experts. In the sample Definition1 above, the arguer used the UN as the source of the
definition. The UN would be an expert on the term and how it should be used in this context.
Etymology. The history and origin of words. Many dictionaries will provide a history of the
word, showing where it originated (often which language it originated in) and how its form and
meaning have changed over time.
An etymological definition can be particularly helpful if an argument engages with texts—
testimony, expertise, or dogma—from another era such as the bible or even the US
Constitution.
In the sample definition2 below, the arguer uses an etymological mode of development in
defining both liberty and freedom.

CHAPTER 8 DEFINITIONS 148

Although etymologies often come in dictionaries (they don’t always), they are used very
differently. In defining liberty and freedom, the arguer isn’t just saying how the words are used
or even have been used. The arguer, in this case, uses the history of the word authoritatively.
The historical or traditional meaning “rules” over the present usage. Argument critics may
wonder what justifies this authority.
Enumeration of parts. Defining a term by breaking it down and looking at its individual
components is often a productive and helpful way of defining terms. This mode of development
is especially useful when looking at complex terms or even theoretical concepts or ideas.
A generation before the American War for Independence in 1776, the French aristocrat
philosopher the Baron de Montesquieu argued for republican form of government based on
division of state power. Central to his argument was his definition of government as consisting
of three separate but related functions: they make laws, execute or enforce the laws, and they
judge or adjudicate matters under the law. These three functions, the legislative, executive, and
judicial, define government.
Montesquieu’s De l’esprit des lois was incredibly influential. Although banned by the Catholic
Church for his overtly anti-religious analysis of government, Montesquieu’s arguments
influenced the early British colonists who used his theory of “separation of powers” as the basis
of the US Constitution.
Comparison and Contrast. In the sample definition2, below, the arguer uses an etymological
mode of development to define liberty and freedom but it is the comparison and contrast of
liberty and freedom which gives us the definition.
Comparison and contrast function by putting two closely related concepts side by side in order
to establish both similarities, often but not always the same genus, and differences, the
differentiae which distinguish them from one another.
Example and Illustration. You cannot define terms with an example. If I am unclear on the
definition of “cat” then pointing at a cat doesn’t define it. What, exactly, are you pointing at? A
small furry animal? Are all small furry animals cats? Or a color? Or a specific class of mammal?
Examples and illustrations are modes of development only in so far as they help us identify and
articulate the necessary elements of the definition, the genus and differentiae. If they don’t do
that, then they may be clarifiers or they may be bad definitions.
The philosopher Husserl called this method “free imaginative variation” and it worked best, in
his opinion, when defining abstract ideas and in particular ideas related to motivations and
actions. It begins with a case or example which we are confident fits the term and then plays
with the case, adding or subtracting until we arrive at the minimum essential requirements.
Suppose I was to make an argument that some action or another was patriotic (definiendum). It
is a word we often use in political discourse. It is obviously a dialectical term so we can’t appeal
to our senses or observations to define it.
We could start with some examples which we are confident everyone will agree are
emblematic, that they are accurate normal cases of patriots/patriotism such as George

CHAPTER 8 DEFINITIONS 149

Washington and Nathan Hale. We might even look at anti-patriots or traitors such as Benedict
Arnold or Jonathan Pollard. What about spies like Ethel and Julian Rosenberg who, in giving
secrets to a hostile power, achieved a sort of parity between superpowers that prevented
further use of nuclear weapons and a world war that would have killed billions of people?
As we engage in free imaginative variation, we will play with cases—sometimes even trying to
apply our definition to known opposites—in order to refine our understanding of the term or
concepts. The goal however is always the same: a clear sense of the genus and differentiae.
Function. The final mode of definition we look at in this chapter is to define something
teleologically, or in terms of its use or function. We define a hammer, for example, not in terms
of what it is made of but what it is designed to do: drive nails.
In his definition of government, Montesquieu enumerated the parts of government—legislative,
executive, and judicial—but each part was defined by the task it was designed to perform. The
task of the legislature is to write the laws and control thus the budget, because appropriation
and spending are matters of law.
As you can see in the sample definition1 (above) and definition2 (below), definitions can be simple,
developing definitions through a single mode or complex, using a combination of modes together in
order to identify the genus and differentiae of the definiendum.
Evaluating a Definition

Because definitions often play an important role in arguments, describing them is important. It is also
important to be able to distinguish well-formed, good definitions from those which are poorly
constructed or even sophistic. As argument critics we need to do more than just describe arguments, we
need to evaluate them.
A definition is clear to the degree we are able to see not only the definiendum but also the genus and
the differentia(e). To be good, definitions must also meet five specific criteria:
1. A definition must clarify what the definiendum is
2. A definition must clarify what the definiendum is not
3. A definition must not be circular
4. A definition must not be negative
5. A definition must not use figurative or metaphorical language
What the definiendum is and What the definiendum is not
Because they are so closely related, it only makes sense to treat these two criteria together. A
good definition must do both.
Consider the sample definition1 above – the definiendum refugee. The term is important
because it carries with it certain legal statuses under international law. A refugee has certain
rights under international law that immigrants and other travelers don’t have. There are real
world consequences of the definition.

CHAPTER 8 DEFINITIONS 150

Definitions are abstract. In order for them to do their job, we need to be able to apply them to
concrete situations. At the boarder, we should know if the person is a tourist, an immigrant, or a
refugee. A definition that doesn’t do that is not a good definition. It should let us make fine
distinctions.
The more precise the definition, the more narrow the genus and the more differentiae are
applied to the definiendum.
Circularity
In logic we sometimes use the word tautology to mean an argument which circles back on itself, an
argument in which the conclusion is also one of the premises. In definition, a circular or tautological
definition, the definiendum appears in either the genus or the differentiae.
A farmer (definiendum) is a person (genus) who farms (differentia)
In the sample definition2 below, the equation of freedom and liberty, when we also define liberty as
freedom, would be a circular definition.
Negativity
Freedom is not slavery. While, as we’ll see below, contrast is an important mode of definition, negation
only tells us what something is not. It does not tell us what the definiendum is.
It is important to note there are some exceptions – or apparent exceptions – to this rule. The
definiendum “bachelor” for example is “a man” (genus) “who is not married” (differentia). In this case
the negation or absence is the essential defining characteristic.
In the sample definition2 below, the definition of liberty as the absence of restriction or rule would be a
similar case:
Definiendum: Liberty
Genus: A political status
Differentia: Exempt from the restrictions placed on other members of the class

Figurative and metaphorical language
It is debatable whether or not this rule even needs mention. Janis Joplin’s “Me and Bobby McGee”
(which was written by Kris Kristopherson) is poetic but not clear. Whether or not having anything to lose
is a precondition of freedom is an interesting way of thinking about freedom. It certainly invites us to
conceptualize freedom differently. It does not provide us with a sense of genus or differentiae, however.

Sample Definition2
Freedom

Freedom is an important word in US political discourse. The word is powerful; it legitimizes or de-
legitimizes laws and policies. People fight for it. Those who have given their lives for it are
remembered as heroes.

CHAPTER 8 DEFINITIONS 151

But what is it? Other than “good” what does it mean? We know that it isn’t slavery. The underground
railroad was the freedom train. Janis Joplin sang that “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to
lose.” But this doesn’t really tell us anything.

Freedom is a kind of liberty. And we all know how important liberty is, but liberty is just another word
for freedom, we still have no clarity. We’ve just said that freedom is freedom.

But the terms liberty and freedom can provide us with some useful points of contrast. The term
liberty is a Latin word which meant an exemption. A person who had “liberty” was not under any
form of restriction.

Freedom, on the other hand, is a word having Germanic origins. It meant “an ability to” so that a
person who was “free to leave” was not only not prohibited from leaving but actually had the ability
to leave.

These concepts manifest very differently in our understanding of our basic rights and freedoms.
Freedom of speech would mean an ability to communicate without restrictions. It would necessarily
include things like access and ability. Liberty of speech would mean that nothing is stopping speech.
There is no law or rule or force that prevents it.

Essences, Properties, and Accidents

Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle formulated a lot of what we today know about, or at least
think about, definitions. In particular, they thought it was important to differentiate between the
essentials of a thing, those things that make it what it is; the properties of that thing, or the qualities
that result from those essential features, and; accidents or those things which may or may not appear in
combination with the thing but do not change it substance or essence.
Take, for example, steel. Steel (definiendum) is an metal (genus) made from carbon and iron
(differentia) and often includes other elements such as tungsten (accident). It is a property of steel that
is has a high tensile strength (property) which is what makes it so useful for construction and
infrastructure. The property exists because of the features essential qualities (genus + differentiae) exist
the way light is the product of a light bulb and electricity in the proper configuration.
Accidents are incidental. Steel may be alloyed with a number of other metals which modify it properties
but don’t change its essential nature. They may make it stronger or more brittle but it is still steel.
Whatever is true of all steel is true of any steal + accident. If one of the essential characteristics is
altered or changed, the what is true of all steel may or may not be true of the thing in question which
now, by definition, not-steel (see law of the excluded middle).

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 152

Chapter 9: Narrative

Argumentation theorist Walter Fisher believe that narration was the “paradigmatic mode” of human
communication. We are, he said, in essence storytellers. More than just apes who walk up right, more
than having big brains, or making tools, or using symbols, we were storytellers; homo narrans.
Fisher took a broad view of the term narrative. His definition would include not only what we think of as
a story—a principally aesthetic work with characters in conflict and a plot—but that included nearly all
human communication. Science, history, engineering…these for Fisher were all simply forms of stories.
The way we understand our world is in terms of a narrative paradigm.
Each culture, past and present, has its own basic principles of storytelling, its own rules for telling a
coherent story. These rules vary from epoch to epoch and field to field. The underlying principle of
coherence, however, is field dependent. While groups may define coherence in their own ways, all
storytellers have a sense of coherence which allows them to differentiate between stories which are
believable and credible.
While Fisher was, at the onset of his theory of narrative, an argumentation theorist, his work has not
gotten as much traction in argumentation studies as it has in other areas of communication studies.
Argumentation scholars and critics have long respected the importance and persuasive power of
narrative. You may have noticed that we talk about narrative throughout this textbook (see Examples;
see Evidence).
The telling of stories may be universal but stories themselves are highly subjective accounts. The way
stories are told, even if we assume honest and forthcoming narrators, influences the way in which the
facts are understood.
As scholars and critics of argument, we need to be alert to narratives not only because they are
powerful and persuasive (a rhetorical concern) but also because they are ubiquitous in public discourse.
Advanced Description of Argument
Stories are idiosyncratic. They represent the unique perspective and worldview of the storyteller. Your
story of a significant event—a concert or a breakup—will never be the same as the other people who
experienced that same event even if everyone is being completely honest and forthcoming. Each of you
represents a unique perspective.
In order to describe arguments, we need to shift our attention away from the details and differences
and focus on the field independent dimensions of narrative. These dimensions give us a vocabulary to
have an intellectually informed about narratives and their role in argument. We will start with what are
called extrinsic features of narrative. These are forces outside the narrative which act on the way it is
told including punctuation, syntax, foreground/background, and point of view. We then move on to the
intrinsic features of narratives, or internal structures which shape all narratives.
Extrinsic features of narratives

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 153

Stories are told. They take place somewhere. Someone tells them. The story teller doesn’t give us a
perfect accounting of a moment in time but a perspective on that moment. They select facts, separating
what is important from what is unimportant, the organize those facts in ways that make sense, and they
give meaning and interpretation to those facts.
When I was in college, I worked in a home for developmentally disabled adults. One of our clients
grabbed my head and squeezed it, pulling out a rather sizeable chunk of hair. I had to fill out a report. I
had to fill it out over and over because I kept doing it wrong. If any of you have had to fill out a formal
incident report, you know, you don’t get to make inferences or guesses. You can’t speculate as to
motives or intentions only what you saw and heard. Objective description. A point by point description.
That is not how we normally tell stories. We assume. We guess. We interpret what is going on as part of
the act of perceiving what is going on. No story, even the formal institutional narrative I had to tell, can
ever really be free from interpretation and meaning making on the part of the storyteller.
That meaning is external to the story as related by the narrator. The narrator, intentionally or not, gives
shape to the narrative, structuring it from the outside. There are many ways we can talk about these
externalities but four things we can always look for are punctuation, syntax, foreground/background,
and point of view.
Punctuation. All narratives must begin and end somewhere. Real life, our experiences, are
ongoing but narratives start at a particular point. This point is selected by the narrator, not the
events themselves. As a communication studies student, you may have encountered this in
other courses such as interpersonal communication and conflict management or even in
performance classes. Stories begin with some event and they continue to an end. Like the
beginning, the end point is something chosen by the narrator and where stories are started and
stopped has a powerful impact on the meaning we make from a narrative. Even if two people
were to tell the same story of the same event, the mere act of starting and at different points
will impact how the audience makes sense of the story.
Consider we are asked to take sides in a conflict, two roommates in a fight over whose turn it is
to take out the trash. Roommate 1 starts the story on Tuesday, Roommate 2’s day to take out
the garbage. Roommate 2 tells the same story but begins on Monday, when Roommate 1 failed
to take on the garbage on their day.
A story that ends with one person yelling and screaming means something different if it ends
thirty minutes later, after that person came back and apologized and explained they’d just
learned their dog died.
Where a narrative begins and where a narrative ends says something about the perspective of
the narrator and anchors the meaning of the narrative, the point they are trying to make.
Whenever you encounter a narrative, your analysis should begin by looking at it is punctuated.
Ask yourself how the meaning of the narrative might change if it were started and stopped
elsewhere. What happened before? What happened after? What does the punctuation of the
narrative say about the argument?
Syntax. Details of a story don’t just present themselves. They present themselves in an order.
The details and facts of the story are organized when they are communicated. Narration gives

