Argumentation: Cause & Effect, Form & Commonplaces, Hybrid Inferences

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.

I'll be compressing the next several sessions into one postings and try to keep them down in length. Inferences are the most complex part of an argument and determine the scheme that will be used. There are six inference patterns that we will consider. This is the last three sessions. I will not make commentary.

Moving from Cause to Effect

Causes asert that one factor has influence (inferred or direct) over another. The argument can move from cause towards the effect or from the effect back to the cause.  Discussion of public matters typically involves causal inferences that both identifies and explains relationships. The inference is an effect is observed which is then related back to a cause.  There is certainty only if all possible influences could be  controlled which is highly unlikely. Hence the warrant is that one phenomenon has influence on another which is inferred.

The concept of causality is ambiguous having many meanings which are dependent on the argument's use of the term. Causation could mean that sufficient conditions exist for cause, that human action or intervention contributes to the cause or the abnormal. Cause can be predictive, the means to an end, clarify paradoxes, and assign responsibilities.

Different procedures are used to determine causality. John Staurt Mill, an influential British economist and philosopher on social and political theory, developed an empirical test for sufficient condition: 

• Create conditions in which two things are identical in every way except one.
• Observe the differences 
• Infer that one respect is the cause for the differences. 

Quantitative approaches rely on statistical regression analysis that attributes the amount of variance to eash factor. Whereas, rhetorical approaches rely on a two stage agrument to support the inference. The first step is to identify how a factor could possibly be the cause then explain why it ought to be the cause. When human action is involved, the first step establishes the means and opportunity. Meanwhile, the second step establishes the motive. In the end, causal inferences should satisfy several tests.    

1. Has the correlation been confused with a casual relationship?
2. Are there common casues that is  masked by the appearance of a cause and effect relationship that is spurious?
3. Has temporality been confused with casuality (post hoc fallacy)?
• The cause must precede the effect but is not a sufficient condition to be the cause alone.
4. Are significant multiple causes or multiple effects?
• The cause or effect may be in multiple combinations producing unintended consequences and treating only some and not all may alter the circumstances as well.
5. Have cause and effects been reversed?
6. Are there significant intervening or counteracting causes?

Commonplaces and Arguments from Form

In this session we will look at inferences that are based on social knowledge, known as commonplaces, and  inferences that resemble deductive logic but are not arguments from form.  Commonplaces are beliefs that are generally held as truths by an audience regardless of the merit of that truth.  Dilemnas, arguments from hypothesis and probabilities are examples of inferences that acquire power from thier resemblance to deductions.

Commonplaces are general categories of inference that usually have proven to be reliable. The inference is that the connection between between the evidence and the claim is commonly accepted based on beliefs and values within a given culture.  This argument structure is termed enthymeme and it is similar to a syllogism. The difference being that a premise is drawn from beliefs and values rather than statements independently established as true. The inferences are not certain becasue generally accepted beliefs can be contested.  Thus, the warrant is based on an appeal to a particular case. Please note that social consensus can function as evidence as well as a warrant.

Commonplaces reflect shared beliefs about the essential nature of the point of discussion and originate for m maxims, adages, and widely held shared values. Ironically, there can be conflict over the supposedly consensual beliefs. Some commonplaces reflect preferences for one or the other opposed values. For example, the value conflict between pragmatism and principle is a source of commonplaces. The pragmatic argument is centered on choices made on the basis of their consequences. Meanwhile,  the principled argument focuses on durable and endearing beliefs despite the consequences. Another source of come places is the value conflict between quantity and quality. The quantity argument seeks the greatest benefit over the largest number for the least cost. Whereas, the quality argument is based on unique value. In both cases, each argument can triumph over the other with varying circumstances. The point of notice here is that the value is put forward as a decision rule but then is answered by the contrary decision rule. 

Inferences from form rely on the structure of the argument itself that resemble deductive  logic in which the conclusion follows with certainty. This is used in ordinary arguments that are probabilistic. These arguments are sometimes labelled "quasi-logical".  Another example is the dilemma resembles the disjunctive syllogism. The question is whether there are alternatives the dilemma is false.  Other examples include the argument from the hypothesis appears to resemble the conditional syllogism raising the question in a given context one explanation is stronger than another.  As a final example is reasoning from comparisons that resemble mathematical computations. These arguments appears mathematical but lack the ability to be measured which is also true for other arguments such as transitive and sacrifice forms.

Inferences from form and commonplaces resemble deductive logic but depend on interpretations . Therefore, they should be subject to strict scrutiny.

Hybrid Patterns of Inference

Reasoning from rules is hybrid pattern of inference. The statement of a rule serves as a commonplace. The typical form of a rule is an if-then conditional statement; if condition X arises then Y either is permitted, required, or forbidden. There is an indication of force of the rule and an established principle. In short, the rule facilitates case asked reasoning.  The statement of facts is analogical. The inference applies to the case at hand. While the warrant is that the conditions in the case match those contemplated. Since the rule was framed from a consideration of specific cases, the case at hand is similar. If the judicial analogy is employed like cases should be treated alike. Reasoning from the rule to the case also exemplifies classification which is reasoning from the whole to the parts.

Determining rule based reasoning validity involves certain tests.

• Do the factual conditions satisfy all the requirements of the rule?
• Have all the relevant aspects of the situation and context been considered?
• Is the rule being applied with misplaced literalism or unthinkingly?

Whenever the rule is contested, the challenge must be justified by an antecedent rule having a similar hybrid pattern. Arguing about values are very personal, intense,  relate to our worldview, and also another hybrid patterns. Not being able to argue about values  is dangerous since it limits us.

Ultimately, arguments about values center on conflicts and differences as wll as value hierarchies rather than whether the value has merit or is good or bad. There are several ways to defend against contest. For example, one value may subsume to another value. Thus permitting both. Another outcome could be one value is more likely than another and/or offer a great benefit. One value may be preferred because foregoing it is irreparable. A value could be argued to better promote mutual shared values, supported by authoritative text and respected people, or have more desirable outcomes than another value.

Arguing about values is a hybrid Inference pattern employing inferences from form, quasi-mathematical, that compare values that result in a causal outcome.

Sometimes there is no basis or bedrock for agreement for arguers to appeal. In these cases the argument simply clarifies each sides values. However, this conclusion is not the first but instead the last resort.

Dissociations are another hybrid inference pattern. The phoros of an analogy or while using anological reasoning is accepted as commonplace. This argument also contains a sign inference. That is a claim to be a better sign of equality than another.there are two analytical steps that are involved. First, the concept is parsed into two concepts with one part more valued than the other. The adversary is associated with the lesser valued component and the other more valued component is associated with the arguer. A division is achieved by applying a philosophical pair (a ratio contrasting the component concepts where the denominator is the more valued component) to the previous unitary concept. Examples of dissociations are appearance / reality, letter / spirit, or opinion / truth. The clues that suggest a dissociation in use is an apparent tautolgy, paradox, oxymoron, or the use of terms like psuedo, quasi, so-called or the use of quaotation marks surrounding a term. The benefits of a dissociation include advancing a controversy by changing perceptions.determining if dissociation is a reasonable inference requires specific tests:

• Are the parts of the concept really distinct?
• Are the fractions in the philosophical pair in the correct relationship?
• Does the dissociation really reframe the controversy?

In quick review, inferences from:

• Examples relate parts to the whole
• Analogy involve comparisons
• Sign establish correlations
• Cause trace influence
• Commonplaces apply social knowledge
• Form rely on anargument's structure 

Commentary:

References:

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