The Declaration of Independence is an argumentative essay. Like most examples of rational discourse, it attempts to follow some rules of reasoning and persuasion. So Jefferson, in copying the sentiments and rhetoric of his time, did not say: I have a feeling that the united colonies should be free of Britain, therefore all readers should agree. Instead, he begins with a "self-evident" proposition that could be examined and possibly disputed, that "all men" have the "right" to "liberty". Though the claim for independence, based on John Locke's natural rights, seemed acceptable to the Congress by the time it voted for the Declaration, many in Congress knew all too well that the Declaration's initial support for this claim of independence -- the reference to the universal right to individual liberty -- was questionable for the American colonies, because it was contradicted in fact by the colonies' own systems of servitude. The Declaration seems more successful when it provides examples of the lack of communal or political liberty, the disregard of the Magna Carta and the Rights of Englishmen, in the British rule of America.
Academic courses about argumentation often feature a certain kind of thinking and verbal communication. In preparing to teach such a course, I collected relevant terms, from my training and experience, and attempted to define them. There are more terms listed here than one course could likely find relevant; in practice in class, we used only a bit more than half these terms; but I provided all of them to the students. Some definitions make dense reading. Such courses are more about evaluating another person's persuasion than attempting to persuade.
Key to understanding and communicating about the course is this specialized vocabulary. Some words that have one meaning in our typical conversation have another meaning here. Some of the concepts here go back more than a thousand years, and are part of the basis of traditional education.
In such an argumentation course, one would learn about reading what other people believe and hope to convey, to see whether they do a good job of explaining. One may see instances in which people disagree with each other, and maybe figure out why they are disputing, and about what. Ideally, one will learn not to be easily fooled. (No one who has completed such a course successfully is likely to fall for or join a cult leader.) Finally, one may learn about writing what one believes, in an entertaining and reasonable way, and so that a reader will understand and probably agree; one might be better able to “win arguments” after taking such a course. Some of the class assignments can be rigorous mental work.
Students in the classroom studying argumentation may enjoy the movie, based on a true story, "The Great Debaters," (starring Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, Journee Smolett, and other actors in a great ensemble).
Such an academic course may say relatively little about the effectiveness of a particular political discourse for a broad or varied audience -- how a campaigner gets enough votes or a policy wins support -- which, as social scientists are discovering, turns more on the emotional state and values of the listener, and maybe good story-telling, than on pure academic reasoning. But such a course can give us at least some insight into how one appeals successfully to an audience.
If you have gotten this far reading, you probably feel pretty comfortable with your role or experience as teacher or academic learner. But with Trump's re-election, some articulate public intellectuals and historians -- David Brooks and Michael Sandel -- have mused on TV that many who voted to re-elect Trump, those without college degrees, have been motivated by feeling under-confident and dubious about the potential for formal education to prepare them for life in general. Yet another public historian and intellectual, Heather Cox Richardson, says we should counter the scapegoating by some voters, by arguing that all of us -- not some distant, controlling, "liberal elites" -- are responsible for our own votes. It remains to be seen how we can understand voters' decision-making and apply that understanding to improve our curricula, civics instruction, and teaching; critical, self-reflective reasoning should still be a component. Along the way, we might inform policy-making to "promote the general welfare," as the Constitution begins, and make more relatable, persuasive, and inspiring the rhetoric of campaigning.
In this time of banning books and cancelling topics, and campus protests, teachers might practice what they preach about the value of considering the opposing view. Sidney Hook, in his essay, "The Centrality of Method," from his Education for Modern Man (1946), advises on teaching history or social science: "No matter how controversial a subject may be, the teacher is justified in reaching or stating conclusions provided he has honestly made accessible to students the relevant data and arguments of the conflicting positions."
Good citizenship, it has become increasingly clear, calls for evaluating political campaigns, public health policy among other government policies, and the reliability of online sources. Hence reasoning about argumentation.
Here are the terms, grouped according to their sequential use in my classes -- starting with the basics. Probably the most important concepts to understand here, in order of appearance, have titles in bold underlined , brown font in the list: logic, intuition, facts, reasoning, rhetoric, argument, cause, consistency, fallacy, bias, jurisdiction, and conflict-resolution. I conclude with some instructive sources for possible follow-up reading.