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 154

order and shape to experiences. How it organizes and shapes those experiences reflects a great
deal about the narrator and how they see the world.
How things are ordered has meaning. Most often, stories are told in chronological order,
relating events in the order they happened. Combined with punctuation, for example, a
chronological order often begins in the past, with causes, proceeds to the present by looking at
effects and then directs us to the future, to see the solutions.
Nonstandard ordering of events should also tell us something. Sometimes, a story that jumps
around is indicative of a person who is struggling to recall events. Sometimes, it is done to
highlight or emphasized certain elements of the story.
Like punctuation, argument students and critics are looking for meaning. What does the syntax
of the narrative say? Why are the events ordered the way they are? What does it tell us about
the arguer?
Foreground and background. Every story has to take place somewhere. Main characters need a
supporting cast to interact with. They need to be doing things. They are somewhere. Other
things are taking place in the world around them. What is the story and what is the backstory?
What is happening and what is just context or background?
In life, there is no background. I am the “star” of my life and you are the star of yours. When I
tell a story, I am selecting the focus of the story, drawing attention to one set of interactions and
events while pushing others to the periphery.
The story of America’s War of Independence is a good example. If you’re from the US, this is a
story about the colonies’ liberation from the British Empire. The war between the American
colonies and the English king is what is happening. Outside the (future) United States, though,
the conflict is part of a much larger contest between the great colonial powers, a conflict that
had been going on for more than a hundred years. The War of Independence isn’t the story, it’s
just one act. We aren’t the main characters; we’re a subplot.
When we tell a story, we move some details to the front, others to the back. Some details are
selected by the storyteller as crucial or merely relevant; other details are set aside as
unimportant.
What is included in the narrative? What is excluded? Sometimes you can infer a great deal from
what is left out of a story.
Point of View. Every narrative has a narrator. There is no story without someone telling it which
means that every narrative is bound by the point of view of the narrator.
The storyteller is inseparable from the story told. The ethos, or character, of the storyteller
matters but point of view goes beyond that. It isn’t about honest or attention to detail but the
degree to which who we are limits our ability to see the world from any other vantage point.
For example, I was once in a discussion group with two students. One was a young white high
school student taking college classes. She drove in from a small town off the highway. The other
was an African American woman from the Twin Cities. Our group was supposed to describe

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 155

Mankato. One of my teammates thought of the town as “the big city” and “welcoming” and
talked about “so much to do!” The other fond people in Mankato to be standoffish, suspicious.
Mankato was rural. While her counterpart talked about the mall and the stores, she talked
about cornfields.
Neither story is more or less accurate than the other. As noted in Chapter 3 (Evidence), all
reports of facts are partial. No story is the complete story. There is more to do in Mankato than
in some of the small towns around us. There are fewer things to do than in Minneapolis.
Our point of view influences how we will select, organize, interpret, and narrate the details of
our experiences.
Intrinsic features of narrative
Punctuation, syntax, foreground/background and point of view are elements of every narrative. They
are often invisible, not part of the narrative but outside it, influencing it. We have to think about them
and how they function but we don’t necessarily see them.
Other elements of narrative description focus on the dimensions of the story as it’s told. These are
intrinsic elements of the narrative. You have probably encountered these descriptive terms before: who,
what, where/when, how, and why? Literary and social critic Kenneth Burke called these intrinsic
dimensions of narrative the dramatic pentad and he believed that by looking not just at the pentad but
the ratios between these dimensions tells us things about the arguer and their argument.
Like all good social theorists, Burke begins by renaming the concepts. While this is annoying— Why can’t
he just use the 5W & 1H like my middle school English teacher! –it is an important step in theorizing
which removes terms from their familiar, and thus imprecise, context and lets us start thinking from a
more abstract, and critical, theoretical perspective Burke’s pentad used the terms act, agent, agency,
scene, and purpose.
Act. What was done. For Burke, actions are not behaviors. Behaviors happen according to laws
of matter and motion; biological imperatives. Breathing is a behavior. Holding our breath is an
action.
Agent. Who took the action. The act and the agent must correspond to one another. If, in the
sample argument, the agent is “the storm,” then the act would be “keeping the student home.”
Agency. By what means or instruments did the agent perform the action. Often, when critics try
and use the pentad to describe a narrative, they struggle here because they’ve already made an
error with respect to some other point of the pentad. If the agent is “the storm,” and the act
would be “keeping the student home,” then the agency would be “wind, snow, icy roads, etc.”
Purpose. Burke’s pentad is a like the picture on puzzle’s box. It tells us what the finished product
is supposed to look like. If there is an act, agent, and agency then there must be a purpose. We
don’t hold our breath; we hold our breath for a reason.
Why did the storm want the at home? What was the desired outcome or purpose? Generally,
these can be conceptualized in terms of teleological (goal or end seeking) or deficit reduction
(harm avoidance, problem solving) motives.

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 156

Scene. Anything that happens has to happen somewhere. Not just where and when, the scene is
more complicated than that. The context help us understand what is going on. It puts things in
perspective so we can see the story.
The scene is even bigger, more important than context. It establishes conditions under which
actions can be taken by agents. In the sample argument, the need to see the doctor, the winter
storm and icy roads, and other aspect of the scene limit the agent either by establishing
imperatives (things which must be done) or constraints (things which cannot be done).
Ratios
What is important about the five points of the pentad is not that a story has an agent, act, agency,
scene, and purpose. Every story has an agent, act, agency, scene, and purpose!
Analysis should go beyond a scavenger hunt. It isn’t just about finding the narrative elements. Putting
the five elements together in relation to one another, not just identifying them but explaining the
relationship between them, gives us a rich sense of the argument.
More importantly, Burke’s theory posits that how the five points are allocated tells us a lot about the
argument that we can’t necessarily see on the surface. He called this distribution of emphasis the ratios
of the pentad.
In the sample argument, the short narrative places all its emphasis on scene. Even though the student
begins by taking full responsibility, and never says “It’s not my fault” the narrative ratio is a scene: agent
ratio. The scene is significant while the agent is pushed out of the story. The student doesn’t really do
anything. By putting purpose and agency outside the narrative, the arguer makes the scene the force of
action and the agent reactive to circumstances.
Narratives argue not by establishing logical or scientific conditions for cause and effect arguments. They
function simultaneously as both the logic/reasoning and the evidence. The student’s narrative doesn’t
argue that they had no option but to say home. It sets up a world in which that is established already.
Narratives are pictures of the world and it isn’t logic or evidence but the ratio between the pentadic
elements.
Sample Argument
Dear Professor…

The following is not a real email but it is based on many emails received over the years. While the
details vary, the overall argument is one familiar to anyone who has taught students:

Dear Professor,

I am sorry I missed the quiz on Tuesday. It is totally my fault and I know I don’t deserve an extension but
I wanted to beg you anyway.

I had to go home for a doctor’s appointment on Monday and I decided to spend the night. I wasn’t able
to get home until late on Tuesday because of the blizzard and I missed your class.

Even if you don’t give me an extension, I want you to know I am a responsible student and I wanted you
to know I didn’t just “skip” class.

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 157

Sincerely,

Student

Description

The email is short but clearly an argument. The student’s claim, in logical form is:

I am a student who should be allowed to take the quiz late.

Although not stated, the argument assumes the premise that students should not be penalized for
things that happen to them, that are beyond their control. This seems like a reasonable assumption.
Rhetorically, it is wise to keep it enthymematic since raising the question would invite rebuttal from
the interlocutor (the Professor would be both interlocutor and audience).

The student’s argument rests upon the short narrative in the second paragraph, only two sentences
long.
Scene: Although nothing is really said, I think we can infer a lot about the scene: a
contemporary college classroom setting, winter; probably the United States; probably an
academic setting where professors have a lot of latitude in terms of grading policy. Probably a
Tuesday evening but maybe later.

There is another important point here: the need to be at home to see the doctor. A lot of
critics might try and squeeze this under purpose but it fits under scene. It is a condition or
circumstance in the world which constrains the agent. They have to come home.

Another important aspect of the scene is the storm which took place Tuesday morning. It is
taken for granted that this was a serious, travel-inhibiting storm. This is part of the scene
because it constrains the agent, it limits what they can and cannot do.

Act: Missing the quiz/not being in class. It is important, I think, that the act is not “being at
home.” One of the weaknesses of this argument, is that it is ambiguous here. If the act was
going home, however, the Agent would have some measure of control. This would effectively
refute the student’s argument that they should be allowed to take the quiz because missing
the quiz was not under their control.

Agent: Student.

We know almost nothing about the student. I think most of the extra-narrative comments are
bolstering. I think that this is a first person narrative which testifies to the claim “Not being
here was something beyond my control” and these are intended to give the student some
credibility (ethos). I don’t think they really tell me anything about him or her.

Agency: This one is trickier. Because our action is a negative (not being somewhere) then,
really, we’re talking about staying home. The student has a place to be which gives them
options with respect to the storm.

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 158

It is relevant here that this particular point of the pentad is vague and poorly defined. Like the
agent, it is de-emphasized, pushed to the fringe of the argument narrative.

Purpose: This final point of the pentad is also sublimated. It’s tricky because we’re talking
about inaction, not action, but presumably the inaction was in response to the roads. The
students’ argument is that they had no choice but were responding to circumstances.

As an argument critic, I read this as a sublimation of purpose in the pentadic ratio. It is pushed
to the far margins of the argument. This doesn’t mean there is no purpose; it means that the
story was told in such a way as to make purpose hard to fit into the story in any meaningful
way.

Conclusions

The narrative, as structured, supports the student’s argument.

If the narrative is accepted as credible testimony, that is to say we believe the student did
have to go home, was unable to travel because of the storm, and the other relevant details;

And if we accept the enthymematic premise that students should not be punished for things
beyond their control;

Then the narrative provides evidence that the student did not have control, could not have
chosen to be in class.

While the argument is not especially strong and would be unlikely to stand up to any meaningful
rebuttal, it does provide a prima facie case for the student’s claim. That is to say, until there is a
rebuttal or unless the interlocutor is willing to reject one or more of the premises (such as the
credibility of the student) or challenge other assumptions (is “not getting credit” for a quiz you didn’t
take “punishment” or something else?), the argument would stand.

Describing Narratives
The sample argument above provides you with a template for describing narratives as they appear in
arguments. The argument critic must start by thinking about what it is they are looking at. Not every
narrative is argumentative. Narratives can function as clarifiers which give background, context, and
identify key stasis points in anticipation of argument. Narratives can be examples or establish points of
convergence as part of analogic arguments.
Narratives can also be distractions, tangents or other junk that has no bearing on the argument.
In the sample description, the critic gives a big picture description or map of the argument and how the
narrative fits in that overall argument. This is important. It isn’t just a description of the narrative but
starts by explaining how that narrative functions as an argument.
As the critic moves through the argument, their description makes use of a number of other
argumentative concepts which inform the narrative description: rhetoric, enthymemes, and ambiguity.

