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.
This post will combine what would have been two post. The reason for this is they are related and also brief by themselves. I will be compressing many of the posts to move through this series more quickly.
Language and Style in Argumentation
The bottom line up front is that language is a resource as methods of composition and persuasion are not neutral. Arguments are cast in language as an intrinsic aspect which has strategic value. One resource for the arguer are definitions. Definitions server many purposes as they characterize common usage, make the vague more precise, and can be used to invent new usages.
The pervasive definition is of special interest to argumentation. The pervasive definition slants the argument to gain strategic as well as tactical advantage. This is usually accomplished by associating a stasis term with descriptive terms that cast either a positive or negative connotation. However, it can be also performed during the argument as well. The idea is to transfer emotional capital from one denotation to another. Some pervasive definition examples are the death tax, the nuclear option, and partial-birth abortion. The practice can also be used to alter the scope of a conflict including or excluding participants. For example, the would-be loser or the disenfranchised voters.
There are some general concerns about the use of Definitions. They should be clear enough to avoid fallacies. Linguistic precision should be concise enough to convey intent and avoid undesirable meanings. Figures of speech can be strategically used. There are nuances that must be understood and leveraged during the argument.
Some nuances to avoid common fallacies center on several faux pas stemming from language inexactness that include equivocation, ambiguity, amphiboly, vagueness, heaps and slippery slopes. These are conditions peculiar to informal argumentation.
Linguistical precision has strategic implications. The arguer may choose the degree to which the language is precise. In this way, the arguer manages maneuvering room for himself and limits maneuvering room of the opponent. Some common techniques include using euphemisms, ambiguity, and vagueness to create maneuvering room. Increasing precision by labeling, making analogies, and the use of descriptive terms may narrow or limit the opponents maneuvering room.
Figures of speech can be used to increase the presence of a concept and highlight a choice among alternatives. The use of analogies, metaphors, and similes tend to increase presence. Other techniques to increase presence include repetition, accumulation of facts and details, as well as accent. Whereas the use of antithesis and metaphors present choices. Arguers may find that coupling these techniques to activities and experiences of the audience improves their effectiveness.
Language is not some sort of ornamentation but part of the argument affecting strategic positions and interest of the participating parties. Specifically, context and perspectives of the argument are affected.
Commentary: The use of language is very important as much more can be conveyed than what is in simple phonetic terms. Tone, preciseness, and action are perhaps more critical than terms. The context of the verbage is also crucial. In writing there are over 200 rhetorical instruments such as metaphors, euphenisms, similies, etc... that can convey greater meaning. Project managers should learn the strategic use of words and carefully use them especially when working with contracts, purchase orders, and other legally binding activities. Overall language can make or break a justification, objective, or goal.
Evaluating the Evidence
Evidence represents the grounds for the claim and is the answer to how do you know or what do you have to go on. The evidence must be accepted by all parties or the argument stops until the matter of evidential adequacy resolved. Adequacy may be agreed technical rules but most commonly the test is what a critical audience will accept. A speech-act philosophy provides an operational definition of "providing evidence". The basic principle of willingly and feely accepting a claim is conditioned upon truths that are conveyed by a speaker. The listener hears this and then if accepted, accepts the claim.
Evidence can be grouped into common types such as examples, statistical, tangible objects, testimony, and social consensus. Examples include brief mentions, illustrations, and generalizations. Statisitics can be raw numbers, ratios, central tendencies such as means, averages, modes, and medians, probabilities, and/or rates. Any statisitical evidence is subject ot review of the process in orer to determine its accuracy and validity. Tangible objects are atifacts associated to the claim and support the addage that a picture is worth a thousand words. Testimony of facts or credible opinion by experts who are qualified and reliable in the matter at hand is accepted based on the source credibility. Credibility is derived from experience, eye witness account, or a hostory of success. A social consensus functions as if beliefs are fact. This can be characterized by common knowledge or shared value judgments and history. Any differences in any of these requires resolution of the matter between any truth can be accepted.
Commentary: As pointed to in the discussion evidence is the support for a claim. However, evidence is subject to truths which can be a challenge. Worldviews determine a truth's strength. Every truth has a virtue, essence, and being and falls within a range from the epistemic to the correspondant. Understanding the audience and how they formulate truths will aid in resolving truth issues over the evidence. This in itself can be a challenge as ones own sense of truth can conflict. For the Project manager is a ethical delimna and the project manager should always take the high road.
References:
Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA
No comments:
Post a Comment