nissart.info Handbooks Understanding Arguments Epub

UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS EPUB

Tuesday, July 16, 2019


Understanding. Arguments. An Introduction to Informal Logic. NINTH EDITION. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Duke University. Robert J. Fogelin. Dartmouth College. Book Robert J. Fogelin - Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal An Introduction to Informal Logic read online FB2, EPUB. Understanding Arguments book. Read 13 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. The proven strengths of this argument text include the phil .


Understanding Arguments Epub

Author:AYAKO GUILLORY
Language:English, Spanish, Dutch
Country:Lithuania
Genre:Lifestyle
Pages:369
Published (Last):15.04.2015
ISBN:630-4-28826-640-2
ePub File Size:29.70 MB
PDF File Size:12.71 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Downloads:26051
Uploaded by: RETHA

Скачать бесплатно книгу Understanding Aerodynamics. Arguing from the Real Physics - Doug McLean в форматах fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt или. Der anvendes cookies til at forbedre brugeroplevelsen, annoncering og statistik. Læs mere. Nej takOK. Opret blog. ✕. Søg på bloggen. Understanding Aerodynamics (eBook, ePUB) - McLean, Doug . Relying onclear physical arguments and examples, Mclean provides amuch-needed, fresh.

Participants completed all 20 Time 1 judgments in an average of This result suggests that participants were less critical of their own arguments when they were more personally invested in the issue. So even after writing out their own arguments, those who cared about the issues judged their arguments more favorably than those who cared little.

Study 1b It could be argued that participants low in care reported lower ratings because they actually produced weaker arguments for their own position. Study 1b examines the accuracy of ratings in Study 1a by having independent raters assess the quality of arguments. If the independent raters show that the quality of arguments lowered when participants cared less, then participants had accurately reported the quality of their arguments.

But if the raters judge argument quality as consistent across levels of care, we can then interpret the care and rating correlations from Study 1a as showing that those who cared strongly about the topics had the largest illusions of argument justifications and were the least accurate in their self-assessments by failing to admit the weakness of their own arguments. The evaluators were recruited from the same pool as the original writers, so any difference in ratings is not due to special qualifications or expert knowledge.

Procedure Participants first received a version of the scale training used in previous studies to ensure that they had the same understanding of how to use the scale as the participants in Study 1a.

Participants saw a randomized set of 36 arguments produced by an independent sample and were asked to rate the arguments according to how well it justified the position on an issue through an understanding of the basis of the arguments.

This was the exact same question that participants in Study 1a responded to at both Time 1 and Time 2. Each written argument from the participants received ratings from at least 7 independent judges. Although there was a significant drop between Time 1 and Time 2 ratings in Study 1a, participants were still inaccurately rating their own arguments.

So the largest difference between self and other evaluation was for the writers who cared most about the topics. This evidence confirms that emotionally invested participants gave inaccurately high self-assessment, and they thus showed a stronger illusion of argument justification.

Thus, there was some potential for ambiguity about whether participants thought they should simply judge the validity of their arguments or whether they should assess the persuasive force of their arguments to a heterogeneous group which could conceivably be quite different from how valid they thought there arguments were.

We therefore ran an additional study with instructions that were explicitly worded so as to address this potential problem by ensuring that they were rating the arguments on the same basis used by the independent raters. Methods The experiment followed the same procedure as Study 1a except for changes to the instructions.

When making their Time 1 ratings, participants were asked: Consider your stance on the issue X. If you were to write about your position to a group of other site Turk workers, what rating would your argument be given according to how well it justifies the position on an issue through an understanding of the basis of the arguments? And at Time 2, participants answered the exact same question as had been posed at Time 1.