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 159

The critic is less overt about the logical structure of the argument but the criticism demonstrates an
understanding both of how to set up a logical claim (subject term—copula[is]—predicate term[noun];
universal affirmative) and logical structure of a categorical syllogism.
In using Burke’s pentad as a descriptive tool, or taxonomy, the critic tries to show not just what each of
the five parts of the pentad are. It isn’t a scavenger hunt. Rather, the critic tries to show how each of the
five elements relates to the others and how together they form an argument.
Evaluating Narratives
In his work on narrative theory, communication and argumentation theorist Walter Fisher contended
that our ability to tell stories is what makes us human. The basic structure of a story reflects the
structures of human sense-making. To say you understand something is to say that you can tell a story
about that thing that makes sense.
For Fisher, this observation led him to conclude that human beings intuitively know how to evaluate
stories. Humans have a set tools common to all people which we use to distinguish between narratives
we believe are truthful and honest and those we find lacking. That tool is our sense of coherence. To say
a narrative is coherent it to say that is prima facie, credible.
Fisher elaborates on this idea of coherence, describing its function on two levels. The first form of
coherence is narrative consistency. A narrative is consistent if all its parts fit and work together. There is
no friction or inconsistency in the story. This is something police interrogators look for when questioning
suspects. Narratives which include contradictory fact claims are often a sign of deception. To be
credible, the parts of the story have to all “hang together.” Everything needs to make sense.
In addition to being internally coherent, credible stories must also be externally coherent. Fisher called
this narrative fidelity. The elements of the narrative work together and they are consistent with other
facts or assumptions about the world.
Let us say, for example, that you want to know if a particular teacher is really challenging. Yes, a
classmate claims. The professor is difficult (claim) because he gives a quiz every week (reason). In this
case, our arguer is also assuming, and believes their interlocutor/audience will also assume, that a quiz
every week is hard.
That story, while short, is also consistent with what you know about the world and about teachers. It has
a sense of fidelity with other narratives and facts you accept as true or probably true. Suppose, though,
your peer had said the professor is difficult (claim) because he releases feral cats into the classroom and
punishes wrong answers by shooting students with a paintball gun (reason).
You would probably be skeptical. While no doubt you would share the arguer’s assumption that this will
make the course more challenging, you are unlikely to believe this kind of thing is normal behavior at a
state funded institution. That narrative isn’t like anything you’ve ever heard before. It is inconsistent
with how you generally believe a university functions. It has no narrative fidelity.
Problems with Narrative

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 160

If Fisher is right, that we evaluate narratives by their internal and external coherence, then whether or
not we believe a story depends on whether or not it is like stories we already believe. It makes sense to
us because it is consistent with our experiences and view of the world.
Suppose you have never had any negative interactions with police. You may have gotten a traffic ticket
but the police officer wasn’t going to haul you to jail. You and your friends weren’t cuffed. You have
heard lots of stories of friends who were let go even though they were speeding or who had to dump
out beer but weren’t arrested. You don’t know anyone who’s been to jail. You’ve never been in an
interrogation room and you’ve never talked to anyone who has. If police haven’t been super pleasant to
you, they’re probably nice to your mom and dad. Some of your friends from high school perhaps went
on to be police officers.
So when someone you don’t know, with profoundly different experiences tells you about an interaction
with police where they and their friends were thrown up against cars or hit with nightsticks your first
thought is “You must have done something. Cops may be jerks but…they don’t do things like that for no
reason.”
Police shootings of unarmed people of color, especially young African American men, is part of our
public discourse. Whether or not we believe or disbelieve stories of police violence depend on your
experiences and those of your friends and family. If we filter or screen out those stories which are
unfamiliar to us, we have no ability to challenge those stories.
Fallacy
Self-Fulfilling Prophesy

A self-fulfilling prophesy is a prophesy which brings itself about. We find what we’re looking for
because we expect to find it. A self-fulfilling prophesy is thus in some sense, a form of circular
reasoning and casuistry.

If we set about testing a conclusion or hypothesis, say whether a teacher is “hard but fair” or
“arbitrary and capricious” we would expect to find some evidence for both claims, some against both,
and have to weigh the testimony and other forms of evidence we’ve received. If we start with the
conclusion that our professor is “arbitrary and capricious” then we go looking for evidence, we often
filter out or exclude evidence not because it isn’t credible but because “credibility” is now measured
by whether or not it confirms the expected conclusion. We interpret data, ambiguous cases, and seek
out evidence which supports what we expect to find.

Arguments in poetic form

One of the most important films of the 20th Century is Casablanca. Staring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid
Bergman, the story is one about a bar owner from New York living in Morocco. He is torn between the
love of his life and the values he believes in. Although the movie was released in conjunction with the US
landing of troops in North Africa during World War II, the play was written years before, when the US
was still neutral. Many people in the US, including famous aviator Charles Lindberg, thought the fascist
states of Italy, Germany, and Spain had some good ideas and things we should think about copying.

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 161

In the movie, Rick (Humphrey Bogart) engages in some tense banter with the villain, Nazi Major Strasser.
Strasser asks Rick if he is one of those Americans who can’t abide by the thought of Germans in their
“beloved Paris.” Rick brushes this off. It was never his Paris.
“What about New York?” Implying that Germany had it sights set on the Americas. In true Bogart style,
Rick grins, “Well, there are some parts of New York you might not want to invade.”
The playwrights who wrote original script for Casablanca were very clear in their intent. They were anti-
fascists who supported the French Resistance. In the play, Rick elects to support Victor Laszlo, the Czech
Resistance leader. They wanted audiences to identify with those who fought the Nazis, to see the Nazis
as antagonists who were just as much a threat to the United States as they were to the British and
French.
It is an argument.
We call arguments that appear as artistic or aesthetic texts (movies and films, novels, poems, etc.) as
argument in poetic form. We can also apply many of the ideas and techniques for understanding these
dramatic argument forms to other performance arguments like street protest and civil disobedience
(see Chapter).
Interpreting Poetic Arguments
Aesthetic texts and performances, those in which the arrangement and presentation of the argument
are part of the argument (we can also use the word “opaque” because we see them as part of the
argument) present argument scholars and other audiences with problems of interpretation.
First, poetic and artistic arguments are layered or condensed. The symbols don’t come at us in a clear,
linear manner but sometimes all at once, on top of one another. To understand the argument of
Casablanca, Rick needs to be less of a person and more of a symbol for all of America: young, virile, he’d
been a idealist who fought for principles but then, defeated he retreats into a life of cynicism, drinking
and pining for his lost love. Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) is a symbol of that love. Rick can choose to stay out of
politics, run off with Ilsa and abandon Laszlo to Strasser and the Nazis.
While all texts have some element of subjectivity, and reasonable people will always have some level of
disagreement over the meaning of a particular text, aesthetic texts are far more invested in symbols and
layers of symbols which exponentially increase that subjective space.
The second problem of translating or refining poetic arguments is that poetic arguments often don’t
look like arguments and part of what makes them rhetorically strong is that they don’t seem like and are
not processed in the same way. You may think critically about a movie or book, but you may not be
thinking about it like an argument. You may not break it down, describe and evaluate it as an argument.
You want to sit back, eat some popcorn and watch a great movie…and you end up being convinced to go
to war against the Nazis…
A movie—or a novel, a poem, a street performance, a photograph, any narrative—must be translated
into an argument form: claim, reasons (evidence + logic), in a setting. You, as an audience member,
must put the aesthetic text into an argument form.
Casablanca may mean a lot of things to a lot of people but the way I read it as a critic of arguments is:

CHAPTER 9 NARRATIVE 162

Claim:
American neutrality in the face of fascism is wrong/a bad policy
Reasons:
✓ The Nazis are evil [Strasser is emblematic of Nazism; he is evil]
✓ Neutrality in the face of evil is wrong [enthymeme; not expressed by implied]
✓ Therefore, Rick’s neutrality in the face of fascism is wrong.

➔ And if it is wrong of Rick as an individual to run away from Nazism, it is wrong for all
Americans to run away from fascism.
Refining or translating aesthetic texts and poetic arguments requires more intervention on behalf of the
audience or critic. They need to read the argument as an argument.
Describing and Evaluating Poetic Arguments
Not every aesthetic text is fictional but even “true” stories are subject to the creative license of writers,
directors, actors, and others. An argument critic faced with an argument in poetic form will need to
interpret the argument and describe it in argument terms.
1 – Summarize the text. Who are the characters? What role do they play in the narrative? What
are the principle plot points.
2 – Describe the narrative: frame, punctuation, syntax; the pentad
3 – Refine the argument: what is the claim (is it in a logical form?); what is the evidence?; what
are the reasons? Turn it into an argument. Use what you know about arguments to make sense
of the text.
In terms of assessing the argument, a critic can use a number of tools at their disposal to dissect and
weigh the argument. The most obvious tools would be those we use to describe and evaluate analogic
arguments but that is not the only tool in our toolbox.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 163

Chapter 10: The Scientific Method

Science occupies a special place in both our way of understanding the world and a powerful dialectical
term in our public discourse. If something is scientific, that is like saying it is valid. Science is a special
way of thinking about and talking about the world.
But what is science?
Obviously, this is not a science class. This unit isn’t about science but rather the scientific method and,
while the science is principally concerned with empirical knowledge and the natural world, scientists use
their observations and measurements of the world to develop and support theories about the world;
those theories, in turn, for the basis for new observations and asking new questions about the world.
Science, the word, is derived from the Latin word for knowledge but, in our usage designates a specific
way of knowing about the world. It is a way of making sense out of the world. For our purposes, science
is:
The persistent application of reason to the natural world.
As we move through this chapter, we will be building on other concepts such as evidence and expertise,
but especially inductive reasoning. Science is a disciplined form of inductive reasoning.
Ways of Knowing
How do we know what we know? What makes something knowledge? People who study science and
theory and the history of knowledge call these epistemological questions. The word episteme means
“knowing” so epistemology is the logic or study of knowing. What does it even mean to know?
In order to understand science as a distinct epistemological perspective, it may be helpful to look at how
it differs from other ways of knowing about the world:
1. Tradition (tenacity)
We know about the world based on what we have always known. What we “know” about the
world has come to us through history. While the origins of this knowledge may be obscured by
time, that it is here at all is proof of its value.

Much of what we know about the world is transmitted to us in much the same way it was
transmitted to our teachers and parents. It is “what everyone knows” or “the way things have
always been.”

2. Authority
This is a term we have used before and one that often makes argumentation scholars
uncomfortable. In some respects, tradition is a kind of authority in that it validates (or
invalidates) certain kinds of knowledge based on the “authority” of the past.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 164

What makes authority distinctive, for our purposes here, is that authority can be dynamic.
Tradition is always static. Tradition does not change; it is incapable of accounting for or
explaining anything new.

In the 14th century, the European continent was struck by a series of natural and political
calamities that fundamentally changed the way people understood the world. One of those
changes was a climactic shift, what many climatologists and scientists have called a “mini ice
age.”

Imagine the changes this would demand of a society and culture. Practices that had been
unchanged for generations suddenly need to be changed—when to plant, what will grow where,
how to move from place to place. Those Europeans could not, on the basis of tradition,
understand or explain why this was happening.

Authority, in this case religion, could. It explained things in terms of its monopoly on
understanding and the framework it had established as the only valid principle for
understanding the natural world: God did it and if he did it, he had a reason. If it’s bad, then it is
because you are bad and deserved it.

With respect to evidence, authority refers to a right to make certain claims. Epistemologically,
authority assumes a kind of special access to knowledge not available to others.

3. Naïve science
The human mind is a powerful tool and, like most vertebrates, we are especially good at
recognizing and manipulating patterns. The ability to discover patterns and even manipulate
them is a sign of intelligence. It’s how we know dogs are better problem solvers than fish.

Naïve in this context doesn’t mean “stupid” or “uninformed.” Naïve means doing what scientists
do but without the training or discipline. Naïve science is an attempt, through observation and
experiment, trial and error, to control or determine outcomes. It is how farmers learned to plant
crops instead of gathering whatever happened to grow. It is how people learned to manipulate
yeast to raise bread instead of just eating raw grain.

What makes naïve science distinct from science is the lack of a formal method.
Science
So what makes science epistemologically different? Before answering that question, it is important to
acknowledge that science is not the only form of knowledge. Nor should we say that scientific
knowledge is better than other forms of knowledge. Science is intended to answer a very limited set of
questions using a limited set of tools.
Let’s begin with our definition: Science is the persistent application of reason to the natural world.
1. Natural world

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 165

Science is a materialistic epistemology (sometimes we use the word positivistic). It studies the
empirical world, the world that is observable and measureable.

This limits the kinds of questions science can ask and the kinds of answers it can produce.
Science’s claim to produce certain knowledge is based on its confinement to specific domains of
knowledge. Empirical observations, those which are objective and measureable, will (or should
be) the same for everyone. If I add .5 ml more of Chemical X to the formula, I will get the same
result as you get if you add the same amount to the same formula. Your “.5 ml of Chemical X”
and my “.5 ml of Chemical X” are the same.

This means that science cannot make claims about the non-empirical world. If you can’t see it,
smell it, hear or taste it or touch it then science has very little to say about it. This means things
like emotions may not be on the agenda, but neuro-chemical reactions in the brain are. We
can’t measure happy but we can talk about serotonin.

Clarification
Hard Science vs Soft Science

It would be surprising if you had not before encountered the distinction between the hard sciences
and the soft science.

Hard sciences include things like chemistry and physics. They are concerned almost exclusively with
material, positive phenomena.

Soft sciences, also sometimes called social sciences, study phenomenon of the psycho-social world,
the world as it exists in social interactions and individual behavior. A hard scientist might look at
comets or plants; a soft science might study schools and the politics of food distribution.

The knowledge of hard sciences differs from soft science in some important ways. Hard science is
trans-historical. When a scientist says “water freezes at 32F” they don’t mean now and here but
always and everywhere. The speed of light is a constant, the same throughout the universe. Social
science, however, is always historical, bound by space and time. Values, practices, modes of
production and social re-production are always contextual as are the distinctions social scientists
make.

