Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part II

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 post we discussed the process of refuting and rebuilding cases. In this post, we will focus on the arrangement and presentation of attacks with a shift to defending and rebuilding. 

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part II

Attacking arguments requires making arrangement choices such as should the attack be structured in the same way as the argument being attacked as well as how completely should the attack be developed. There are advantages and disadvantages or risks to be had. If structuring the attack similar to the argument being attacked then following the rejoinder is easy. An unfortunate risk is that the arguer is now on the opponent's ground. This requires considerable knowledge of the oppositions position in order to manuever the argument. An effective means to manuever is to build an organizational scheme around the central points. Comment: The opponent may have structured pre-judicial agruments or may have scripts to route the arguer into no win situations. Without strong knowledege and foresight of the opponent, positions, and subject the arguers may find themself in a no win scenario. For example, President  Reagan was being cornered in a discussion over the economy. Sam Donaldson demanded that President Reagan own up to his failures in a carefully crafted line of questioning. Left with little room to manuever in the conversation Reagan responded, "You're right. I am responsible. At one time, I was a Democrat." This response was unexpected and put the conversation on a different course by manuevering around a theme that Democrats are irresponsible in economic management matters. Reagan gained the upper hand instantly and maintained that position for the duration of the conversation.  In regards to the degree of developing a complete attack, the argument and basis of the attack must be clearly stated in way that the audience will accept. Then the attack should be developed and supported. In the end, the significance of the attack's accomplishments should be made clear.

The strategy choices regarding the defense of an argument that has been attacked are limited to about five options.

• Demonstrate that the attack is inapplicable to the case
• Demonstrate that the attack is of trivial consequences
• Demonstrate that the attack is inadequately established
• Demonstrate that the attack is in error
• Take the possible attacks into account and seek to marginalized them. This is the most basic choice made In the original presentation.

More importantly, The selection of a choice is not focused so much on whether or not to respond. Instead, the choice is how seriously to take the attack and which strategic choice to use. The choice centers on which will dominate the organizational plan; the original argument structure or the structure of the attack. The responder must take care not to restate the argument but to extend it or at least respond to the attack. Care should also be taken to prevent a run away attack so that the attack does not become the dominant focus.

General methods of refutation can be used in both attack and defense. There are six general approaches for refutation.

1. Reductio ad Adsurdum suggests that the opposing position leads to unacceptable implications.
2. Turning the tables demonstrates how an opposing position benefits the other
3. Dilemmas indicate that the choices to be made are from unattractive alternatives.
4. Argument residues dictate the opposing position by eliminating all other possibilities.
5. Argument a fortiori suggests that what is true of the lesser is true of the greater or vica versa.
6. Contradictions and inconsistencies eliminate at least one of the other Arguers positions, as well as questioning the oppositions credibility.

The processes of the attack and defense help move the argument forward. By making strategic choices some potential issues will be waived from consideration. Some aspects of argument and controversy will be dropped through the process of attack and defense. Ultimately, the central issues of the dispute will be identified, positions clarified, and the differences will be recognized.

Commentary: In project management it is important that project managers properly strucutre thier justifications using argumentation processes and anticipate political and personal agendas that may lead to attacks on the reasoning. Stakeholder registers are one tool in aiding PM's with assessing risk and positional attacks on project decisions. In the summary post, I'll reflect on the series with tools and methods to deflect, deter, deny, and diminish attacks.  I will also be consolidating the remaining briefs on argumentation in order to move onto other topics sooner.  I encourage readers to review Date Carnegie's notion of arguments: You Cannot Win an Argument: The Dale Carnegie Method

References:

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

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part I

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.

This post begins a series of post that are more focused on the process of arguing with Tactics and techniques rather than the somewhat boorish structure and background. In this post I'll use evolution and creation debates since they are rather passionate debates as an example of the points being made here.