Other than the changes to the instructions, the procedure was identical to Study 1a. Results and Discussion Twenty-four participants failed the training so only the remaining eighty-five participants responses were analyzed. Neither Time 1 nor Time 2 ratings were significantly different from Study 1a to Study 1c. This study provides strong evidence that removing ambiguity about the audience does not affect the results. In summary, Study 1 demonstrated two distinct effects. First, regardless of the level of emotional investment, people are not well calibrated to the quality of arguments they are able to produce, even when their audience is fully specified.

Second, emotional investment corresponded with high prediction and self-evaluation of argumentative justification and through the ratings of independent judges we found that those who cared the most also had the biggest illusion. Study 2a Study 2 attempted to blunt the illusion and the effect of care by introducing tacit influences, namely manipulations that arise from task framing or priming in ways that would not lead participants to explicitly engage other possible perspectives.

Through a slight change in phrasing we framed the task to neutralize the emotional charge that had been used in Study 1a.

Instead of generating arguments, participants were instructed to create lists of the pros and cons for each topic. This modification led to the generation of very similar content but eliminated the pressure of defending a personal position on a contentious issue.

If the original effects were due to simply the adversarial context of the task, then they should be eliminated in this altered framing.

Participants received a similar training as in Study 1, but the content of the training was restructured into lists of pros and cons. After training, participants considered 20 controversial issues and rated how thoroughly they could list the pros and cons for each topic. Participants next wrote out lists of pros and cons on one of the subsets of 4 issues used in Study 1. After writing out each list, they rerated how thoroughly they could list the pros and cons for those topics.

Finally, participants rated how strongly they cared about each of the 20 controversial issues and reported demographic information. Results and Discussion Nineteen participants failed the training so only the remaining fifty-four participants responses were analyzed.

As in Study 1a, there was a drop from Time 1 to Time 2. Furthermore, the frame of pro and con lists did not eliminate the systematic effects of care. These correlations show that participants low in care gave low ratings for their ability to write out pros and cons and participants high in care gave high ratings for their ability to write out pros and cons.

Study 2b We next attempted to neutralize the intuitive appeal of providing inaccurately high initial judgments at Time 1 by using a tacit prime. If the effects were eliminated when in a reflective mindset, it would suggest that the illusion of justification and the bias of emotional investment can be overcome through subtle primes and does not require directly comparing coherent alternative position.

Procedure The Study 2 procedure was identical to Study 1a, except participants were assigned to one of two conditions and began by answering one of four prompts.

In the Intuition Bad condition, the valence of the instructions was reversed and participants saw one of two prompts promoting reflective thinking. In both conditions participants were required to write approximately 8—10 sentences.

Following the intervention, participants completed the same procedure as reported in Study 1a. These correlations suggest that participants low in care gave low ratings for their ability to justify their position and participants high in care gave high ratings for their ability to justify their position. In the Intuition Good condition there was also a drop from Time 1 to Time 2. These results suggest that the illusion of argument justification cannot be overcome using tacit primes.

Simply entering into a more reflective mindset did not sufficiently counteract the illusion or effects of emotional investment. Next we examined whether more explicit interventions can have a stronger impact. Study 3a In Study 3a, we tested the effect of considering alternative perspectives on rating the ability to justify with arguments.

Unlike Study 2a and 2b, participants would now be actively considering and articulating other points of view.

Work on argumentation shows that when participants are randomly assigned to one side of an argument, those assigned to argue their actual position rate arguments that support their side as more acceptable than opposing arguments Greenwald, Interestingly, those assigned to the opposing side of their position later accept an equal number of arguments from both sides of the issue.

This is the main question addressed in Study 3a. Emotional investment was operationalized as strength of care as in Study 1. Even if emotional investment in the argument in high, there is not necessarily also personal investment. This is the case when considering the opposing position on an issue. There is a high degree of care for the issue at hand, but there is not personal investment in the particular side that is being articulated.

