Introduction To 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.

A common challenge today is the practice by many people of placing a high degree of confidence in an unsupported personal belief as though this belief is somehow sacred. They are not open to the possibility they may be incorrect. The problem with a personal belief is that they are just that, personal and no one else holds the belief to any degree of esteem. Therefore, in order to settle disputes and determine the strongest support for a claim there must be some sort of process that all can follow and agree on the method of discernment. Argumentation is that process and requires training to become effective. Let us begin with the basics. 

Introduction: Effective Reasoning

Argumentation is common but an imperiled activity. Many people think of arguments as quarrelsome, heated, and unpleasant. They tend to think any disagreement is somehow destructive and unhealthy. Other  people tend to interact with only those whose share the same views to avoid elevated debate or challenges to their claims. Nearly all treat opinions as unbridgeable. Jamie Whyte argues in his book, “Crimes Against Logic”, that people often argue they have a right-to-an-opinion when disputed in order to deflect the argument to a discussion of rights. Whyte comments that when there is a right, there is also a duty. He postulates three questions then answers them:

1. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to agree? NO. If both parties have the right to their own opinions then agreeing would violate the right. The duty to support another opinion violates one’s own right to an opinion. Thus, opposing opinions cannot both be valid.
2. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to listen? NO. Listening to unlimited opinions is not practical. Thus, it cannot be a duty that is fulfilled naturally nor easily.
3. Does a right-to-an-opinion allow an opinion to persist? NO. Any entitlement or merit to an opinion, in an epistemic sensibility, is founded upon good reason such as evidence or sound logic in order to be durable.

If there is a right-to-an-opinion then such a right cannot settle disputes because another’s rights cannot be violated (Whyte, 2004).  Clearly, there is paradoxical tension in this alleged right as opposing opinions have to be treated equal and as valid. Hence, there cannot be a right-to-an-opinion because the duties cannot be executed naturally or easily.

That's just a matter-of-opinion is a common expression heard these days which needs to be addressed as well. Whyte furthers his concept remarking that a matter-of-opinion has no objective standard by which to judge. He comments that facts do not rely on opinions and facts do not emerge by having a mere belief in them. Therefore, matters-of-opinion are not relevant, demonstrate no clear understanding, and should not exist. Authoritative opinions do not rely on a voice or character as evidence but instead rely on solid logic, evidence, and reasoned expertise to decide within certain limits or scope of a discipline of thought.

Defining Argumentation

Argumentation is effective reasoning drawing upon principles, intellectual dialogue, and reasoned judgments in order to produce both a product of messages and a process of interactions. Argumentation may be a lost art today as few seek to improve argumentation skills to gain influence, resolve disputes, and strengthen positions through effective reasoning.

Effective reasoning means that one is capable of debating a claim and arriving at a reasonable conclusion under the construct of argumentation. Thus, an argument is reason giving as justification of a claim. Reasons given are most often not absolutes. Thus, the entire concept of argumentation is built upon the uncertainty of a claim and its reasons. This uncertainty originates from complexity, value judgments, future speculation, broad scope of the problem set, or truths that cannot be directly observed.

The process of argumentation relies on logic, dialectics, and rhetoric underpinnings. Logic is concerned with the principles regarding reliable associations of knowledge and information that support a premise known as a line-of-logic. Rhetoric is concerned with how messages are formed in order to influence people. Dialectics is concerned with deliberation or consideration for the different sides of a debate. Thus, argumentation is structured, ordered, and deliberate.

The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on a whim, caprice, or the command of an authority figure. If we are to do this then we surrender to chance, accident, happenchance, or even coercion. Then we will believe and act upon these reasons impacting very important matters in human affairs. We do not want to do that without careful deliberation. What makes humans unique is the ability to reason and connect a claim to a line-of-logic.

Effectiveness and Ethics

Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning. Effectiveness implies a concern for an audience composed of one or more readers or listeners. The effectiveness of an argument is dependent on the ascent of the audience or adherence to a claim based on its reasons. In short, argumentation persuades an audience of a claim’s validity.

Ethical considerations figure prominently into argumentation given persuasion that creates limits on freedom of choice and is the application of superior to inferior ideas affecting the conditions of the workplace and/or society. Argumentation is respectful towards different ways of thinking and reasoning and does not impose influence but seeks free ascent.

Commentary: Possessing skillful, ethical, and persuasive argumentation talents can aid one in business and personal interactions. Properly structuring an argument can reduce emotional reactions and generate interest towards your claim. In project management, developing traceable rationale behind judgments, decisions, and choices aides in communications with stakeholders and other principals involved in the project.  In the next post, I will look at the underlying assumptions in argumentation. I will also draw upon resources such as Dale Carnegie, Stephen Covey, and others as I move through this series. 

References:

Whyte, Jamie, (2004)  Crimes Against Logic. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-144643-5

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