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part I

Attack and defense of an argument is the process of refuting and rebuilding cases. Despite the use of the military metaphor, attacks serve the cooperative purpose of reaching the best possible resolution of a controversy. Attack and defense are constructive not destructive if well constructed. Just as choice in planning a case are determined, so are decisions selected in planning an attack. This includes which arguments to attack and the type of the attack to develop. Thus, attack and defense in argumentation shares with a military campaign the concern for strategic decision making. The strategic choices are instinctive to skilled arguers and with stronger clarity understood by all if examined systematically. Nonetheless, do not be misled by the militaristic connotation in thinking attack and defense has the militaristic goal to dominate. Instead, attack and defense arrives at a shared sound judgment, a common purpose and outcome of determining a cooperative outcome.

The argument becomes dynamic after the advocate declares the case. If the case is plausible, prima fascia (at first glance), then the other arguers are obligated to meet the burden of rejoinder, which is the interrelated process of attack and defense known as refutation.

Attacking arguments involves several selection criteria and choices. Attacking all the arguments may create internal inconsistencies placing your defensive argument in tenuous situations. Arguments not attacked are granted by default even if ignored. Deciding which arguments to attack narrows the potential issues to actual issues. The strength of the attack and relevance of the argument to the resolution should govern the decision.

The part of the arguments to attack is governed by the Mini-Max principle that states the amount of effort is governed by the greatest results with the least effort. The arguer must begin the attack by selecting the part of the argument to attack in re4lation to the Mini-Max principle. There are four general attack points:

• Attack the claim. This denies it outright or by countering it.  Comment: In the evolution-creation debate, evolution proponents attack the creation account that God did it as unsubstantiated and counters creation with natural causation. Meanwhile, creation proponents deny natural causation with the counter argument that God caused the natural through supernatural means. The two arguments are polarized on the natural versus supernatural stasis. 
• Attack the evidence upon which the claim is based.  Comment: In the evolution-creation debate, evolution proponents have presented a litany of evidence in support of their claims such as fossil evidence. Many creation proponents argue that the fossil layer is highly concentrated in one geological seam with very little evidence prior to or after that seam where fossil fuels originate indicating there is no discernable evolutionary progression. Many creation proponents use this as evidence of miraculous appearance of biological life in a counter attack.
• Attack the inference linking the evidence to the claim. Comment: Evolution proponents infer that humans evolved from chimpanezes, the closest biological cousin to humans, and regress the progression back to a protoplasmal primordial globule floating in a primeval soup that was shocked into life by an electrical jolt - most likely. This is known as Abiogenesis and the inference links sporadic evidence that infers across 'the missing link' to claim the descent of man. Creation proponents attack the inference pointing out the lack of consistent evidence. They also attack the tendency of evolution proponents to engineer and inject intelligence into experiments that speculate or infer how it could have happened. Creation proponents call these experiments baseless given the lack of evidence suggesting the engineered experiment has no viable possibility. 
• Attack the contextual assumptions that undergird the whole argument. Commentary:  Creation proponents attack the foundations of evolution often.  The context under which evolution occurs involves random actions and genetic drift that lead to compounding mutations and adaptations resulting in speciation; near infinite time tables for evolution to evolve; and self-sustaining , self-perpetuating, and self-originating natural systems as their is no supernatural involvement. Creation proponents point to the fact that randomness is denied by the well accepted Chaos Theory which states there is an underlying order to all things natural. Order is the opposite of randomness. Creation proponents also point to the discoveries in atom smashing during the 1970's that concluded the universe is bounded. The event horizon also is a boundary limit to the universe. Thus, nothing natural is infinite as there is a beginning and an end. The Law of Diminshing Returns and Goedel's Thoerum state that nothing natural can be self-sustaining , self-perpetuating, and self-originating. Hence, creation proponents cite scientific laws, theorums, and principles that deny Evolutions most fundamental underpinnings or the context of randomness, infinity, and self-perpetuating in which it occurs. 

