Page 29 - 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. 29
the elements of argument: six steps to a thick theory 29
overcome we need to turn to key aspects of argument that are better rec-
ognized by the disciplines of rhetoric and dialectics.
3. Step Two: Argument in its Rhetorical Context
Following O’Keefe, 1977, many studies of argument have distin-
guished two meanings of the word “argument” that he labels “argu-
Emnegnlti1s”ha, nwdhe“arergtuhme eonbts2e.”rvBaotitohnmtheaant isnogms ehoanvee their roots in ordinary
argued may mean that
they offered premises in favour of some conclusion a((aargrrgguuummmeeennntstt12)i)n.oTrt,hhmee lolaorte--
simply, that they strongly disagreed with someone
ter notion underscores the interactions in which
pgirceimanis’se/sceonnseclu(isniostnanarcgeus mofenartgs uarmeeenmt1b)eadrdeeedminbeudndceedrt.aMinotyr,ewghenicehraclalyn,
arise from too much opinion (when arguers disagree) or too little (when
arguers do not know what to think).
We can visually represent the relationship between arguments and
their contexts of uncertainty as I have below. Above all else, this high-
lights the extent to which real arguments are not abstract entities, but
tools with a concrete purpose: to resolve the uncertainty (and disagree-
ment) that gives rise to them. In attempts to analyze and assess argu-
ments as successful and unsuccessful, this means that we need to ask
whether they successfully resolve the uncertainty they respond to. As
this uncertainty resides in a group of people, a successful argument in
practice is one which convincingly addresses them and eliminates their
uncertainty.
Conditions of Uncertainty
Premises in support of a
conclusion (argument1)
overcome we need to turn to key aspects of argument that are better rec-
ognized by the disciplines of rhetoric and dialectics.
3. Step Two: Argument in its Rhetorical Context
Following O’Keefe, 1977, many studies of argument have distin-
guished two meanings of the word “argument” that he labels “argu-
Emnegnlti1s”ha, nwdhe“arergtuhme eonbts2e.”rvBaotitohnmtheaant isnogms ehoanvee their roots in ordinary
argued may mean that
they offered premises in favour of some conclusion a((aargrrgguuummmeeennntstt12)i)n.oTrt,hhmee lolaorte--
simply, that they strongly disagreed with someone
ter notion underscores the interactions in which
pgirceimanis’se/sceonnseclu(isniostnanarcgeus mofenartgs uarmeeenmt1b)eadrdeeedminbeudndceedrt.aMinotyr,ewghenicehraclalyn,
arise from too much opinion (when arguers disagree) or too little (when
arguers do not know what to think).
We can visually represent the relationship between arguments and
their contexts of uncertainty as I have below. Above all else, this high-
lights the extent to which real arguments are not abstract entities, but
tools with a concrete purpose: to resolve the uncertainty (and disagree-
ment) that gives rise to them. In attempts to analyze and assess argu-
ments as successful and unsuccessful, this means that we need to ask
whether they successfully resolve the uncertainty they respond to. As
this uncertainty resides in a group of people, a successful argument in
practice is one which convincingly addresses them and eliminates their
uncertainty.
Conditions of Uncertainty
Premises in support of a
conclusion (argument1)