Vocabulary and Definitions, with Notes, for Reasoning and Argumentation
I
Logic
Traditionally, the “science of thinking” or “science of the laws of thought” (especially deductive reasoning), with rules to arrive at truth, from a statement to a conclusion. This study of the methods and principles, or laws, of reasoning does not extend to the process of reasoning, what goes on in the mind. (Today, the “science of thinking” can be medical or biological, with brain scans of blood flow. It can also be psychology.) For our purposes, logic can be methods and principles to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. The study of logic, which is a branch of philosophy, and which today can be especially useful for law and computer programming, has been one of the foundations of traditional education.
“Gut feeling” / Intuition
Knowing without conscious reasoning – sensing that something is true without consciously knowing how or why. Typically, this is by “feelings,” which are sometimes called “mental agitation” or stress – good or bad. Statisticians and scientists may point out, and show, that intuition can be misleading hence unreliable for making predictions about populations, and even about one's own reactions and preferences.
Epistomology
Old Philosophy: the “nature and theory of knowledge”. How can we know that, or how, we “know” something?
Metaphysics
Old Philosophy: laws, that are derived by reasoning, by which we know what is reality. The relation between mind and matter, from the point of view of philosophy. This branch of philosophy was studied before the current advances in the biological study of brain and mind. In olden days, some people thought this science could relate to magic. In Mary Shelley’s story of Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein studied metaphysics, among other subjects, before being inspired to create his creature. (Metaphysics and much old reasoning about knowledge is not taken so seriously, now, because it lacked support of data.)
Facts
What your audience is likely to agree on, some objective truth (the opposite of opinion), and/or some information or statement that can be verified, that can be shown is true. A “false fact,” as I called it in history classes [nowadays sometimes called – perhaps falsely -- “fake news,” or maybe, as a former President Trump press secretary or spokesperson said, an “alternative fact”], is a statement that a speaker thinks [or only claims?] is a fact, is true, but is not; this might be a false statement. And facts of today may be falsehoods tomorrow. These days in the 21st century, a traditional course in argumentation might include guidance and practice in spotting dubious websites, and evaluating the facts and wisdom of online sources.
Psychology
The study of the process of thinking, of what goes on in the mind – not the principles and laws of thinking. People may come to a logical, or factual conclusion by individualized processes of jumping from sensory perceptions and feelings and recollections and, eventually, to reasoning, without following consistent steps that we study in logic.
Rational / Irrational
Normal / abnormal (reasoning), with the normal implying at least the attempt to be logical or reasonable. This does not necessarily pertain to health or emotion: one can be irrational and be perfectly healthy about it. The prevalence of the irrational may be frustrating to logicians. However, many economists and marketers consider irrational (or seemingly irrational) decision-making as fundamental for inclusion in the cause and analysis of individual purchases.
Reasoning
Figuring out whether something, frequently what someone is saying, is true or not, using all your knowledge, fairness, and judgment that you can and is necessary. Getting from old truths to new truths, from what is accepted to what is debatable. This can involve emotions and authorities, but not necessarily. Of all the vocabulary on this list, this word is perhaps most central to the topics.
II
Normative Reasoning / Thinking
How should things be? (Politicians’ and clergy’s rhetoric). Moral.
Instrumental Reasoning / Thinking
What works? What will happen? Pragmatic.
Critical Reasoning / Thinking
Why? Why should we talk about this? Could I be wrong? Critiquing and analytical.
Rhetoric
The way in which someone communicates effectively (vocabulary, tone, or style), especially (according to Aristotle) persuades. It takes into account the motivation and methods of the speaker and the background of the audience. Rhetoric, along with logic, was one of the most traditional aspects of education. It used to relate to oratory – speeches. Rhetoric can feature particular speaking styles, varying with purpose and audience:
Politics: My fellow Americans, we have an historic opportunity…
Religion: My dear friends, welcome to the House of the Lord…
Comedy: Hey, what a great crowd tonight. Is everybody feeling good?