The next consideration is the type of attack to develop. The type of attack comes in many forms. A strong arguer may shift types during the course of the argument.

1. Question. In general, questioning is a operation that demands an answer. Comment: Questioning is more than simply asking and awaiting a satisfactory answer. Skilled arguers may use a Socrates approach of asking small incremental questions that lead to a greater conclusion when the greater conclusion would be rejected if presented earlier in the discussion. Questioning can also be used to deflect an attack by putting the burden of rejoinder on the assailing voice. Questions can also be deferred to a late time in the argument. This technique makes use of a parking lot in which the question is placed until a better time to respond has arrived. Another use of questioning is establishing a prejudicial argument. This is an argument strucutured in such a manner that no matter how it is answered the judgment is in favor of the questioner. 
2. Identify internal deficiencies. This situation occurs when the arguer fails to meet the burden of proof. Comment: Internal deficiencies often occur when an arguer has not matured in the skill or has a strong cognitive bias in a personal belief. For example, evolution proponents’ often site evidence claiming undirected natural causation such as randomness is a natural phenomenon that has its seed set at the Big Bang. This claim fails because seeding randomness implies a mathematical expression or order through which the seed operates and intelligent causation. Such an expression describes order, not randomness, and is consistent with Chaos Theory’s axiom of an underlying order to all natural things. Order and the act of seeding a randomness formulation imply intelligent causation, not undirected natural causation.
3. Identify inconsistencies. The discovery of any inconsistencies will cast doubt on the sincerity of the arguer, as well as require a response.  Commentary: Evolution proponents from time-to-time present evidence and experiments that are found to be hoaxes. One famous hoax was the Piltdown Man in 1912 which turned out to be a human skull with a orangatang jawbone. The fossils were made to appear to be ancient and from the dig site but had material inconsistencies as well as physical inconsistencies. By 1954, scientists had discovered the inconsistencies and exposed the Piltdown Man as a hoax.   
4. Label or Tag. This is a tactic that identifies an argument with undesirable qualities or characteristics in an attempt to thwart the goal of critical reasoning and resolving the argument. Commentary: Creation proponents have begun to label Evolution as a religion linking it to European Panthiesm which worships the mother Earth. They also point to the evolutionist's evandelical-like passion for the theory and righteous indigination as well as Darwin's unscientific and personal motivation of countering the Creation account. The tagline of evangelical evolutionist has been used to describe the viral efforts of promoting evolution in the schools. 
5. Counter argue. This is outright denial of the claim that refines the stasis forcing the audience to choose sides. Commentary: As mentioned earlier, the evolution-creation arguments are polarized on the natural versus supernatural stasis. Neither side is willing to compromise and continues an attempt to redefine the argument. 
6. Recontextualize. This places the argument in a broad context that demonstrates its weakness. Commentary:  Often evolutionist focus narrowly on a specific natural phenomenon developing what appears to be plausible arguments. For example, the process of vertical speciation is complete when the originating species can no longer copulate with the emergent species. Evolutionist  argue the various types of dogs emerged through breeding demonstrating the process of genetic drift and adaptation. However, Creationist claim after many centuries of this observed process new verticle species have not evolved. Instead there are a lot of different dogs. Hence, their claim is no vertical speciation observed as argued in the descent of man.   

Learning the tools and methods systematically aids in increasing awareness of the range of choices available to the arguer during discourse. Thus, we become stronger ‘coaches’ in steering strategic judgments. Most of the time, though, during discourse and in the heat of the moment we make these decisions instinctively.

Commentary: I deliberately leaned away from evolution in this posting in order to demonstrate argumentation nature. Regardless of whether you feel the subject matter was accurate or not, you may have felt a sense of antagonism or possbility confirmation depending on your position on the evolution-creation debate. You may have had questions or thoughts about what was said.  The evolution-creation debate itself is not an argument that will be settled any time soon as the opposing sides are strongly postured and cognitive biases may be more at the heart of the controversy than the desire to resolve it. 