Race, for example, is a term that varied widely over time and still varies from place to place. I recall
sitting on a panel once with a professor from Africa. We had been discussing the significance of the
election of Barack Obama. My colleague chucked at one point and said, “You all keep talking about
the ‘first black President…but look at him. He’s a white guy!” While race plays an important role in
social studies, what “race” means has changed dramatically over time and how we make what seem
at first to be obvious distinctions vary widely from place to place.

Social scientific categories are not natural or empirical but constructed by humans. Because “science”
and “scientists” are one of those categories, scientific knowledge of social-political-economic
behavior and institutions will be subjective. We, as humans, are both the observer and the observed.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 166

So is a social science really a science?

Let’s try answering that question in few different ways. Maybe more than one of these is true; maybe
none of them. Consider each argument carefully.

1. No. Social sciences are really humanities or philosophies. What makes them non-scientific is
that they are unable to falsify their claims. Social scientists can develop empirical evidence in
support of their theories but, because the categories are fluid and subjective, they can never
disprove their claims.

The word “science” was appropriated by social and political philosophers in order to
capitalize on the prestige of science.

2. No. Social sciences are really just political ideology disguised as science. So called social
sciences perform the same cultural function as myths in earlier ages. They provide an
explanation for why things are the way they are, especially those aspects of social life which
we find disturbing.

Why does poverty exist? For Protestants like the Pilgrims, wealth was a sign of divine blessing
and poverty was a punishment. Modern sociology blames poverty, and credits wealth, with
intergenerational capital while economics would call it the remainder of an imperfect
equation. Social science, like religion, tells us what is, what has to be, what should be, and
what can be. That’s ideology and that infusion of values is what makes it both political and
different from hard or real science.

3. Yes. First because neither claim (1) or (2) are unique to social science. The so-called hard
sciences also use categories, like degree and speed of light, which are subjective in their
selection if not their construction. Rate times the speed of acceleration isn’t a formula
without a mind to identify concepts like “rate” and “acceleration.”

The complete abandonment of supposedly objective theories more than adequately
demonstrates that sciences like biology and physics are bound up with religion and myth and
that even hard sciences are cultural phenomena.

Similarly, the so-called hard sciences have a long history of social-political-economic
embeddedness. The progress of science has largely been funded by and in turn helps fuel
capitalist economic expansion. It isn’t “empiricism” which limits the questions science can ask
and answer. It’s funding.

What the social sciences do is to extend the sphere of science. Science is method, not object
of study. The method applies equally well to social, political, economic, and psychological
structures as it does to cells and protons and climate.

4. No. Social scientists suffer from low self-esteem. Because they are self-conscious of their own
worth and value, they use the word science to raise their own prestige in the eyes of
outsiders.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 167

Calling the study of the social, political, and economic spheres of human activity a science
limits the kinds of questions we can ask and places an arbitrary line between “good” and
“not-good” kinds of knowledge. It devalues everything that can’t be cast as scientific.

5. Yes and no. Some social sciences are scientific and some are not. It depends on the
methodology.

Studies like demographics, the use of objective data such as surveys, statistical data and other
quantitative approaches to social science are scientific. But as my grad school methods
teacher used to say, “Ethnomethodology is the letters E, T, H in front of ‘no methodology.’”

Qualitative methods are relatable because they are completely subjective and thus violate the
fundamental principles of science.

2. Persistent application
If there is a bright line between science and non-science, let it be doubt. The way scientists use
words like “probability and certainty” and “theory and law” are often frustrating to non-
scientists and especially politicians.
Science is anti-authoritarian by definition. Persistent means that all of the claims produced
under the scientific method are open to testing and re-testing. As new discoveries are made, as
new tools for collecting or analyzing data are introduced, and as new questions get asked, what
was once established scientific fact is discarded or at least significantly modified.
What separates science from other forms of thinking is that it (at its best) refuses to treat
matters as settled and creates space for ideas to be debated and challenged and where new
ideas can be tested. Once called “societies” or “associations” these institutions have evolved to
become professional organizations where scientists of every strip present and review and
critique one another’s work.
This persistent application of doubt isn’t just an ideal; it is part of the method itself. Conclusions
that cannot be tested are not scientific. If they cannot be tested because such testing isn’t
permitted, then they are based on authority, not scientific reasoning.

Clarification
Science vs Technology

The distinction between science and technology is an important, though sometimes slippery one.

Generally speaking, science is an abstract knowledge. It is expressed in theoretical form. It makes and
tests hypotheses. Technology is material. It is not necessarily the end of science but an end. The study
of the world, even naïve science, produces a better or more refined understanding of it. The
application of that understanding to the world to alter outcomes is technology.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 168

Technology, however, also extends and refines science. Galileo first argued publicly that the Earth was
not the center of the solar system. It was the sun. As part of his argument, Galileo pointed to four
“stars” which circled the planet Jupiter. His argument that the sun was the center was recanted to
avoid being burned at the stake but his discovery was there for all to see.

Because he invented the telescope ☺

Technology doesn’t just meet our day to day needs or the needs of industry and production. It also
refines the practice of science itself. Ways of collecting and replicating and processing data drive
science and often move it in unanticipated directions (see Jurassic Park).

We should keep in mind that technology has material applications; it not necessarily material. Think
about crime scene investigation. The discovery of fingerprints, that they were unique, that they were
findable and collectable, was the product of technology like microscopes and sciences like biology.
But in order for them to work, they also had to be accompanied by changes in policing. Crime scenes
needed to be taped off, police officers couldn’t move or even touch anything, and the tiniest details
were collected.

In the 1940s, as part of the reconstruction of Japan following World War Two, the United States
organized Japanese production around a concept that would later be called Total Quality
Management or TQM. TQM is a process. It maximized quality and minimizes cost and time by
integrating every stage of production, from development to consumer. It included things like
empowered teams and introduced words like synergy to the US business lexicon.

Total Quality Management is a technology. It is a process, a way of organizing and directing human
activity that, its advocates say, improves quality and lowers costs. Like other tools, it is something
people, like business managers, use to accomplish ends more efficiently.

3. Of reason
The persistent application of reason includes the search for new evidence and the continual honing and
refining of logic. That reasoning takes a very specific form known as the scientific method.
What makes science different from non-science is that that it is rigorous or disciplined. Science is not
valid and non-science invalid or nonsense. Science is the persistent application of reason, in the form of
particular method or approach, called the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method
In the 4th century BC, the major city states of Greece found themselves embroiled in a war and one of its
greatest thinkers, named Herodotus set out to write a history of the conflict and a scientific survey of
the region.
As part of his survey of the world, he visited Egypt which at the time was still an ancient civilization with
wonders of the world like the Great Pyramids at Giza. Egypt also had the greatest river system in the
world—the Nile. The Nile fascinated Herodotus because if flowed the wrong way. An extensive traveler
and well educated, Herodotus was aware that the Nile was Egypt’s key to economic and political power

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 169

but unlike every major river system he’d encountered—including the Danube and the Tigris and
Euphrates—flowed from north to south. The Nile flowed north which, based one everything the most
educated people in the world knew, was impossible.
Herodotus knew that great river needed a source and all of the major rivers flowed from ice packs far to
the north. Because, as one goes north, it gets colder and colder, and it was assumed that eventually one
would come to a land of perpetual ice. As one went south, however, it got hotter, not colder. To the
south was the land of fire, not ice.
So what was the source of the Nile?
Herodotus proposed a number of possible answers to his question, none of which make a lot of sense to
us today. His best explanation was that the river flowed in a wide arc, starting in the north and then
turning so as to appear to have a southern origin.
Herodotus wasn’t a particularly good scientist. He was trying to explain the workings of the world in
positive terms, not immaterial or spiritual forces. His “river flows in a big curve” theory wasn’t correct
but it was much more scientific than “sprits and deities did it.” It also highlights the essential steps in the
scientific method: prior knowledge, problem, hypothesis, testing, and repetition.
Prior knowledge. Science builds on what has come before, even while recognizing that what we
know now is incomplete and undoubtedly includes some theories that are simply wrong.
Herodotus was well educated and well-traveled. He knew a lot about rivers, their strategic and
economic importance. So when he encountered the Nile, he was able to recognize problems and
had a foundation on which to start formulating hypotheses.
Problem. Don’t think of a problem as an exigence or crisis. A problem is more like a question. It
is something we see in the world but don’t understand. Without prior knowledge of rivers, the
fact that the Nile flowed north wouldn’t have stood out.

A problem is something we don’t understand but want to and our lack of understanding
proceeds from some, even if imperfect, understanding.

Hypothesis. Like the problem, we need some prior knowledge in order to formulate a
hypothesis. A hypothesis is like an educated guess. It is an answer to the question posed by the
problem.

A scientific hypothesis must provide a reasonable answer to the problem. It is a guess but not a
random, out of the blue guess. It is based on our prior understanding of the phenomena and
learning as much as we can about the problem.

Testing. While Herodotus wasn’t actually able to test his theory, he could have. Given a good
boat and enough time, he could have sailed down the Nile and followed it to its source. He could
have seen whether or not he was right.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 170

A scientific hypothesis is one that must be empirically testable. It assumes that the world works
according to orderly laws that we can, by observation and experiment see and understand.

A hypothesis that isn’t testable isn’t necessarily wrong; but it isn’t scientific.

Repetition. One of the keys to scientific testing is that the test must be repeatable and
especially repeatable by someone else. This step, more than anything else, guarantees
objectivity. If one person tests a hypothesis and comes to one conclusion and someone else
comes to another, there is something wrong with the test.

One of the reasons scientists publish or disseminate their results is to contribute to the pool of
knowledge, the prior knowledge which others may use to even more scientific research. It also
means that others can test our hypothesis. Science, in its commitment to perpetual doubt and
testing, encourages others to try and come to the same—or even different—conclusions.

Forms of Testing
Every scientific field tests its hypotheses differently because it looks at different phenomenon with
different properties. Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, had a hypothesis that certain types
of mold would kill bacteria in the human body but not kill the human who took the fungus. Einstein’s
theory of relativity could be tested but not in the same way.
There are two broad approaches to testing: verification and falsification.
Verification. One of the ways we test a hypothesis is we make a prediction. If the prediction is
confirmed, that would verify the hypothesis.
Suppose you want to do better in class. You’ve been in school for a while; you’ve seen some
things (prior knowledge). You want to know how to do better on the next test (problem). You
hypothesize that studying will get you better grades.
Test your hypothesis. Study, then take the test.
If you do better on the test, this will verify the hypothesis. It will give us evidence which
supports our conclusion.
It doesn’t really prove the hypothesis though. It could have been an easy test. Maybe everyone
did better on it, even those who didn’t study. Our test gives us evidence that verifies the
hypothesis but it doesn’t prove it. Not yet. Likewise, if you studied hard and still did poorly, that
doesn’t disprove your hypothesis. The test could have been especially hard. You might have
been ill or tired that day.
Falsification. Another way we test hypotheses is to falsify them. If we falsify a claim, that is a
higher support than just verifying. Some strict philosophers of science, such as Karl Popper, have
said that hypotheses which cannot be falsified are not scientific at all.
Suppose I have test tube filled with a colorless, odorless gas. The gas was trapped following the
combination of zinc and hydrochloric acid. I hypothesize that the gas is hydrogen. If I hold a

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 171

flame to the gas and it “pops” then I am right. If it does anything else, like flares or snuffs out,
then my hypothesis is wrong. It has been falsified.
Verification and falsification are two separate standards. Generally, falsification is a narrower and much
higher standard. Philosophers of science like Karl Popper often associate falsification with the “hard”
sciences like physics and chemistry while verification is the highest standard possible in the “soft”
sciences like sociology and psychology.
Theories: Scientific and Otherwise

Popper said that theories are the nets we use to catch the world.
We use the word theory a lot and people use the word in all kinds of contexts. Sometimes people use
the word theory like they use the word hypothesis. If you’re watching a murder mystery and you think
you know who did it, you have a theory of the crime.
As a communication studies student, you often walk in two worlds. In some of your classes, you’re
performing and speaking. In others, you’re analyzing, trying to understand. Like a scientist. You will,
throughout your education and indeed in much of your life, be presented with theories. In order to talk
about theories, and in order to talk about whether or not a theory is a good one, we need to know
something about what a theory is and how it works.
Premise One: Theories are abstract
If the world we live in, with things we touch and smell and do, is concrete, then theories are abstract.
They are not the world but a picture of the world. Evidence and problems are concrete. They reflect
conditions it the world around us. They are particular whereas the ability to think in abstractions (see
Chapter 2) allow us to think in terms of universals, or generalizable ideas. Theories are abstractions and
most scientific theories are generalizable to a greater or lesser degree. They apply to not just the
present case or the present concern but to a wide range of similar, if incidentally different, cases.
Germ theory, or the idea that living organisms spread certain illnesses, and that these germs lived and
moved according to the same laws of motion as other things. They were moved by air, transferred by
touch, moved through water but they didn’t just appear or grow out of nowhere. This let us develop
things like pasteurization (named for one of the early germ theorists). The theory of germs wasn’t an
explanation of why the milk in your fridge is bad. It is a theory of how milk gets bad and how to keep it
from making you sick. From the particular milk to the universal milk. Germ theory has an even broader
scope. We can talk not just about milk but other foods and from there to non-foodborne illnesses.
Premise Two: Theories are partial
There can be no one big theory of everything. Theories are like nets. The purpose of a net is to catch
only the right size fish. Fish too small should pass through. Fish too big should get turned away. Fish the
right size get stuck.
So every net, in order to catch, must also ignore.
In order for us to focus on one thing, we need to not be focusing on other things. So communication
theory is always partial because it is only looking at communication. It is also only looking at one part of