If care prevents accurate assessment, then when considering the ability to articulate a rival view, participants should be equally incapable of accurately predicting their own performance. However, if personal investment is also necessary to produce the illusion, then participants will accurately assess how well they can justify opposing views. Procedure Participants received the same training as in Study 1. Participants then considered the opposing view to their stance on 20 controversial issues and rated how well they could justify the opposing position through an understanding of the basis of the arguments.

Participants next wrote arguments for the opposing view on one of the subsets of 4 issues used in Study 1. After writing out each argument, they rerated how well they could justify the opposing position through an understanding of the basis of the arguments. Results and Discussion Twenty-two participants failed the training so only the remaining sixty-eight participants response were analyzed.

When arguing the opposing view, participants again showed a significant difference between initial ratings and ratings after writing out the argument. These results indicate participants also could not accurately assess their ability to articulate the opposing position. Although there was still a significant drop from Time 1 to Time 2, unlike the previous studies, the level of care no longer influenced the initial ratings. We found that considering the opposite perspective significantly reduced the relationship between care and Time 1 ratings.

This result confirms that both care and personal investment are needed to produce a significant link between care and Time 1 ratings as in Study 1a. Arguing a position without actually believing that position does not produce a systematic relationship between strength of care and positive self-assessment. Importantly, this change in the relationship between care and ratings when articulating an opposing position is not due to a decrease in level of care for the topics.

Participants showed no less confidence when considering opposing positions as compared to considering their own positions. However, in line with Greenwald we found that considering the opposing position at least partially eliminates the bias of emotional investment.

While this intervention was effective, it was quite heavy handed in that participants only considered the opposing viewpoints and were not queried about their own positions.

We therefore next tested an intervention in which multiple perspectives on an issue were taken into consideration. Such an intervention would first introduce opposing views, and then require participants to rate their ability to justify their own views. Furthermore, previous work on cognitive biases like the hindsight bias show that self-generating counter-arguments can help to gain a more objective perspective and have a corrective influence of social biases Lord et al.

Study 3b aims to debias by introducing a new element to the original task; we ask participants to articulate an argument for the opposing position before predicting, writing, and assessing their own arguments. Importantly, this manipulation differs from the pro con frame of Study 2a because participants never had to consider how their own justifications could be countered. Participants must now consider two fully elaborated coherent positions.

Procedure The procedure was identical to Study 1a expect for one addition. After the training portion, participants wrote out opposing arguments for four issues.

Participants wrote arguments for one of the two subsets used in the previous studies. After Time 1 ratings of 20 items, participants then wrote out arguments for their own position on the same four issues they had previously considered. They then rerated their ability to justify their own position after each argument, rated strength of care for all 20 items, and reported demographic information. Results and Discussion Sixteen participants failed the training so only the remaining fifty-three participants response were analyzed.

After writing an argument for the opposing view, participants again showed a significant difference between initial ratings and ratings after writing out the argument. We next analyzed the effect of care on ratings. In line with predictions, the intervention eliminated systematic relationships between care and ratings. The intervention managed to partially eliminate the bias of care while still maintaining the same level of confidence as the ratings without a pre-task intervention Study 1.

It is also important to note that the intervention did not cause participants to simply care less about the issues. This intervention provides evidence that a shift in perspective before considering personally held positions helps overcome biased predictions of the quality of argumentative justifications. General Discussion These experiments demonstrate a consistent failure to accurately assess the ability to produce justification through arguments.

In particular, when exclusively articulating their own point of view, participants in our studies both over-predicted their abilities to justify their positions and rated their own arguments as better than when rated by independent judges. Furthermore, the strength of the illusion increased for those who were emotionally invested in the topic. Study 2 suggested that tacit influences are not effective correctives.

Study 3 demonstrated that explicitly considering opposing points of view eliminates the effects of emotional investment on the initial assessment of the ability to offer justification.

On the surface, the illusion of argument justification may seem at odds with recent work showing there is an illusion of explanatory depth for mechanistic explanations of public policies but not when generating reasons for a position on the issue Fernbach et al, in press.