Alternatively, the term "rhetoric" might refer to the genre of writing: narrative, cause-effect, comparison-contrast.
These days, this word “rhetoric” can also have a negative meaning – empty, emotional words, that may hide the truth.
III
Argument
Structured reasoning, expressing a view, about a topic that is controversial, upon which there may be disagreement. Note this is different from our common definition, which means people fighting with words about something: “Mommy and Daddy are having an argument.” No, in this sense of logic and reasoning, argument does not necessarily mean anything bad! An argument is not necessarily a fight. It is a structured presentation of steps in reasoning to present a position – to arrive at a truth. Please note that, technically and practically, one can't argue about a matter of taste, though that may be tempting: one can't make an argument that blueberry pie is (or tastes) better than apple pie; you can't prove that. In formal logic, an argument is a group of propositions leading to a proven proposition. This is one of the most important terms on this vocabulary list.
Proposition – Sentence, Statement, Premise (sometimes spelled “premiss”), Warrant or Assumption, Inference, Conclusion (Claim)
Proposition – this does not always mean asking someone for a date. In formal logic, it is a grammatical construction, like a sentence, that can be either true or false (different from a question, command or exclamation). A proposition, by itself, cannot be an argument, but helps form an argument in relation to other propositions.
Statement –information, may be an opinion or fact. A proposition contains a statement. (Some experts say the two are the same.) Both the support and the conclusion of an argument can be expressed in statements.
Premise – one or more propositions that provide grounds for accepting a conclusion. A starting point of an argument. One of the major ways of critiquing, or understanding, an argument is to supply, and perhaps critique, a missing premise. Premises can also be called supports, or evidence.
Warrant – an unstated assumption or a missing premise. Often it’s a general principle of human motivation. (The “backing” supports it.)
Inference – the reasoning that takes a listener or reader, logically, from premise to conclusion. In argument analysis, an inference can sometimes be converted (mentally) by the reader into an assumption, or warrant, or missing premise.
Conclusion- the claim, or thesis, of the argument. The proven proposition. The conclusion of one argument can be a premise for another argument. Maybe an argument can have more than one conclusion.
So the order in argument analysis generally is: premise(s), (including any warrant) inference (by listener or reader), conclusion.
Deductive Reasoning / Argument
Premise, ideally, provides conclusive grounds for accepting conclusion. Usually conclusion is more specific than premise(s). Going from general rules to specific result or thesis: Philosophy and law. Detective Sherlock Holmes supposedly says, "Brilliant deduction, Watson," after Watson comes to a particular prediction or conclusion about a case based on some general principle of human conduct. In terms of logical structure, most of the arguments we read and write academically will be of this kind, though they may be considered sound or not sound due to the factual nature of the premises as well as the logic of the inferences. (Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice in Wonderland, was very interested in funny examples of these arguments.) Note: sometimes an argument essay may have both inductive and deductive reasoning; for example, a premise of a deductive argument may involve an assumption based on inductive reasoning.
Inductive Reasoning / Argument
Premises provide some ground for accepting conclusion. Conclusion is usually more general than premises: Preponderance of or overwhelming evidence, from experimentation. Science, sometimes law.
A priori vs. Empirical
A priori is a statement or claim based on accepted truth, assumption, principle (for deductive reasoning). Empirical is a statement or claim based on experience or experimentation (for inductive reasoning).
Isaiah Berlin, writing on the history of philosophy, and the transition from medieval reasoning to the Age of Enlightenment, divides much of this history between a priori, formal, or deductive reasoning -- see the above elements of argument -- and empirical or inductive reasoning -- characteristic of scientific method or investigation.
Argument vs. Explanation / Justification and Cause
Rome fell because of liberalism. – explanation (past event, possible fact, cause-effect)
I am late because my alarm didn’t go off. – justification based on a cause-effect
Rome fell because the book says so. – argument (proof, reason, justification – seeking evidence for a claimed truth)
I am late, and you don’t mark late people tardy, so you shouldn’t mark me tardy. - argument
Cause vs. Correlation vs. Coincidence
Global warming is increasing at the same time as people are living longer and using the internet and English more. Which is Cause? Correlation? Simple Coincidence?