The next posting will continue to discuss Attack and defense. Please feel free to post questions or comments. I can be reached at james.bogden@gmail.com. I have had many comments and I have incorporated them in the postings. 

References:

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

Argumentation: STASIS - The Heart of the Controversy

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.

The past post discussed argument structures, jargon, and analysis. This discussion on stasis will now bring us to a point where attack and defense can be discussed in the upcoming postings.

Argumentation: STASIS - The Heart of the Controversy

The concept of stasis originated from legal disputes and is useful to the arguer and for analysis of an argument. The term stasis refers to the focal point of a dispute and means a point of rest between opposing forces. It is the point at which contending positions meet and is determined by the choices that proponents make about what to contest and what to stipulate. Movement towards a goal cannot resume until the opposition has transcended. Therefore, the first decision to be made is what the point of stasis will be. There are four classic stasis identified; conjecture, definition, quality, and place.

• Stasis in conjecture is concerned with whether or not an act occurred
• Stasis in definition is concerned with what the act should be called
• Stasis in quality is concerned with whether or not the act is justified
• Stasis in place is concerned with the proper form for the discussion

Stasis has several features that should be understood. First, stasis is determined not by the original assertion alone but also with the combination of any of the many ways one may respond to the claim. Therefore, preliminary to attacking a case one must find where the stasis can most usefully be drawn. Second, stasis is generally progressive. Quality implicitly concedes to conjecture and definition. Definition implicitly concedes to conjecture. Thus, advocates should begin the argument as close to the beginning of a chain as can be sustained. Presenting multiple stasis is better than jumping around during the course of an argument. Finally, stasis in place is pre-exempted as an exception.

The concept of stasis is adaptive to non-legal arguments. There are models for non-legal arguments in which one popular model applies conjecture, definition, and quality to the topoi for a resolution of policy. This results in a matrix of possible stasis. Status in place is not often applicable.

Ultimately, failing to agree on a stasis may have serious outcomes for the argument. The argument can be hijacked and/or change the understanding. The argument could be lost. Also e argument could be locked in a stalemate.

The concept of stasis has multiple uses. For the analyst, stasis enables one to locate the cent of the dispute. For the arguer, stasis permits strategic choices for alternative responses for a given situation. This is preliminary to attack and defense. Stasis also focuses arguers and avoids the tendency to talk past each other.

Commentary: The jargon of argumentation may be difficult to follow for some people. The bottom line is the arguer needs to stay focused consistently on the same points of contention structuring the argument in support of that focus. Going off focus can result in an undesirable outcome or result for the original argument. For the project manager, loosing focus can result in scope creep or that important project decisions may not be made or accepted.

The next couple of postings will focus on the more interesting topic of attack and defense of an argument.

References:

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

Case Construction Requirements and Options

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.

The last several posts developed the structure of an argument and the language behind argumentation. These posts were supplemented with a variety of supporting briefs that could be used by project managers. This post will focus on the construction and argumentation patterns. Understanding argumentation construction will allow project managers to develop well designed arguments.

Argumentation Case Construction Requirements and Options

A case for an argument is the structure of subsidiary claims and evidence selected for supporting or opposing a resolution for a specific audience. Constructing a case involves choices from a broader range of arguments that are potentially available. The choices include selecting an argument and supporting evidence then their arrangement which tends to be audience specific. Usually there is a target audience and a broader audience in mind. The choices made combine some creativity with a degree of constraint which is the need to address all the issues in the resolution.

When assembling an argument, arguers must address all the issues raised by a claim. An aid to identifying the issues is the concept of "Topoi" meaning stock issues or literally places. Topoi are patterns of issues that reoccur for given claim types and situations that offer a shortcut to locating issues in a given case.  By classifying a resolution, we can determine the Topoi and the general questions associated, Table 1.

