Formal and Informal Argumentation

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

In the last posting we looked at the assumptions behind argumentation. In this posting we will look at deductive and inductive reasoning.

Formal and InFormal Argumentation

The degree of certainty is a division between the primary forms of argumentation; formal and informal. Formal reasoning is deductive which is strongly certain. Informal reasoning is inductive and is strongly uncertain. The majority of argumentation is informal.

Formal Argumentation

A formal argument is deductive in nature as the conclusion flows from its premises. The conclusion contains no more information which may be implicit than in the premises. This suggest two corollaries; deductive reasoning is analytic and does not contribute to increasing knowledge. Deductive reasoning simply rearranges knowledge requiring no reference to the natural world and may be counterfactual. 

Commentary: Deductive reasoning flows logically from a set of premises. It assumes that the knowledge or information is truthful and simply attempts to demonstrate a logical association. For example, evolutionist claim based on randomness that random genetic drift and random natural actions result in cumulative change that leads to speciation. Evolutionist offer support for this claim at a higher level of the argument such as animals that have undergone mutation and adaption. While logical and a well stated claim, the challenge with this claim is that the well accepted Chaos Theory states there is an underlying order to all things natural. Order is counter to randomness. Chaos Theory supports probabilistic outcomes (mathematic formulation) in lieu of randomness (no mathematical formulation). This evolutionary claim, at the low level assumption of randomness, has a significant challenge to overcome if it is to be accepted despite its logical conclusion based on randomness. This also brings up a point about levels within an argument which will be addressed later in the series.  

Figure 1

The basic unit of reasoning in formal argumentation is the syllogism which is the structure of two premises and a conclusion. There are three forms of syllogisms; categorical, conditional, and disjunctive. Categorical syllogisms contain statements that relate categories. The statements may be universal or partial and inclusive or exclusive. The only terms that identify quantities are all, some, and none. The soundness of a categorical syllogism is tested either by drawing a Venn diagram, Figure 1, or applying rules of distribution. Venn diagrams represent informational domains as fields that may overlap to show degrees of inclusivity or exclusivity. Domain fields may also be exclusive and illustrate no inclusivity at all. Rules of distribution are used to govern proportionality.

Conditional syllogisms are if-then statements. The "if" is antecedent and the "then" is e consequence. The argument is sound if the antecedent is affirmed or the consequent is denied. The converse does not hold true.

Disjunctive syllogisms are either-or statements. The argument accepts or rejects one of the alternatives drawing a conclusion about the other alternative. Rejecting one option always results in accepting the other and is determined from the context of the argument.

Commentary: Deductive reasoning has it place in academic circles and investigative endeavors where discovery (finding something that exists) is more important than revelation (a new realization).  A Project manager must be able to discern the which type of reasoning is best suited for the circumstances. We will talk more on this later after more of the foundations are in place.  

Desire for Change

Formal argumentation has been the desired or preferred method for most of the 20th century. There is a movement in academic circles in which formal reasoning is not seen as the prototype for argumentation. The claim is that very seldom does one reason in a syllogistic form. Most argumentation is not represented by a form in which the conclusion contains no new information. The purpose of reasoning is to move the audience from what is already known to a new position or to justify a position taken. This requires a quantum leap in judgment for the audience and  is what the arguer seeks in order to justify his position.

Informal Argumentation

Informal argumentation functions as the model for everyday argumentation. The argument in this form cannot be extracted from the language in which it is cast. The conclusion often contains new information. The conclusion relies on probability rather than certainty. The conclusion can be asserted with confidence if the arguer adheres to the conventions of informal reasoning which is experiential. Informal argumentation seeks to convince the audience of a revelation or new realization. 

Commentary: Convincing your audience is reliant on building sound reasons for your claim. The reasons may not be empirically evident. Instead the reasons may adhere to self-evidence, a reasonable man understanding, or a stronger probability over other options. Moreover, one may be able to convince one audience with a line of reasoning but another may not adhere to the same reasoning. Therefore, the arguer must know his audience well. The evolution example given earlier is one such example. Ardent proponents of an argument like evolution tend to be emotionally attached and may ferociously seek to disqualify the new realization presented. 

As a project manager, there are times when syllogistic arguments are necessary. Such instances, may be financial, legal, or regulatory arguments. In these arguments, the project manager may not want to introduce new information which may continue the dialogue. Instead, he may desire to simply terminate the discussion and reason with certainty that a decision is valid in support of the financial, legal, or regulation conclusion.

Most of the time, especially in technology and complex projects, the project manager may realize many paths to the same end and the audiences may vary greatly. For example, different coders may have very different approaches to the same result. Likewise, the focus of leadership is different than a coder. Leadership may think in terms of profitability of a service while the coder thinks in terms of function and features. In a strategy-to-task endeavor the coder's results must match up with the leaderships strategy. The functions and features of the service need to contribute towards the strategy. The justifications for the results to leadership will be structured to the strategy and its desired outcomes. Meanwhile, justification for the results to a coder will be centered on points in their realm of functions and features towards the strategy. The right communication to the right people is very important in a project.

There is a certain amount of savvy that the project manager must have developed through experience and training in order to talk to the various audiences found in a project. The project manager must be able to shift swiftly between these audiences. Sometimes these dissimilar audiences will be in the same seating. During these meetings the focus is on the sponsor and/or senior stakeholders. Project principals in attendance such as coders should be made aware that the meetings focus is on these stakeholders.

I will skip the history on Argumentation. Next week's post will be on argument analysis. Future posting planned include a two part section on Attack and Defense, Evaluating the Evidence, and more on argumentation foundations. Once we complete the foundations, I will draw more on project management's use of argumentation. 

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.