Categorical imperative
From Immanuel Kant, 18th century German philosopher, and the basis of many premises and inferences in reasoning:
A morality based on reasoning, not, apparently in religions, but similar to variations of the golden rule: what is a universal good is a “maxim that can hold as a universal law for myself as well as others” (compare with Rev. Martin Luther King’s definition of the just law in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”).
Classical / Aristotelian Argument
A typical structure of argument that includes claim, support, but does not devote much attention to the opposing view. Aristotle analyzed argument according to a) ethos – the respect we might give the speaker or the speaker’s credibility, b) logos – the argument itself, and c) pathos – the feelings of the audience.
Rogerian Argument
Bridging differences with opposing view – making peace, including both views.
From psychologist Carl Rogers.
Appeal (various types – ethos, pathos, logos) – similar to types of claims, or may be parts of an argument
Appeal is the method / strategy of reaching an audience. Some scholars use the terms ethos, logos, pathos to mean types of appeals, or persuasion: appeal to values (ethos) that both speaker and audience (or at least the audiences) share, appeal to logic (logos) and appeal to feelings (pathos). Some scholars say all arguments must have these elements, referring to the arguer (ethos), the audience (pathos), and the argument (logos).
Deductive Reasoning (again): Syllogism
A deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Infer / Imply:
Infer – to reason as a reader or listener in getting an understanding from a text of speaker, from evidence or premises. Inference is the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion. Inference is a key part of logic and reasoning. Much of our understanding, or misunderstanding each other, is based on inference.
Imply- to reason as the writer or speaker in leading someone else to make an inference to a conclusion or understanding, by hints, reasoning or premises. Sometimes this term can have a negative connotation, as when someone implies, but does not say directly, that someone else did something wrong.
Conditional Statements
If P then Q. A conditional statement can express the inference upon which the argument relies – how to get from the premise to the conclusion. But conditional statements can also be statements within an argument. And one can have entire deductive arguments, with premises (but not claim or conclusion), made of conditional statements. One has to be careful in at least two ways: 1) conditional arguments don’t assert as much as other arguments, because they are based on premises that aren’t required to be realities. 2) Many statements or propositions in language include the word “if” but aren’t argumentative at all. An example of an argument completely of conditional premises is a “hypothetical syllogism”: If all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. If you begin an argument with a conditional, you might be accused of committing the “fallacy of false hypothesis”.
Toulmin Analysis of Argument – relates to inductive argument
The argument analysis whose vocabulary includes: claim, support (or data), warrant, backing
Claims - Various Types
Examples: Claims of fact, definition, cause, value, or policy
IV
Plausibility, Credibility, Correctness, Reliability, Validity, Certainty, Prove / Proof
Plausible- not usually a formal logic term – acceptable (but not certain) proposition – more evidence might be needed. The quality of a statement being enough, the minimal acceptability, for us to go on and pay attention to the rest of an argument.
Credible, consistent - believability based on authority, a person, or amount of evidence. If the credible person is the arguer, this quality might also be called “ethos”.
Correct- formal logic definition, in inductive reasoning, evidence provides ground for accepting claim, thesis, or conclusion.
Reliable- believability based on fact. Related to certainty, validity.
Valid- formal logic definition, in deductive logic, when premises – introductory assumptions -- if true, must lead to conclusion, thesis, or claim being true. Such an argument is also called “sound”.
Certain- logically acceptable, persuasive argument – leading to acceptable conclusion. (Statistical test results can provide a way of expressing degrees of certainty, mathematically.)
Proof- (usually a noun) in formal, deductive logic, an example of, supposedly, sound, acceptable, deductive reasoning.
Many of these terms have other, general meanings in common use.