TOPOI QUESTIONS BY RESOLUTION
Resolution Types	Topoi
Fact	What is the criterion for assessing truth? Has the criterion been satified?
Definition	In the interpretation relevant? Is it fair? How should we choose among competing interpretations?
Value	Is the value truly good or bad as alleged? Which among competing values should be preferred? Has the value been properly applied to the specific sutuation?
Policy	Is the a problem? Where is credit or blame due? Will the proposal solve the problem? On balance, will the proposal be better?

Table 1: Topoi by Resolution

The arguer, advocate, or supporter must provide the initial burden of proof that is compelling in the absence of any response. This is accomplished by answering the Topoi for the given resolution type.  After this burden of proof is met then a burden of rejoinder begins. This is the responsibility to maintain the conversation and analogous to the production burden in law. The rejoinder is typically a back and forth dialogue between the arguers in which the trigger to switch is when the resolution is met. The rejoinder prevents the argument from terminating and previous positions from reoccurring without extending them to answer subsequent challenges.

The key considerations during case construction are how many arguments to include and whether those arguments are strong enough to support the case. The number and range of arguments, known as amplitude, is affected by more factors than time to prepare. Increasing amplitude can offset inconclusiveness of individual arguments and hedge against diverse audiences. The risks of increasing amplitude may affect credibility and demonstrate a defensive posture damaging the arguer's acceptance by the audience. Nonetheless, with diligence these risks can be marginalized. Strength is a function of the audience's adherence to the evidence and the relevance to the claims. Strength factors are influenced by probability, timing, and acceptance by social morays.

Organizing individual arguments is also important and requires choices to be made regarding logical indifferences and rhetorical significance. The first choice is the arguments structure as parallel, convergent, or series. The next choice is to determine where to place the strength in the argument; first or last. Then the arguer should begin to anticipate questions answering the Topoi questions first then other objections that are known to the particular claims made.  Finally, the arguer should formulate a strategy of how to move between the unfamiliar and familiar.   Overall, the independent arguments have common organizational patterns.

• Chronological
• Spatial Order
• Categorical
• Cause - Effect
• Problem - Solution
• Comparisons or Contrasted
• Method Residuals

In conclusion, arguers must critically think though their arguments then structure the argument giving it the proper strength and amplitude. In doing so, the many basic questions can be answered quickly and the crux of the argument can be discussed more readily. 

Commentary:  In making choices, a degree of restraint is just as important as constraints and creativity. The potential for abuse in argumentation can be problematic as there is a tendency to structure arguments deceptively on topics less than truthful or that do not uphold ethical integrity. In some cases, the arguer unknowingly may be deceived due to innate biases and a high degree of confidence in a personal belief.  Epistemology is the study of the limits and limitations of knowledge and truth. Epistemic truths are logically ordered and are generally based on a 'good' set of assumptions.  The audience must agree with those assumptions in order for the claim to be accepted. Therefore, the arguer must adhere to a set of social morays, beliefs, and limited inferential leaps in order to successfully argue.

Next weeks post will look at the focal point of the dispute.

References:

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

Argumentation Series Posts

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning 

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.

As I develop the series, I will post the new post in this summary post. 

1. Introduction to Argumentation
2. Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation
3. Formal and Informal Argumentation
4. Argument Analysis and Diagramming
5. Complex Structures of an Argument
6. Case Construction Requirements and Options
7. Stasis - The Heart of the Controversy
8. Attack and Defense Part I
9. Attack and Defense Part II
10. Argumentation: Language, Style and Evidence
11. Parts to Whole, Comparisons, and Correlations
12. Moving from Cause to Effect, Form, Hybrid Patterns
13. Validity and Fallacies Part I and II
14. Arguments between Friends and Experts - Summary

Supporting Briefs

1. Cognitive Biases
2. Non-Dimensionalized Methodology
3. All the Carnegie Principles In One Post
4. Operational Risk Management Brief
5. You Cannot Win an Argument: The Dale Carnegie Method

References:

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