Page 154 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 154
What Do We Know about the World?
As an analogical argument our example is an instance of the Pragma-Di-
alectical similarity scheme. (If one considers it as belonging to the argu-
ment kind Practical Reasoning, then it will be an instance of the caus-
al argumentation scheme.) The argument is best classified as an instance
of the logos means of persuasion since there is no appeal to either charac-
ter or emotion in view. The dialectical role of the argument is to defend
a policy; the dialogical role is that of response, and the dialogical position
is that of the incumbent.
4. Illustration
Elaine Cassel has “profiled” the argumentation behaviour of mem-
bers of the United States Supreme Court during the recent hearings
about Obama-care. She found, through looking at their argumentation
behaviour, that some of the judges showed empathy and compassion for
poor people, some were of even temperament, some showed an authori-
tarian approach to legislation, some kept their politics out of their argu-
mentation and stuck to legal arguments, some remained aloof from the
fray. Cassel claims to have learned something about the judges by study-
ing their argumentation (see Cassel, 2012).
Suppose we obtained the following result for three parties in a giv-
en election:
Priority rankings Party A Party B Party C
Argument kinds Practical reason- Negative conse- Fairness; Analogy;
ing, positive conse- quences; direct ad Sympathy
quences; fairness hominem; mis-
placed priorities
PD schemes instrumental Symptomatic similarity
Pisteis Ethos Logos pathos
Dialectical role policy +; person +; person – ; policy +; policy +; person –;
defensive policy – person +
Dialogical role response; initiator initiator; response initiator; response
Dialogical position Incumbent Challenger challenger
What might we say about these results? We might venture these
thumbnail sketches:
Party A: Problem-solution oriented but balanced with considera-
tions of fairness; depends on credibility of agent; stresses the advantages
of own policies and leadership; corrects misinterpretations and deflects
criticism.
As an analogical argument our example is an instance of the Pragma-Di-
alectical similarity scheme. (If one considers it as belonging to the argu-
ment kind Practical Reasoning, then it will be an instance of the caus-
al argumentation scheme.) The argument is best classified as an instance
of the logos means of persuasion since there is no appeal to either charac-
ter or emotion in view. The dialectical role of the argument is to defend
a policy; the dialogical role is that of response, and the dialogical position
is that of the incumbent.
4. Illustration
Elaine Cassel has “profiled” the argumentation behaviour of mem-
bers of the United States Supreme Court during the recent hearings
about Obama-care. She found, through looking at their argumentation
behaviour, that some of the judges showed empathy and compassion for
poor people, some were of even temperament, some showed an authori-
tarian approach to legislation, some kept their politics out of their argu-
mentation and stuck to legal arguments, some remained aloof from the
fray. Cassel claims to have learned something about the judges by study-
ing their argumentation (see Cassel, 2012).
Suppose we obtained the following result for three parties in a giv-
en election:
Priority rankings Party A Party B Party C
Argument kinds Practical reason- Negative conse- Fairness; Analogy;
ing, positive conse- quences; direct ad Sympathy
quences; fairness hominem; mis-
placed priorities
PD schemes instrumental Symptomatic similarity
Pisteis Ethos Logos pathos
Dialectical role policy +; person +; person – ; policy +; policy +; person –;
defensive policy – person +
Dialogical role response; initiator initiator; response initiator; response
Dialogical position Incumbent Challenger challenger
What might we say about these results? We might venture these
thumbnail sketches:
Party A: Problem-solution oriented but balanced with considera-
tions of fairness; depends on credibility of agent; stresses the advantages
of own policies and leadership; corrects misinterpretations and deflects
criticism.