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 172

communication at any given time. We are looking only at arguments and, in order to understand them
better, zooming in on theories. Every time we zoom in, we look at a smaller piece of the world.
The same is true if we look at the big picture. Even the widest panorama has to be taken from
somewhere that isn’t in the picture. It also means that we have to zoom out, losing fine points of detail.
We can’t look at the tree and the mountain it sits on and the mountain range at the same time.
Incomplete and partial are not the same thing. To say a theory is partial is just to acknowledge the fact
that no theory covers everything. Einstein’s theory of relativity says nothing about good art.
Argumentation doesn’t have much to contribute to a conversation about feelings or identity. Theories
don’t cover everything. To say a theory is incomplete, however, is to say that it isn’t covering something
it needs to cover. It is missing some key or essential element without which the theory has isn’t sound.
Reasonable people sometimes disagree over where the line between “partial” and “incomplete” should
be drawn.
Premise Three: Theories are Made of Arguments, Not Facts
Theories cannot be true or false; it would violate the fallacy of many questions. Theories are constructed
of many different statements, all of which have their own truth-value.
Theories are explanations or pictures of the world. They are conclusions we have drawn about the
phenomenon in question. Even the ‘hardest’ scientific theory is not empirical; it is supported by
empirical evidence.
Logic is applied to evidence, such as artifacts, in order to draw conclusions about the world. Every
theory, from naïve theories produced by cultures without formal education to the most sophisticated
and complex theories of matter based on supercolliders—these are different settings—are based on
arguments. Theories make arguments about the world, what’s in it, how it works, etc.
In the same way that arguments only produce probable, not certain, conclusions, theories too are
always probable. What makes theories different from arguments is that theories use arguments to
establish a number of claims, co-ordinate and subordinate, which together make a picture of the world,
or the phenomenon in question.
Premise Four: Theories are Tools
Human activity is productive. We do things for reasons. We seek outcomes or ends. We have needs and
we use the resources we have to meet those needs. The more efficiently we meet need1, the more
quickly we can get to need2.
Several different types of animals make tools. Chimpanzees will use a stick stripped of bark and leaves to
catch termites. Not the Hubble telescope, but still a tool.
What makes human tool use unique is the orders of tool use. We make tools that make tools…that make
tools that meet needs. Theories are the most abstract level of tool. They are designed to perform three
increasingly more precise tasks:

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 173

1. Theories let us explain. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz says we all ask the same question,
whether we’re scientists or ordinary people: What’s going on here? Theories give us answers to
the question.

2. Theories let us predict. Once we can explain something, the test of our explanation is to make
predictions. If we know why outcome1 happened and not outcome2, then we should be able to
predict whether outcome1 will happen again.

3. Theories let us control. Guessing right sure can be fun. But being able to predict outcomes isn’t
a major preoccupation of human beings because feeling clever sure is nice. We make
predictions so we can control outcomes. If outcome1 is desirable (has a positive valence) then
we want it to happen again. If it has a negative valence, we want to know how to get o utcome2.

We should be careful not to convolute “controlling outcomes” with “dictating outcomes.” We
don’t necessarily want or expect to control the thing we’re studying. We don’t study the
weather so we can control it. A weather machine is not the only possible kind of control. We
want to be able to predict a storm in order to save lives, to influence the impact of that storm
on human safety.
Describing Theories
Start by summarizing the theory. Just get a sense of it. All theories start with a thing, something that can
be theorized or talked about. We call that thing a phenomenon. Your first question, then, should about
the phenomenon, or if more than one, phenomena, the theory is interested in.
• What does it study?
• What questions does it ask?
• How does it answer them?
You should now if this is a scientific theory and be able to narrow down the field or fields of inquiry to
which the phenomena belong. It could be more than one. If you’re studying bugs, you might want to talk
to a biologist. But an exterminator also might have something to say.
To describe the theory, we need to start by taking what we know about theories and applying it to the
theory in question. We need to know the field independent aspects of theories:
Taxonomy and Concepts. A taxonomy is a list of words and terms. They may be simple or
complex but, unlike everyday words, they are going to be much more narrowly and precisely
defined. Unlike everyday words, which can have many different meanings and usages, a
taxonomy will eliminate that range. The strongest taxonomies reduce ambiguity and promote
clarity.
Concepts go further than just words. In a science textbook or journal article, concepts would be
highlighted or underlined. They’d stand out. They’re key words.
More importantly, they are the building blocks of theory. All theories are made of concepts the
way molecules are made of atoms. Describing a theory begins with identifying the important
concepts.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 174

Concept Clusters and Relationships. As you begin listing the concepts, you should notice that
some of them seem to appear together. Some of them never appear together. Which concepts
show up with and are around other concepts. These are your concept clusters.
Do not assume that because things show up together, they are related to one another. Clusters
are where we start looking for relationships. They are the smoke. Relationships are the fire.
Relationships don’t just show me two things are connected in some way. They explain how they
are related. Smoke isn’t just associated with fire. Fire is the cause of smoke. It is a necessary, but
not sufficient cause. We are explain the nature of the connection between the concepts.
Scope and Level. The scope of a theory is its range and limitations. What can the theory look at
and what can it not look at. A theory of relativity can tell you why a star might seem to jump
away from the sun during an eclipse but it can’t tell you how the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with
Diamonds” exercised historically proven modes of evading censorship to thumb their noses at
conservative US and British society. What does it cover? What does it not cover?
The level of a theory is the degree of abstraction it takes. We can speak of theories as existing on
four levels:
Micro level theories have a very limited generalizability. A communication theory might look at
break-up behavior for example. That would be further limited by its scope—break up behavior
among Midwestern college age students.
Meso level theories are “in-between.” They might look at human communication.
Macro level theories are the broadest level of theories. Macro theories would look at human
behavior, of which communication is only part.
Meta theories are not broader than broadest. They are outside. To “go meta” is to step outside.
So a meta theory would be a theory of theories. You’re reading a meta theory, a look at theories
generally not specifically, right now. A meta theory might differentiate between scientific and
non-scientific theories for example. We could apply that distinction to micro, meso, and macro
level theories.
Evaluating Theories
Science and scientific research present us with two distinct challenges. Obviously, as people who are
concerned with good public policy, we want our policies to be data driven. We want to know what the
problems actually are and we want to know if our solutions are working.
Take a program like “Scared Straight.” This is a strategy of persuading kids to change their lives, to turn
away from violence and drugs and criminal behavior. It does this by showing them the consequences of
their actions. Young men and women are taken to prisons, for example, where hardened criminals shout
at them and they are frightened by the possibility that they too may do “hard time” and change their
ways.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 175

It seems like it should work. We as humans are hardwired to avoid harm. Fear is a powerful motivator.
Everything about Scared Straight says it will work…except…The hardwiring which programs us to avoid
things that are scary also floods us with relief when the fear passes. So kids are terrified in the
prison…but afterword feel good about themselves. Some even feel tougher and stronger. “I can do this.”
Adolescent males are culturally adverse to showing signs of weakness in their peer groups. To go
through a Scared Straight and then go do something really bad shows how tough and unaffected you
are. This may be why fear appeals with respect to other things teenagers like, such as alcohol, tobacco,
unsafe sex, etc. are all so ineffective.
This is idle speculation. What does the data say? Do the people who go through these programs commit
fewer crimes? That is the only thing that matters. What does the data say?
Science and scientists challenge us because if their claims were intuitive and obvious, we wouldn’t need
scientific methods of analysis. Science is the most important when it conflicts with what our senses,
especially common sense, tell us.
The second problem is that that scientific knowledge, as expertise, is important but often inaccessible to
non-specialists. Experts, including scientists, have knowledge that other non-experts, don’t have. It isn’t
that non-experts can’t understand the knowledge; it just takes work. But it often takes a lot of work.
Even the words experts use (taxonomy) are a problem for us. Experts use unfamiliar terms and even
familiar terms in ways that non-experts may think they know. A young researcher in scientific literacy
once described learning a scientific field to learning an entirely new language. Even if we are able to see
their arguments, to read them, that doesn’t mean we’ll understand what they’re talking about. The
more narrow and specialized the area of expertise, the more isolated it is from those who may benefit
from the data.
As we move through our primary education, we learn the basics of science. While this is often cast as
“scientific education” (STEM) to produce future scientists, that is really not what it is we’re doing. Eight
grade Chem may inspire you but it isn’t making scientists. It is making scientifically literate citizens.
Evaluating Ethos
For the non-scientist or non-expert, evaluating scientific data and analysis is about trust in the experts. If
you go to a doctor, you may not trust their diagnosis but that doesn’t mean you do it yourself.
1. What is the scientific field (or fields) in question? Remember there may be more than one
relevant field. Fields of expertise often overlap.
2. How are experts in that field vetted? For every field there are criteria or standards used to
qualify or rank those experts: degrees and certifications, experience in the field, record of
publications, or other relevant markers of expertise.
3. Do other experts agree? Sometimes we want to go with the scientists who buck tradition and
introduce something new. Most of the time, however, there is a democracy of experts that it
only makes sense to respect. If you see five doctors, and four give you the same diagnosis and
one gives you an alternative…what good reason do you have to believe the one over the four?
Scientific Attitude versus Scientific Pose

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 176

We may not be able to engage with scientific arguments outside our own scope of knowledge and
expertise but we can often differentiate between a scientific attitude and a scientific pose, sometimes
also called “pseudo-science” although this term is sometimes uncritically applied to soft sciences.
The scientific attitude reflects the essential values of science, things like the perpetual application of
reason, doubt and the importance of empirical testing. The study of literature, for example, isn’t
scientific but it can be engaged in rigorously and quantitatively. Literary critics can formulate definitions,
discover problems in the literature, make hypotheses and test them even while recognizing that they
are not strictly scientists.
More importantly, we want to look at secondary-sources of expertise. While scientists may reflect the
scientific attitude in their own writing, those who cite from and quote them, who use scientific data and
conclusions in their arguments. Do they represent a scientific attitude or just a pose?
Since the Enlightenment, “science” is a powerful idea, not just a tool. Especially for non-scientists, the
prestige of science can be a powerful persuader. The scientific pose, sometimes called scientistic, is an
effort to ape or emulate science while not being scientific. While science is about expertise, the
scientific pose treats science as an authority. It is often preceded by things like “science says” and treats
science as an authority. Science is intentionally impenetrable. We are not supposed to understand it just
accept it. To say that information is “scientific” is to say its truth-value should be accepted because the
scientist is the authority.
Even scientists can be victims of this pose. A scientist may start with a scientific attitude, engage in
meaningful scientific inquiry, but then for some reason come to the conclusion that they are not just an
expert on the matter, but an authority who speaks ex cathedra on the subject.
While reasonable people may disagree over whether or not something is scientific, the scientific
attitude, or indicative of a scientific pose, there are some strong indicators of the scientistic rhetoric:
Certainty of conclusions. Because true science perpetually doubts its own conclusion, inviting
criticism and alternative theories, we should be suspicious whenever someone claiming to be
speaking scientifically speaks in ways that close off that doubt.
It may be frustrating for non-scientists to hear things always framed in terms of “theories” not
rules or laws or facts and to talk about even obvious things like gravity as existing only as
probability instead of a certainty.
Dialectical and positive terms. Science is committed to empirical examination of the world. That
commitment may be reflected in their language. Positive terms are correlated with objects of
experience and observations.
Conversely, dialectical terms are words that related to other words, not to the world of objects.
Dialectical terms are value laden. They remove us from the world of empirical observation and
practice.
No argument can function with only positive terms, or only dialectical terms. Arguments which
look like science but which lean heavily on dialectical terms are more indicative of a scientific
pose than a scientific attitude.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 177

Occam’s Razor
William of Occam, a monk from the 14th century, is credited with the maxim, “the simplest explanation
is most likely true.”
This is not as simple a statement as it first appears. In movies and TV, Occam’s razor is invoked by
‘genius’ or otherwise intensely logical characters…who rarely apply it correctly. Simplicity is confused or
conflated with the obvious or self-evident. In science and argument, Occam’s simplicity is sometimes
also called parsimony.
Parsimony refers to the number of unsupported assumptions or logical leaps taken in order to arrive at
the claim. So imagine we find stone in a field with writing on it. The writing seems to indicate that a
people, such as Vikings, made it much further west than historians originally thought.§
Is the stone real?
Many different scientists from a number of different fields, will weigh in on this and they’ll all have
different kinds of expertise. In absence of their conclusions, we can guess that it probably isn’t. Why
not?
It isn’t because “fake” is so much more obvious or simplistic. It is because to conclude the stone is real
requires me to accept as true that Vikings were here much earlier than other Europeans, a historical fact
(past fact) for which there is no other evidence. No other artifact gives testimony to that fact. No other
expert has come to that conclusion.
If authentic, the stone is evidence. It cannot be used to authenticate the fact that must be assumed in
order to accept it as authentic (note this is also a tautological argument).
The alternative explanation is that someone, for reasons unknown, faked the stone. While I have no
proof that Viking were ever as far west as Minnesota, I do have lots of historical evidence of people
faking historical artifacts. So the claim “some archeological artifacts are fake artifacts” has enough
support that it is a reasonable assumption that they exist in the world.
Thus what makes the claim “It’s a fake” more probable than “It’s a genuine artifact” is that the premise
of the more probable claim depends upon a well-supported assumption, that charlatans and fakers
exist, while the other assumption, that Vikings made is several thousand miles further west than
previously thought, is unsupported. It requires us to make a logical leap.
All arguers, and probably all scientists, will make logical leaps and may often require us to make
assumptions which are themselves unsupported (or even unsupportable). We want to be careful not to
disqualify a conclusion because it makes a leap. Occam’s razor is a tool that allows us to separate claims
based on a reasonable and objective criterion. It is only useful when all other factors are essentially
equal. It is a basis for comparison between explanations or interpretations of facts. Thus, it can never be
our primary or principle tool of differentiation or analysis.