But a key difference between these studies may be in the sorts of topics considered by participants. Fernbach et al. It may be the case that for less familiar, more mechanistic topics there is an illusion of causal understanding, but for more familiar less mechanistic topics there is an illusion or argument justification. Further research could investigate these fine-grained distinctions in more detail. You might think that several causes produce several effects, the immediate intention of wishing to look producing the visual consciousness of a mental nature, the support of the eye faculty producing the apprehension of the object, and the apparent object such as a vase producing its own particular mental features.

ISBN – Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic pdf ePub

In that case, since it would be produced by these various causes, it would have the various features just described, such as having a mental nature and so on, and so that eye consciousness would become many, equal in number to its aspects described above. If that is accepted, then the resultant visual consciousness is not produced by these causes such as the intention and so on. The particular aspects such as the mental nature, the endowment with the features of the object and so on are produced individually, but the one who possesses these aspects, the visual consciousness itself, has no cause and is therefore not produced by anything.

You might respond by saying that the apprehension of the object and the other aspects are not separate, in the sense that they are nothing other than consciousness. You may think that there is still no fault because the aspects and the possessor of these aspects are of the same essential identity, and only labelled as separate based on conceptual distinctions.

In that case, the causes such as attention, would perform their function for the conceptual distinctions, the imputed phenomena such as the mental nature and so on, but the substantially existent consciousness itself would not be produced by any cause, and so consciousness would be causeless.

If you claim that the essential identity of the effect is one, but its aspects are multiple, then this leads to the fault of the qualities being separate from that which possesses them. The question is: In the first case of production by itself alone, since it would not be able to produce a plurality, this implies causeless production.

Similarly, since one cause also can not perform the function of producing one effect, then it follows that the single and the multiple must both lack causes, and once again there is the fault of production occurring without any cause, as explained above. If the object, like the blue [flower], produces the visual consciousness in dependence on other causes, such as the appearance, sense faculty, attention and so on, and you say that it has been produced by other causes as well, the result will cease to be singular, because it will possess several features or qualities that have been produced by the various causes, such as the object, faculty and attention.

Then, it might be said that a single cause only produces its own single result. Several things do not produce just one thing, And many things do not create a multiplicity. One thing is not produced by many things.

And from a single thing, a single thing is not produced. Moreover, other arguments might be given in response to one who asserts that several causes, such as the appearance, faculty and attention, give rise to a single result, such as visual cognition. You might think that many causes produce many effects, but then since it would be impossible for several causes to produce only a single effect, it would be quite meaningless to speak of a gathering of several causes.

The assertion that one cause produces several effects is also unsound, since it presupposes a single cause that cannot be divided into parts, and this is impossible. It can be seen that a single cause such as a seed would be incapable of producing its effect, the sprout, without relying upon other conditions, such as earth, water, warmth, time and so on. It is also not the case that a single cause gives rise to a single effect, since this is contrary to direct experience, namely the successive production of a variety of effects like the sprout, the flower, the fruit and so on, from a variety of causes and conditions such as the seed, water, fertilizer, heat, moisture and so on.

Therefore, when thoroughly examining, a truly singular phenomenon that lacks a plurality of features or qualities cannot be established at all, whether as a causal or resultant entity.

And without any such singular phenomenon, then the plural too, which must necessarily be composed of the singular, must also be non-existent.

Nevertheless, in the case of a thing such as a sprout, even though it consists of several parts such as its colour and shape and so on, they are still labelled as one thing, i. And also in the case of a single phenomenon such as a particle, when dividing it according to its features, such as substance and direction, it is labelled as multiple.

When analyzing with ultimate reasoning, they cannot be established according to any of these four alternatives of single, multiple, etc. There are also other arguments which investigate the cause, effect and identity, such as, for example, the division into the three times of past, present and future, i.

The result of the future has not yet arisen in the present, and so it is not produced. And finally, the present result has already been established as its own identity and so it would be meaningless for it to be produced again.

