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