§ This example is not entirely fictive. In 1898, a Swedish immigrant named Olaf Ohman “discovered” a stone with
alleged Viking ruins near Kensington, Minnesota. The stone is authoritatively regarded as a fake but still has
occasional advocates.

CHAPTER 10 SCIENCE & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 178

Sagan’s Maxim
The scientist Carl Sagan hosted a popular scientific television program on Public Broadcasting in the
1980s called Cosmos. He was most famous for his reflecting on “billions and billions of stars” during that
program.
The maxim I have attributed to him is a quotation of his but represents a scientific principle that has
been around since the Enlightenment: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Let us take a popular debate as an example: Bigfoot.
The existence of Bigfoot is highly unlikely. We have no material evidence (artifacts) which support the
existence of a large, upright walking primate in North America. Nor do we have any evidence of any
other upright walking human-like animals on Earth since the demise of the Neanderthals, tens of
thousands of years ago. Thus it would be more reasonable to believe that there were undiscovered
Neanderthals than to believe that wholly unique species of human ancestor, or co-species, exists.
The shear improbability of such a creature casts immediate doubt upon the testimony of anyone who
bears witness to its existence. If I told you I saw a bear in the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area, you
would probably believe me. Why wouldn’t you? Lots of people see bears there; they’re quite common.
Everyone as seen a bear if not in the wild than in a zoo or on television.
If I say I saw Bigfoot in the Boundary Waters, however, that claim would be extra-ordinary, i.e. outside
or beyond the ordinary. It is not a normal claim because it is outside the domain of general or common
experience. One could say the same thing about an alien encounter. It is not a claim for which the
standard rules of witness testimony or scientific expertise apply.
Another way of saying this might be that there is no independent narrative to which such a story could
have fidelity.
You would have to have extra-ordinary confidence in the ethos of the witness in order to accept such a
story. You could not have any doubts as to their level of knowledge or their character. No doubts as to
their psychological state of mind or their motives. This is an extra-ordinary level of trust you can’t really
expect others to apply and which you probably wouldn’t apply to others.
Extra-ordinary claims defy or violate what is generally accepted, or which is wholly inconsistent with the
world as we know it, require more than the usual standard of evidence. The more extra-ordinary the
claim, the more extra-ordinary the evidence or level of proof required, in proportion.

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 179

Chapter 11: Visual Arguments and Images

All arguments, by definition, are verbal acts wherein a claim is supported by reasons (evidence and logic)
within a setting.
Images, or pictures, are thus not and cannot be arguments in and of themselves. Images appear in
arguments in three important ways: clarifiers, evidence, and as arguments.
Clarifiers. A picture, graphic, chart or other image can clarify visually a concept, idea, or
relationship that is otherwise difficult to explain. Like other clarifiers (see also Examples), they
exist outside and in addition to the argument, supporting not making arguments.
Evidence. During the Civil Rights Movement, images distributed in the press and on television
countered the myth of equality in the United States and in particular revealed the extent of the
violence against African Americans and other activists. Images of racism and violence, like the
disturbing pictures of young Emmit Till, were powerful evidence in arguments about race and
racism in the United States.
Arguments. Pictures or other images can also act as arguments in-and-of themselves but, in
order to be complete arguments, they must be read as arguments. An audience or an
interlocutor must see them and interpret them as claims, supported by reasons, in a setting.
It is still a verbal act but it is the audience who takes the direct action of making the text into an
argument by reading it as one. Visual arguments are thus similar to arguments having a poetic
form.

Translating Images into Claims + Reasons

Images are an important and ubiquitous part of our public discourse. They show up as clarifiers, we use
them as evidence, and even complete arguments. They are moving pictures in documentary films and
Youtube videos, color photos in the newspaper or on a website.
Images are persuasive and powerful. In the days before the Enlightenment, when educational
opportunities were limited and most people couldn’t read, images were the primary means of pubic
persuasion and influence.
Visual Literacy
Literacy means the ability to read and, typically, when we talk about literacy we mean the ability to
translate written language into the spoken word, into a language that makes sense to us. Visual literacy
is the ability to see images and know what it is we’re looking at. This often requires not just knowledge
on the part of readers but also understanding on the part of authors (arguers, artists) who commit to a
stock of images that audiences will know and understand.

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 180

During the Protestant Reformation in Europe, religious groups competed for the attention and
allegiance of the people, most of whom couldn’t read. In order to get the argument, they needed to
know what they were looking at. Today we see some of those old images, called woodcuts, and have no
idea what we’re looking at. The audience of the day, however, would have known what each figure or
image meant and could read and comprehend the argument.
In this image (right) the Pope is recognizable by his distinctive,
ornate crown and that he is signing official Church documents
called “indulgences” recognized by the ornaments on the
paper. He is surrounded by the various religious orders –
special hats and shaved heads—while poor people pay for the
Pope’s indulgences.

It is an argument, a claim that the Pope is not a sacred
representative of Jesus on earth but a corrupt politician who
takes money from the poor.

The argument combines familiar images and icons in ways that
make clear what the arguer is trying to say, at least in front of
that particular audience.

Developing visual literacy is like learning any other kind of

Figure 1: Anti-Catholic woodcut
abstract knowledge, such as cultural literacy or even a new language. We can consciously study it, read
it and experience it until it is part of our knowledge of the world. It becomes part of that “stuff” we “just
know.”
Problems of visual literacy, like other weaknesses of background knowledge or understanding, can be
overcome by research, hard work, and engaging with the images.
Types of Images
In order to start thinking about how images function with in or as arguments, it is important to start
with a taxonomy of images and to begin making distinctions.
Aesthetic vs Photographic. The word aesthetic refers to philosophies of order and art. What
makes “art” different from “not-art” is a debate for art critics, not argument theory. The
distinction we are making here is between those images intended to communicate artistically
versus those intended to convey an “unfiltered” or “uncoded” picture of the world. The
philosopher of meaning Roland Barthes, whose work influences much of this chapter, used the
terms artistic image and news image.
An aesthetic image attempts to convey more than just the picture itself. The image and how it’s
rendered are coded by the artist. The most obvious forms of aesthetic image would include
things like drawings, cartoons, and paintings but we should not dismiss artistic photography.
A news photograph presents itself as uncoded, as a capture of reality without the voice or
influence of the photographer. While this was often attempted in drawings for scientific
purposes as well as newspapers and magazines, the technological achievement of photography
has given us (purportedly) and unfiltered look at reality, the world as it is.

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 181

Graphics vs Pictures. We tend to use the word image and picture synonymously but there are
all kinds of images we use in arguments that aren’t supposed to be representations of object of
experience (like plates of fruit) or imagination (like dragons). Graphs, charts, maps, and other
images are used throughout arguments. They make use of a different stock of symbols to clarify
verbal statements and express relationships visually.
Moving vs Still. One of the first and most obvious distinctions is between still pictures and
moving pictures. Moving pictures are more than just a series of stills. Movies or video allow us
to see the same moment from different perspectives simultaneously. A conversation in real life
or even on stage, limits you to a single vantage point. In a movie, we move fluidly between
points of view and perspective. We see the face of each person, as they talk from the vantage
point of the listener and the speaker.
Moving images let us layer images even more densely than still images.
Because the complexity of moving images goes up exponentially over still images, they are
significantly richer in terms of their ability to code images and to appear uncoded. Our ability to
describe and evaluate moving images will often require us to combine descriptive tools.
Narrative descriptions, such the pentad, when combined with our taxonomy of visual discourse,
can be especially useful and open up even more avenues for analysis and criticism.
Anchoring Interpretation
In order for pictures and images to function as arguments, the arguer who produces the image must
anchor the meaning of the image. It must be read or decoded in a particular way or else the argument
will fail to achieve its task.
Like poetic arguments, images (even photographic images) are condensed or telescoped. In order for a
still image to function as an argument, for example, it must at minimum present a claim and give some
reason in support of that claim simultaneously. Audiences must be able to decipher (decode) the
argument. This has two important impacts on the form of the argument:
First, visual arguments (especially still images) tend to be simple rather than complex
arguments. Claims tend to be straightforward, often unambiguous statements of good and bad.
They lean heavily toward universal claims, rather than particular.
Second, powerful precisely because they are very simple. The complexity of images often brings
pathos or an emotional tone to the image, it impacts the direction and intensity of the
audience’s valence for a particular phenomenon. There is often considerable non-argumentative
clutter in images to which we need to be alert.
While images, especially pictures, are open to considerably wider range of valid interpretations, they are
not entirely amorphous. They may be ambiguous or equivocal but arguers will use a number of
identifiable techniques in anchoring the meaning (or directing the interpretation, guiding the decoding).
We can divide these techniques into two broad categories: layering messages and procedures of
connotation.
Layering Messages

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 182

Images are condensed in that they present multiple messages simultaneously. These messages can be
looked at individually, in isolation from one another, but also need to be looked at systematically or how
they work together to form a coherent whole.
Layer One: Literal Messages. Interpreting an image requires knowing, in the simplest terms possible,
what it is you’re looking at. Is this a person or a dog or a piece of fruit? Identify the elements of the
aesthetic or photographic work for what they are, without symbolic qualities.

Figure 2: George Washington Monument; Smithsonian Museum
Describing Fig. 2 (left) begins with identifying the basic,
literal images: a man, a chair, a sword, a robe.

Layer Two: Iconic Messages. Images are iconic when they
take on a cultural significance. They are recognizable in
their specificity.

So this is not a “man” but a specific man. Pull out your $1
bills. That is George Washington. He isn’t just wearing a
robe but a Roman toga. Handing a sword hilt first is a sign
of peace or transfer of power. Pointing up is indicative of
heaven, higher callings; the pose is reminiscent of
Socrates in the painting The School of Athens by Raphael.

Our ability to decode iconic messages is determined by
our level of cultural literacy. The more we know about the
stock of images a culture holds, how sets of symbols work
together in a particular setting, the richer and more
detailed our analysis.

The image of Augusto Sandino (Fig. 3) is instantly recognizable to anyone
who has traveled in Nicaragua. Sandino is as iconic to the Nicaraguans as
Washington is to people in the United States. The image under Sandino’s
boot is recognizable worldwide.

Layer Three: Linguistic Messages. Images often come with words
attached or incorporated. These linguistic messages (words) further
anchor the meaning of the image, constraining and directing our
interpretation.

These words appear in two places.

Internal linguistic messages are part of the picture itself; they appear
within the work. The statue of Washington above does not appear to
have any internal images. In Fig. 3 (right), the words “Sandino vive”
(Sandino lives) ensures viewers will interpret the image as not only anti-
US but pro-Sandinista, the political party named after the Nicaraguan
revolutionary and guerilla fighter.

Figure 3: Mural (Leon, Nicaragua)

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 183

Surrounds include those words which accompany the image but are not part of it. Surrounds include
both captions, which would include things like “Figure 3: Mural (Leon, Nicaragua)” and titles or
headlines, and other accompanying or attached texts.
In the Smithsonian Museum, the statue of Washington (Fig. 2) includes a short history of the statue,
when and where it was commissioned and erected. The sculptor is identified. This text is part of the
image, it sits outside but is attached to, shaping and influencing how the image is to be decoded.
Procedures of Connotation
Procedures of connotation are ways of influencing and shaping perceptions. Some of these procedures
are more closely associated with aesthetic images while others are more closely linked to photographic
images. Many of these procedures can be applied to both artistic and news photographs.
Frames. The social and literary critic Kenneth Burke (who also provided us with the pentad for narrative
description) also provided us with a vocabulary we can use to describe how images are framed by
aesthetic arguers:
1. The Heroic Frame
The heroic frame emphasizes the heroism and especially the sacrifice of the subject. It depicts
the world as a conflict between good and evil and encourages individual sacrifice in the struggle.