The Illusion of Argument Justification

Regarding the effect that is produced, if one examines whether it is an existent effect that arises or a non-existent one, or one that is both or neither, the Introduction to the Middle Way says:. If it is something existent, what need is there for its production? But if it does not exist, what could be done to it? If it is both [existent and non-existent], what can be done?

And if neither, what can be done? If you consider that the result to be produced is something existent which develops, this is unreasonable. If it is existent, then it must exist having already established to its own identity as a sprout and so on, and being existent, it would be unnecessary for it to be produced anew.

It is just like a grain of barley, which, having ripened once, does not need to ripen all over again. If something already existent still needed to be produced then that would lead to the fault of production continuing ad infinitum. For example, even if someone were to go to great lengths to assemble hundreds of causes and conditions, they would still never be able to produce the non-existent horns on the head of a rabbit. You might think that the effect, such as the sprout, was formerly non-existent, but is made anew into something existent by the causes such as the seed.

It is not so.

See a Problem?

Since existent and non-existent are mutually contradictory, they could never combine on the basis of a single entity. In terms of actual entities, there are no phenomena whatsoever that were formerly non-existent, and later changed into something existent.

Causes and conditions could not transform unconditioned space, for example, into the identity of a conditioned, existent phenomenon. Thus, simply on a conventional level, effects appear based on causes. Formerly, prior to the gathering of their causes and conditions, they did not appear, and now, when the causes and conditions are assembled, they do.

Thus, the phenomena that are conventional entities simply appear by the force of dependent origination, and in reality there are no existent phenomena whatsoever that transform into non-existent ones, and there are no non-existent phenomena that transform into existent ones.

The explanation is similar to that given in the case of existent and non-existent phenomena. They are all merely appearances on the conventional, relative level, and ultimately, they are empty of their own essential identity.

At the level of the genuine nature of things, there is no observation of any features such as the transformation of something existent into something non-existent or non-existent into existent, of any going or coming, arising or ceasing, increasing or decreasing. You might wonder how it is that production of results should be asserted, given that neither existent nor non-existent effects are produced, and that, aside from these two, no third mode of production is possible.

It is asserted that the arising of effects is nothing other than the undeceiving appearance of dependent origination, and when analyzed as to whether it is existent or non-existent, it is not established in any way whatsoever, but is just like the example of a magical illusion and so on.

It is impossible for a knowable phenomenon to be both existent and non-existent since these two are directly opposed to one another. And it is also impossible for a phenomenon to be neither existent nor non-existent, because it is impossible for there to be some third option in between these two directly opposed positions. Thus, apart from the rather deceitful position of asserting nothing at all, our own tradition does not make any kind of definite statement about how things are.

As long as one still maintains a basis for conceptual reference, there can not possibly be an apprehension that does away with the four extremes altogether. In the actual state of simplicity, in which all conceptual focus has subsided, there are no assertions or conceptual references whatsoever with regard to the four extremes.

Even so, it is quite unlike the dull confusion of not having realized ultimate reality, or a state of unconsciousness. To begin with, there is an analysis of the essential identity of all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena to determine whether or not there is true singularity.

In the case of those conditioned phenomena of the five aggregates possessing physical form, there is a division into above, below, the cardinal and intermediate directions and the centre. Through this, it can be seen that, for something such as a vase, singularity is simply a conceptual notion applied to the various features that are the basis for such an imputation.

Quick Links

True singularity is not established, and the same applies in the case of its component parts. The body and the limbs are also divided into parts in the same way. In short, all that possesses physical form and is composed of material particles may be broken down to its basis, which is the infinitely small particle.

