In the first chapter, Angus and Langsdorf illustrate the centrality of critical reasoning to the nature of questioning itself, arguing that human inquiry has entered a "new situation" where "the convictions and orientations that have traditionally marked the separation of rhetoric and philosophy—the concern for truth and the focus on persuasion—have begun to converge on a new space that can be defined through the central term discourse." In these essays, this convergence of rhetoric and philosophy is addressed as it presents itself to a variety of interests that transcend the traditional boundaries of these fields.
The two editors, Raymie E. McKerrow, Michael J. Hyde and Craig R. Smith, James W. Hikins and Kenneth S. Zagacki, Calvin O. Schrag and David James Miller, and Richard L. Lanigan map this new space, recognizing that such mapping "simultaneously constitutes the territory mapped."
Nearly all argumentation courses and textbooks tilt toward one of two extremes:
* Critical thinking/informal logic, in which the "laws" of reasoning are universal and not affected by audience or context
* Public speaking, in which adaptation to the audience and winning assent trumps logic and reasoning
At the first extreme are texts that stress flaws in arguments and how to discern them. Their focus tends to be on the logic (making deductive inferences and avoiding deductive mistakes or other errors of inference) and/or the recognition of fallacies (deficient or fake arguments). They also deal with the messy ambiguities of language. Generally, this approach omits the concept of an audience. And it does not explain how spotting the flaws in reasoning, or improving one's reasoning, translates into the ability to make an effective argument. Further, it is not clear how to address audiences whose grasp of logic is shaky.
At the other extreme are books (especially public speaking textbooks) that err in the opposite direction. They are fixated on audience. As a result, their advice about how to argue is grounded in audience adaptation. In fact, the process of reasoning is nearly subordinated to such secondary considerations as style, delivery, and organization. And again, the connection between critical thinking/logic and audience is rarely examined.
In Making Arguments, we propose to consider argument at the nexus of invention and judgment, the two endpoints from which logic and public speaking examine argumentation, respectively. By looking at the "stuff" that comes between an argument's design and its delivery, we hope to enrich the understanding and the study of argument, as both a theoretical and applied discipline.
In particular, we want to answer some questions that are seldom addressed in print:
* What is the starting point for augmentation? When do we even need to argue?
* When should one embrace, and when should one avoid, arguing?
* Why does the same argument work in one place and fail in another?
* Are most audiences capable of understanding a complex argument?
* With what authority can one make an argument--absent expertise in the field in which the argument takes place?
* Are there substantive differences between oral and written argument?
* What does it mean to "present" an argument?
* Can someone control the argumentative situation/context to the benefit of his/her position?
* How can argument educate and improve the arguer?
* Can we learn the "truth" by arguing?
This book addresses the whole advocacy process as a series of concatenated intellectual decisions affecting how arguments are created, ordered, rendered, and produced--with judgment as the over-arching concern.
The antidote to fuzzy thinking, with furry animals!
Have you read (or stumbled into) one too many irrational online debates? Ali Almossawi certainly had, so he wrote An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments! This handy guide is here to bring the internet age a much-needed dose of old-school logic (really old-school, a la Aristotle).
Here are cogent explanations of the straw man fallacy, the slippery slope argument, the ad hominem attack, and other common attempts at reasoning that actually fall short—plus a beautifully drawn menagerie of animals who (adorably) commit every logical faux pas. Rabbit thinks a strange light in the sky must be a UFO because no one can prove otherwise (the appeal to ignorance). And Lion doesn’t believe that gas emissions harm the planet because, if that were true, he wouldn’t like the result (the argument from consequences).
Once you learn to recognize these abuses of reason, they start to crop up everywhere from congressional debate to YouTube comments—which makes this geek-chic book a must for anyone in the habit of holding opinions.
Claude Wautelet est né à Ixelles le 4 janvier 1942. Pédagogue – formateur , il a consacré toute sa carrière professionnelle à l’enseignement spécialisé tant sur le plan national qu’international. Il a terminé sa carrière en qualité de Directeur de l’Institut Francine Robaye (Institut supérieur de pédagogie spéciale). Sur la plan M., il a été initié en 1972 à la R.L. « La Charité » GOB. Il est membre fondateur de la R.L. « Rèves de Liberté » DH. Tout au long de sa vie, il a occupé différentes charges dont celles de 1er et 2d surveillant et Orateur. Il est l’auteur de nombreuses planches dont, entre autres : « Le corps initié. - Il est revenu le temps des cathédrales - Du mythe fabriqué à l’apocalypse... »
Updated and improved homework exercises—nearly one third are new—to ensure that the examples continue to resonate with students.Increased coverage of scientific reasoning, demonstrating how scientific reasoning dovetails with critical thinking more generally.Two new activities in which students analyze arguments in their original form, as provided in brief selections from the original texts.
This edition continues to include:The entire text of Rulebook, supplemented with extensive explanations and exercises.Homework exercises adapted from a wide range of arguments in a wide variety of sources.Practical advice to help students succeed.Model answers to odd-numbered problems, including commentaries on the strengths and weaknesses of selected sample answers and further discussion of some of the substantive intellectual, philosophical, or ethical issues they raise.Detailed instructions for in-class activities and take-home assignments.An appendix on mapping arguments, giving students a solid introduction to this vital skill in constructing complex and multi-step arguments and evaluating them.