2. The Tragic Frame
Don’t confuse tragic with sad. Tragedy is more than an unhappy ending. Tragedy is the
consequences of a flaw, like pride or cowardice. Tragedy invites us to acknowledge
responsibility and accept the consequences as the path to redemption. Abraham Lincoln is often
depicted tragically; his suffering is the image of the nation suffering through a war we brought
on ourselves through the “sin” of slavery.

3. The Comic Frame
Don’t over emphasize the funny aspect of the comic. Like tragedy, comedy hinges on some flaw
or error in judgment and it also ends in acceptance, often forgiveness. Some aspect of the
situation is ignored in order to arrive at the happy-ending. Drunkenness is a familiar comic
trope. It’s only funny because we can ignore the real life consequences of alcoholism.

4. The Lyric Frame
The lyric frame is about beauty or the perfection of the subject matter. It emphasizes or even
tries to reveal the hidden or unseen beauty of the subject. Di Vinci’s Mona Lisa, a painting of an
otherwise unknown woman just because she’s beautiful, the beauty in her ordinariness, is one
example.

5. The Elegiac Frame
“Oh what a cruel and heartless world!”
The elegiac frame focuses on, or fetishizes, human suffering. It is meant to arouse feelings of
pity. Advertisements for animal rescue programs which show poor dogs starving and trembling
in the snow are images in an elegiac frame.

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 184

6. The Satirical Frame
Satire depends on contradiction. There is a tension between the surface message and the actual
meaning, like sarcasm. One aspect of the subject is exaggerated in order to make that subject an
object of ridicule. While satire may be funny, it is different from the comic frame in that satire
rejects the subject.

Many humorous news programs like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight are satire.

7. The Burlesque Frame
Burlesque is fake. Unlike satire, it does not appear to be on one side only to turn out to be on
the other. It looks down upon and ridicules the subject matter without appearing to support it.
It is a more total denigration. It focuses on the most ridiculous aspects of the subject matter.

The television series Workaholics is a good example of burlesque. There are no redeeming
characters; everyone is awful with their flaws—stupidity, gluttony, megalomania, and others—
always taking center stage. No one is redeemable. Everyone in the story sucks.

8. The Grotesque Frame
The traveling “freak shows” in carnivals of the past would have been grotesqueries. Like the
elegiac frame, the grotesque arouses our pity but more contempt. In the elegiac, we want to
identify with the subject, to experience their suffering and act in some way to end or ameliorate
it.

While the elegiac frame wants us to look away, the grotesque fascinates us and attracts us but
only temporarily. We watch but then walk away without identifying with the weird, unusual, or
outcast. Movies like the Saw series, which fetishized more and more complex and gruesome
instruments of death would be examples of a grotesque frame.

9. The Didactic Frame
Didactic is the opposite of the heroic. The heroic frame wants us to identify with the hero; the
didactic wants us to reject the villain. It is serious, not humorous often exaggerating or focusing
on those negative qualities. We are meant to reject the subject in the didactic frame.
Frames are sometimes hard to describe; they are impressions, moods, or the tone of the piece.
Reasonable critics may disagree and make competitive interpretations. This reflects the ineliminable
subjectivity of arguments magnified by the ambiguity inherent in images and other aesthetic works.
While these nine frames are best suited to the description of aesthetic images, we may find them useful
in describing photographic images depending on the context.
Myth of Naturalism. Roland Barthes, who studied all kinds of images and performances, talked about
the myth of photographic naturalness.
For Barthes, the line between the aesthetic/artistic and the photographic or “real” is illusory. The power
of photographs or news images is not in that they are unfiltered or uncoded depictions of reality but
that they appear to be uncoded even though we, as audience members, know it isn’t. Barthes identified

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 185

a series of techniques which allow arguers to code images without giving up the appearance of
naturalness or uncodedness.
1. Objects
The selection of subjects, what is included in the image and what is not included is a choice not
a reality. Photographers decide what to photograph, how to crop that photograph. Editors
decide which photograph to publish.

Absence is presence. What is in the frame is as important as what is not in the frame. We would
notice, for example, if a cityscape as homeless encampment in the foreground. We should also
notice if a cityscape has no pictures of homeless people at all.

2. Pose
Pose refers to how the objects are positioned within the frame; how a person is standing, where
an object is set, how objects are situated relative to one another, and the arrangement within
the image.

Pose can be combined with other connotation procedures, such as aestheticism, to direct
certain interpretations and produce arguments.

3. Trick effects
Roland Barthes wrote in the 1960s and 1970s. He would have been amazed at the capacity even
ordinary people have to alter images in ways that are often difficult to detect.

While photoshop may let you post a selfie riding on a flying tiger while brandishing a flaming
sword in one hand and a taco in the other, that isn’t really what we’re concerned with. What
concerns us is the addition, subtraction, or modification of details without leaving any
fingerprint. Giving Justin Bieber more distinct abs in an advertisement is one example.

4. Photogenia
Photogenia is the manipulation of light and shading to produce a desired affect or feeling. When
football and movie star O.J. Simpson was arrested and charged with two counts of murder, his
mugshots were leaked to the press and appeared on the cover of two different news magazines
(see Fig. 4).

When Newsweek released the same, but unaltered image, Time Magazine was widely
condemned for its racist depiction of Simpson. The manipulation of light and shadow made
Simpson look not only blacker but also more menacing.

5. Aestheticism
Life imitates art, especially in pictures.
Even ostensibly “natural” photographs can be taken, framed, or cropped in ways that invoke
artistic frames, such as the tragic or comic. Photographs also resonate or look like, echo, famous
images or icons.

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 186

The aesthetic qualities of the photograph influence our understanding and interpretation of the
image or photo.

Figure 4: OJ Simpson 1994

6. Syntax
Syntax, like surrounds (see above), reminds us that images don’t just appear out of nowhere.
Images appear in context. They are next to or with other images, words/text, and other factors
which direct our interpretation.

Imagine for example, a picture of a baseball bat. If that image appeared on the same page as a
picture of a baseball and another of a hotdog, that would code the image of the bat in a
particular way. If the same image were on a page with a gun and a knife, then we would decode
it very differently.

Conclusion
As scholars of argument, we recognize that images play a powerful role in discourse. They function on
multiple levels to influence our understanding of the world.
At the same time, images operate on a number of nonargumentative levels which complicate argument
analysis. They often rely on pathos, appeals to powerful emotions like fear and anger, in order to
influence audiences.
Part of the power of images as persuaders and influencers is in their ambiguity and openness to
interpretation. This also challenges students and scholars who analyze arguments. Especially without
surrounds or other anchors, analysis of images is often subjective and impressionistic: how it makes us
as audiences feel, what it makes us think about.
Analysis of images as arguments, as opposed to evidence in an argument or a clarifier to an argument,
begins with translating that image and its surrounds into a clear, structured claim and then articulating
how the image functions to produce reasons for that claim. What is the claim and how does the image

CHAPTER 11 VISUAL ARGUMENTS 187

provide reasons in support of that claim. While this chapter provides you with a number of terms and
concepts to describe images, combining these ideas with other theories of argument such as analogic
arguments (eg. how the image creates or exploits points of convergence and divergence) or narrative
theory (how the image tells a story) will often strengthen your analysis.

188

Appendix 1: Theory and Foundations

The attached manuscript was presented at the 2019 Alta Argumentation Conference and accepted for
publication in the conference proceedings, forthcoming.
This article outlines the theoretical and pedagogical foundations of the textbook.

Assessing Argumentation Literacy
James Patrick Dimock
Minnesota State University Mankato
Adam Key
University of Missouri Monticello
Andrea R. Jaques
Colorado State University
In the last 100 years, higher education has undergone sweeping changes, not the least of
which concern accreditation of educational institutions, a process that has become increasingly
technical and data-driven assessment. Assessment, as Wehlburg (2013) noted, has “become a
key focus in higher education” (p. 2). Responding to this reality, the National Communication
Association launched the Learning Outcomes in Communication (LOC) project, which
advanced a number of learning outcomes in communication in order to be “a resource for
Communication departments as they advocate to administrators for their place in institutions of
higher education and for the place of Communication in General Education” (National
Communication Association, 2015, p. 2).
However, few of the LOC outcomes were specific to argumentation or debate. Moreover,
while the word argument is used in learning outcomes across curricula and levels of education, it

189

is generally treated as though it is self-evident, that any educator regardless of training or
experience knows what an argument is and what good arguments do and do not do.
We believe that, while the study and teaching of argumentation is global, that it crosses
academic and disciplinary lines, the assessment of argumentation—what makes a good
argument, what makes a weak argument, and how we operationalize those distinctions—should
be localized within the field of argumentation, that we as argumentation scholars and debate
coaches, should lead that discussion. We propose the following as an initial tool that can be
readily applied, and which should be contested and challenged by other measures and approaches
to assessment.
Argumentation Literacy: A Foundation for Assessment
The term literacy is the operative term in our assessment, reflecting the idea that
arguments are textual, that they appear in symbolic works—essays, websites, YouTube videos,
and more—that must be read, interpreted and understood, and that differently situated readers
will read arguments differently. Literacy is layered. Cultural literacy, aesthetic literacy, visual
literacy, and other readings overlap and influence one another. Argument literacy is the ability to
read arguments as arguments, to understand them as distinctive verbal acts, always concomitant
with other literacies.
While there are many dimensions of argumentation literacy, not all of these are
assessable. Moreover, any widely useful assessment program much account for the centuries of
study and plurality of reasonable approaches to argumentation. Our goals in developing an
assessment program were:
• To recognize argument as distinctive communication activity. Even across a range
of approaches and traditions, there are things that all arguments do. A useful

190

program of assessment should be broad enough to encompass the widest possible
range of argument.
• To identify measurable outcomes that respond to the need for assessment
supported by data.
• To be usable by instructors and program administrators with minimal training.
In articulating these goals, we stress that our effort here is not presented as the solution or the
best possible way to go about assessing courses in argumentation or debate programs. Absent
any existing mechanisms, we suggest this program as a way to start assessing debate and
forensics programs and courses in argumentation and as a starting point for conversations in the
discipline.
Learning Outcomes
Based on our survey of the literature, we identified a series of learning outcomes which
based on feedback from peers and colleagues (Dimock, 2017), we refined to two: the ability to
describe arguments and the ability to evaluate arguments. For example, Graduate Records Exam
(GRE) has an “argument task” assessed using an eight-point scale. While much of that scale
looks at rhetorical rather than purely argumentative (e.g. the organization and arrangement of
arguments), the criteria that direct scorers to focus specifically on arguments, expects
respondents who excel to “clearly [identify] aspects of the argument” (Education Testing Service
[ETS], 2019, para. 2). Adequate responses on the other hand “[examine] aspects of the
argument” (para. 6).
The second dimension of argumentation literacy, the ability to evaluate arguments, flows
logically from the first. Description identifies the features of the argument. To evaluate asks
respondents how well the argument as described accomplishes its ends or tasks. This ability to

191

evaluate arguments appears throughout the pedagogical literature and in the existing forms of
assessment. The Stanford History Education Group (SHEG), for example, published an
assessment matrix to test student’s ability to evaluate online evidence for civic reasoning. They
describe themselves as “taken aback by student’s lack of preparation” (SHEG, 2016, p. 4) when
it comes to evaluating source material and evidence online. There is, they contend, a moral
imperative to teaching students to differentiate between credible and not credible sources of
information. But to focus on information is too limiting. Not just facts but arguments about those
facts are at least as important.
Scoring
One of our principal goals in this project was to develop a means of assessing students’
ability to read argument and to operationalize those assessments as data that can be easily
communicated to administrators and accreditors. In developing our scoring system, we looked at
a number of other scoring systems such as the ETS’s (2019) “Scoring Guide for the Argument
Task” and The College Board’s (2017) “AP English Language and Composition Scoring
Guidelines.”
One key difference between our scale and those we modeled our efforts upon, was a scale
ranging from 1, a non-argumentatively literate response, to 7, the highest level of our scale,
which we call creative literacy. The ETS, conversely, uses “NS” for a non-scoreable response
and their scale goes from 1 – 6. The College Board uses a ten-point scale, 0 – 9, in which a 0
indicates non-responsiveness. If the low end of the scale was not-literate, unable to differentiate
between arguments and non-arguments or to read the sample as an argument, then our high end
would be an expert in argumentation study, a person capable of generating argumentation theory.