And, according to the logic explained before, for that most subtle particle to be surrounded by particles in the various directions, it must have sides, which means it must have parts, and so on, in an infinite regression. If not, then however many subtle particles are gathered together, they could never grow any larger. Thus, all phenomena with material form lack true singularity. In addition, the eight or the six collections of consciousness can not be established as truly singular since they consist of various cognitive acts and mental states, take various features as their focus, and arise in different forms from the gathering of the four conditions, and then cease.

By analyzing everything that has the nature of arising and ceasing deriving from its own causes, even the subtlemost indivisible moment can not be established, and so all phenomena included within mind and matter lack any true singularity. Unconditioned phenomena are imputations made with regard to the eliminated aspects of objects of negation, and are also lacking in any essential identity.

In short, all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena can not be shown to have any true singularity, and since this is not established, plurality that is made up of what is singular must also remain unestablished. And so, since there is no mode of true existence aside from being truly singular or plural, it must follow that individuals and phenomena are proven to be without inherent identity, just as it is explained more elaborately in The Ornament of the Middle Way. All phenomena do not come into being through their own inherent identity, but as a result of the coming together of causes and conditions, and when there are no conditions they do not arise.

Even at the time when they appear, they appear whilst lacking any inherent existence, since they are like reflections, brought about by causes and conditions. Free from any conceptual elaborations such as being permanent or non-existent, going or coming, arising or ceasing or being one or many, they appear whilst lacking true reality.

When evaluating in this way, using reasoning investigating the ultimate in accordance with the actual nature of things, they are found to be mere unfailing dependent arising. Otherwise, if they were truly established in any way, such as arising according to the four extremes or four alternatives, or being existent or non-existent, or permanent or impermanent etc.

According to the Middle Way tradition, for whom the unreal illusory appearances of dependent origination and emptiness arise in the same reality, all the conventions of mere appearance are extremely reasonable.

This being so, the conventions of the world, as well as the supermundane conventions of the Four Truths, Three Jewels and so on, are all perfectly established. This king of reasonings, the Great Interdependence, includes all the other types of ultimate logic, such as the Diamond Splinter and so on, because they are all concerned with the seemingly real, unexamined appearances of dependent origination. When analyzed, no causes, effects or essential identities whatsoever can be established. The extensive variations of this logic that investigates the meaning of dependent origination are to be found in The Root Verses of the Middle Way and elsewhere.

Therefore, at the relative level, cause, effect and inherent identity appear in that way, and are labelled with such conventions. Ultimately, causes, effects and inherent identities lack any true nature, being emptiness with the identity of the three doors of liberation. This point concerning equalness in which the truths of appearance and emptiness are indivisible is just like the sphere of space, and is beyond the realm of conceptual thought, unimaginable and inexpressible, yet with non-conceptual wisdom, it can be meditated in the manner of pure self-knowing awareness.

During the post-meditation phase, one has the confident certainty that all things appear yet lack true reality, just like the examples of a magical illusion, dream, reflection, magical creations and so on. And, with the wisdom that thoroughly discerns the two truths, one is brought to an undeluded realization concerning all the categories of the ground, path and fruition.

Through comprehending the meaning of emptiness in this way, all the enlightened qualities of the path and fruition of the Great Vehicle will arise.When analyzed, no causes, effects or essential identities whatsoever can be established. In reality, if we apply reasoning, then not only at an ultimate level, but also conventionally speaking, arising is never really observed.

Claire rated it liked it Jul 03, Tacit influences can drastically influence a wide variety of tasks such as evaluating contingencies and reporting belief in God. While this intervention was effective, it was quite heavy handed in that participants only considered the opposing viewpoints and were not queried about their own positions.

Actual Explanation Regarding the effect that is produced, if one examines whether it is an existent effect that arises or a non-existent one, or one that is both or neither, the Introduction to the Middle Way says: Change language. In an area like politics, where arguments can eventually lead to important public policy, it seems especially important to know how well an argument is understood.

Whether it is a young child talking about which toy is best or a leading intellectual justifying a complex technical position, arguments are a key part of human interactions.