Persuade vs. Convince
There are a variety of distinctions between these two, depending on one’s source of information. For me, persuade must be based on communication between or among people, while convince could be an internally derived conclusion or result, in one individual. “The weather report persuades me it will rain. Looking at the sky convinces me it will rain.” But logic, argument, or reasoning books can be more specific about persuasion. In these sources, persuasion may be an appeal to emotion. (After the U.S. War of Independence, while the founders were writing and approving the Constitution, John Marshall said of his fellow Virginians: Patrick Henry, the orator, could persuade, but James Madison, the thinker and reasoner, convinced.) Or persuasion might be any communication that changes a person’s behavior – that motivates someone else, a reader or listener, to take action.
Consistency
One of the keys to sound or correct reasoning. Absence of error / contradiction. Also may be a way of judging an authority.
Fallacy (various types, see a textbook -- or you might read Max Schulman's funny short story, "Love is a Fallacy")
Flaw in reasoning, or a flawed argument. It can be in deductive or inductive reasoning.
Bias, prejudice, stereotyping
Bias – a tendency of belief or choice that’s based sometimes on unconscious preference or belief, not based on fact or valid reasoning, and sometimes on skewing of results in a study based on un-considered variables. Bias can be positive, negative, or neutral – an opinion poll that is not of a representative sample or induces respondents to answer in a particular way would have bias, but that may not be good or bad, just unreliable.
"Prejudice" and "stereotyping" are terms that in general usage have negative connotation concerning reasoning about people. In formal logic, stereotyping, describing a group in a particular way, is not always something negative, but it certainly can be a fallacy, or flaw, of reasoning. Prejudice can involve reasoning that’s deductive (going from an idea about a group to an assumption about an individual) or, like stereotyping, inductive (going from experience or hearsay about individuals to assumptions about the whole group). Prejudice, in at least the negative sense, literally, is pre-juding, an assumption without proper reasoning. A tactful, less negative way to say this is “generalization”. Generalization, in inductive reasoning, can be an important part of the scientific method – and, like scientific reasoning, is open to challenge.
Jurisdiction
Who’s in charge? Who can make the change you want?
If you’re arguing against capital punishment, who’s responsible for it?
V
Disclaimers or Caveats:
Disagreement, Conflict-Resolution
Reasoning can sometimes help persuade and clarify, hence sometimes resolve conflicts between parties. But conflict-resolution can also deal with power. For example, the Declaration of Independence did nothing to persuade the king of Britain to relinquish his North American colonies -- but it may have made a deep impression on some influential members of parliament, and, incorporating Thomas Paine's logic of "Common Sense," encouraged American soldiers to keep fighting. Other European countries -- France, Russia, Spain -- which later joined the war aiding the United States, were moved by calculations of the benefit from defeating Britain more than by Jefferson's anti-monarchical statements. But for generations after U.S. independence, people of many nations, first the French, were inspired by the Declaration to use similar arguments or wording for justifying or concluding their national conflicts.
Decision-making
Just because you can reason about a controversial matter does not mean you can decide. Decision-making sometimes turns on gut feelings, bias, or prior training of an individual, or the politics of a group, rather than on reasoning. Reasoning can, or maybe should, inform deliberative decision-making.
Some More Reading Sources:
In addition to other readings listed on this website, here are a few we used for analysis in my argument class, as the semester progressed:
Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech
Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Declaration of Sentiments"
Henry David Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience, excerpts
Stephen Vincent Benet's story "Devil and Daniel Webster"
Simon Wiesenthal's anthology, Sunflower, selected essays
And here are two 21st century books on reasoning, argumentation, and decision-making:
Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, 2011
Demagoguery and Democracy, by Patricia Roberts-Miller, 2017
Though I disagree with a few of their assumptions and claims, these two works have been widely read by college and university students and immensely influential, conveying the importance of new discoveries by social, political, and cognitive scientists. (The Roberts-Miller is a pocket handbook popular as a first-year undergraduate reading experience; the Kahneman is an entertaining tome suitable for a graduate business or psychology course.)
Finally, here are three 21st century essays:
"Words Have Meaning, or They Ought To," by Masha Gessen, from her collection,
Surviving Autocracy, 2020
"Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds," by Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker, Feb. 19, 2017
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, by Timothy Snyder, 2017
Also available online are various TED talks about how we think and arrive at truths.
Comments