192

We would expect, for example, a person with advanced degrees in argumentation or related
fields or a debate coach with decades of experience to score a 7.
We used theory of argumentation as the criterion whereby we distinguished between
levels on our scale. The reason we teach theory is to enable students to make more sophisticated
and nuanced descriptions of argumentation. Competition, when it serves its pedagogical purpose,
teaches students not how to just win rounds but how to evaluate evidence and weigh reasoning in
the real world.
In advocating application of theory, specifically the use of a theoretically informed
vocabulary as a way of operationalizing argumentation literacy, we confront the advice of many.
Rowland and Fritch (1989), for example, assert that “the simplest methods of description will be
the most useful, both pedagogically and in understanding real-world disputes” and that “more
complicated descriptive devices…produce little save confusion” (p. 458). However, while the
ability “to simply note the claim and supporting reasoning” (Rowland & Fritch, 1989, p. 458) is
an appropriate standard for a minimal level of literacy and would be an appropriate benchmark
for general education, but we should expect a doctoral candidate studying public argument or a
student with a decade of competitive experience debate to demonstrate a more sophisticated
interpretation and analysis. Here, we articulate the seven levels.
1 – Non-literate. The student does not demonstrate any measurable argument literacy.
The respondent is not able to differentiate between arguments and non-arguments, and cannot.
interpret the argument text. Responses which were indecipherable or unreadable, which violated
basic discursive norms (e.g. use of profanity, racist or sexist language, etc.) would be considered
non-responsive and not be scored.

193

2 – Emerging literacy. A score of two indicates the respondent has reached the
minimum levels of argumentative literacy consistent with citizenship in a participatory
democracy. The response demonstrates an awareness of argumentation as a distinctive
communication activity, one based on making claims and supporting those claims with reasons
(evidence, logic, etc.). A score of two would be consistent with a high school graduate.
3 – Taxonomic literacy. A score of three indicates the presence of abstract, theoretical
concepts or terms. While the theory applied may be naïve (and every effort should be made to
recognize and value the widest range of theories), the essential characteristic of taxonomically
literate response is the presence of theoretical terms naming the relevant features of the
argument. A score of three would be consistent with some college education, the completion of
general education requirements (e.g., a college sophomore who has some course work in
argumentation such as public speaking or introductory composition courses).
4 – Theoretically informed literacy. A score of four differs from a three to the degree
the response goes beyond merely naming the argumentative features. Respondents engage in
second-order theory usage; the use of theoretical terms to apply still further theoretical terms. For
example, in identifying a feature of an argument text as evidence (taxonomic literacy) would
invite further application of theoretical concepts. What kind of evidence? Is this testimony from a
witness or from and expert? How would we assess the credibility of this kind of evidence? A
score of four would be consistent with respondents who have had some kind of upper level
training in argumentation or active participation in competitive debating.
5 – Paradigmatic literacy. A score of five would indicate an ability to consider a text
from more than one theoretical perspective or paradigm. While a response scored at four might
talk about ethos, for example, the paradigmatically literate might rationalize the application of an

194

Aristotelian understanding of ethos as opposed to Fisher’s criteria of narrative consistency. A
score of five would be consistent with a respondent who had engaged in significant upper level
or graduate coursework in argumentation or a sustained, prolonged involvement with
competitive debate.
6 – Synthetic literacy. While a score of five would indicate an awareness of conflicting
paradigms of argument, a score of six would bring together concepts to synthesize theoretical
elements in creative or original ways. Juxtaposition of Burke’s frames with Scriven’s principle of
charity, or the stock issues approach to debate with Parson’s understanding of arguments as
tasks, would be examples. A score of six would be consistent with a specialist in argumentation
or debate but differs from a seven in that it is still grounded in the existent corpus of
argumentation theory.
7 – Creative literacy. A score of seven would, for our purposes, be “off the charts.” At
this level, the argument text is not merely analyzed or interpreted, but used as a vehicle for new
development of theory. While a respondent may use existing concepts or terms, those ideas are
creatively appropriated. A response scored at a seven would use the sample argument text as a
vehicle for articulating theory then use theory to interpret or analyze the text.
Assessing Argumentation Literacy
Like the GRE or AP exams, our assessment presents respondents with sample argument
texts. They are invited to read the text, describe the argument, and then to evaluate it. The
complexity of the text (level of linguistic literacy) and its cultural perspective/point of view
should be pegged to the reading and cultural literacy of the respondents.

195

Below, we have included a sample argument text, one we have used in our preliminary
roll-out of this assessment, used to assess student performance across delivery platforms (face-
to-face, online; 16-week, 10-week).
Sample Argument Text
Instructions to Respondents. The text below is based on an exchange in the local
newspaper editorial section following a town hall by the community’s Congressional
Representative. After reading the text, answer the questions that follow:
Text Argument 1. Last night my husband and I went to the local campus to hear our
elected Representative speak. These are challenging times for a lot of people in our
community. A lot of people are losing their farms and they don’t know what they’re
going to do and we elected him because we thought he had the right agenda to turn our
country around.
We never got to hear what our Representative had to say. Instead, for an hour and
a half we were subjected to riotous and uncivil behavior that would have shamed our
forefathers. Booing and yelling, shouting at a member of Congress! Using profanity and
behaving a manner that has no place in civilized society much less in a Great republic
like ours. I know I am not the only one to feel this way. A lot of the people around us said
the same thing and many of us were glad the police were there. We’d hate to think what
this kind of mob would do if they were not there, ready to act.
It a republic like ours, disagreement is tolerated but disruption and disorder are
not. A town hall is for everyone to come and hear what their elected officials have to say.
Some of us waited long after it was over to get in a hand shake and a few civil words

196

rather than shouting them out and interrupting him while he was trying to explain what’s
going on in Washington.
Text Argument 2. In response to the many people who condemned our group and what
they called “riotous and uncivil behavior unbecoming…in a Great republic like ours,” we
make no apology. First, let’s be clear. We were heckling and if a politician doesn’t like to
be heckled then they should pick a career, one that doesn’t force them to come before the
public and defend their decisions as an elected representative.
More than that, however, civil does not and never has meant docile. Citizen
accountability is incompatible with passivity. What they call civil is us sitting and
listening while our Representative gets to evade questions, give non-answers, and make
unsupported and unsupportable claims. Heckling is how citizens speak back.
It’s like stand-up comedy. The heckler isn’t there to ruin the show. Comic after
comic with no original material and tired routines ruin shows. Hecklers—and the
knowledge that they are there if you can’t deliver—keeps stand-ups on their toes. A
politician who is unprepared to be called out on questions they knew they were going to
be asked is unprepared. The heckler didn’t cause that; the heckler revealed it.
The charge that we were in the wrong then doesn’t end with saying we interrupted
the Representative. We did. We admit we booed loudly and shouted out questions. We
disrupted. But it was his evasion, distortion, and I am not afraid to say lying to
constituents is uncivil. Heckling him for doing it is not.
Instructions to Respondents: Description. After reading the two arguments above,
describe the argument or some aspect of the argument. Keep in mind that a description is more
than just a summary or putting the reading into your own words. Your answer should

197

demonstrate the degree to which you are argumentatively literate. Be explicit in your application
of theory, theoretical concepts, terms, theorists, etc.
Although you have all the time you need, try to keep your response to about 15 – 20
minutes, 3 – 4 paragraphs. You should not need a reference page; you are discouraged from
consulting outside material or sources.
Instructions to Respondents: Evaluation. After completing your first essay describing
the argument, write a second essay evaluating the argument. Your answer should demonstrate
the degree to which you are argumentatively literate. As you articulate standards and apply
criteria, be clear and explicit in your application of theory, theoretical concepts, terms, theorists,
etc.
Although you have all the time you need, try to keep your response to about 15–20
minutes, 3 – 4 paragraphs. You should not need a reference page; you are discouraged from
consulting outside material or sources.
Sample Responses and Scoring
Below are two sample responses. The first response is description. The second response
is an evaluation. Both responses accompany a score and rationale for the score based on the
criteria outlined above.
Sample Response – Description
I think the first argument is a really good. Nowadays it seems like people are so
angry all the time and if they would just calm down they’d see that everybody is just
trying to do the best job they can. Name calling and yelling are fallacious because that
kind of thing is never appropriate behavior.

198

Overall, I think she made a good argument. She made some compelling points
and it really seemed like she was confident in how she presented them. She stood up for
what she believes in so she’s a winner either way
Sample Assessment
Scored at 1
Rationale. The respondent does not answer in a way that indicates they appreciate
arguments as distinctive communicative/discursive acts. The respondent’s answer reflects
their own experience reading the answer – their agreement with it/connection they feel
with it – rather than dimensions of the argument itself.
Sample Response – Evaluation
The debate centers around the definition of the term civility. The first arguer is
making the claim that the opposition group/party is uncivil.
Much of that argument, however, seems to be based on assumptions about what
town halls are supposed to be like and that the founding fathers would have wanted. I
don’t know how reasonable those assumptions about what’s real are. None of these
reports of fact are supported by secondary sources. In fact, given the founding fathers
engaged in revolution, I think the claim that “disagreement is tolerated but disruption and
disorder are not” is not consistent with my understanding of history. In fact, I think
American history has a lot of disruption, some of which is good. Like the civil rights
movement. There is a lack of narrative fidelity for me, it doesn’t “hang with” other
stories I’ve accepted about our history.
The interlocutor’s rebuttal is based on a contra-contention. If the first arguer is
claiming a universal negative, that no disruptions is warranted behavior, the interlocutor

199

defends a contradictory (particular affirmative) position, that sometimes disruption is
warranted.
The interlocutor’s support for that contradictory statement is supported by two
coordinate lines of argument. First, that heckling is normal and should be expected. This
argument leaves enthymematic that what is normal is also acceptable.
Heckling is normal behavior (minor premise)
What is normal behavior is acceptable behavior (major premise, unspoken)
Therefore heckling is acceptable behavior (conclusion)
I don’t know that this particular major premise should be assumed rather than
supported. It is an assumption about what is real and what is good. In my opinion, this
isn’t a sound argument. That isn’t a fair and reasonable assumption to make. That
contention requires some support.
The second claim is a bit more difficult to refine. It isn’t as clear. It seems to me
that the interlocutor is saying that heckling is a response to “evasion, distortion,
and…lying.” It suggests a sufficient causation, that the Rep’s bad (uncivil) behavior
provoked the uncivil response. So the blame lays with the Congressman. If there is lying,
then disruptive behavior will result. If provoked, that behavior is reasonable and
warranted.
I think both arguments leave a lot to be desired but the interlocutor’s second
argument seems sound to me. If you engage in uncivil behavior, you should expect an
uncivil response. If you started it, then you have no one but yourself to blame. This
reasoning, I think, is sound.

200

I think that the fact claim, that the Rep was indeed lying, is still open. There is no
evidence presented to support that claim but, in a short letter to the editor like this, the
negative argument is prima facie the stronger of the two.
Sample Assessment
Scored at 4
Rationale. The respondent used a theoretically laden vocabulary. The strongest
aspect of the response was the syllogism, well laid out, clear. Demonstrates an ability to
apply a theoretical concept to a text as part of the evaluation. Some of the terms and
concepts are thinly applied, closer to taxonomic (score 3) than theoretical. While there
are a lot of theoretical terms, such as “interlocutor” and “narrative fidelity” those terms
aren’t developed and there isn’t any sense of trying to contrast approaches or link them
(paradigmatic, score 5).
Conclusion
In closing, we repeat the principle points with which we began. Assessment is not going
away anytime soon, and argument features prominently in the language of learning outcomes
across a range of disciplines. Our field should be taking the lead in defining what argumentation
is, what good argumentation looks like, and how it should be measured. Localizing argument, in
this sense, is bringing it down to earth, to a level where it can be assessed.
The learning outcomes we have identified do not constitute the limits of argumentation as
a field. But we believe that the ability to describe and evaluate arguments in a manner informed
by tradition of argumentation study are a good place to start in developing a fully articulated
assessment program grounded in the best and most relevant theories and approaches to argument.

201

We believe that our program is a starting point of a conversation, and a debate, rather than a final
product.

202

References
Educational Testing Service. (2019). Scoring guided for the argument task. Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/argument/scoring_gui
de
Dimock, J. (2017, September). A field independent assessment of argument. Roundtable
discussion at the Annual Conference of the Communication and Theater Association of
Minnesota, St. Cloud, MN.
National Communication Association. (2015). Learning outcomes in communication project.
Retrieved from https://www.natcom.org
Rowland, R. C., & Fritch, J. E. (1989). The relationship between debate and argumentation
theory. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA
Conference on Argumentation (pp. 457–463). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication
Association.
The College Board. (2017). AP English language and composition scoring guidelines. Retrieved
from https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/ap/pdf/ap17-sg-english-language
Stanford History Education Group. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic
online reasoning. Retrieved from sheg.stanford.edu
Wehlburg, C. (2013). “Just right” outcomes assessment: A fable for higher education.
Assessment Update, 25(2), 1–16.

https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/ap/pdf/ap17-sg-english-language