Page 48 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 48
four critical essays on argumentation
Or put differently: from a small circle perspective (micro-level), what
is going on within the biggest circle (macro-level) could easily be described
as fallacious (according to micro-level standards and criteria). And what is
going on within the biggest circle might be described as absolutely correct,
valid and/or sound (according to macro-level standards and criteria), while
the standards and criteria of the small(est) circle might easily be described
as fallacious (according to macro-level standards and criteria). What is a
bit surprising, even strange about this micro-macro relationship, is that
both levels (micro and macro) could and would use the same ‘conceptual’
grounds for declaring something as fallacy.
Here is an illustration from well developed fields within humanities
and social sciences, the difference between macrohistory and microhistory:
A macrohistory takes a long view of history, looking at
multiple societies and nations over the course of centuries
to reach broad-ranging conclusions about the march of
history. Using vast amounts of data—some verified but
much of it estimated—the macrohistorian makes
conjectures based on averages. This approach might appear
to have the most interest on a general level, but often loses
sight of local and individual differences.
When writing microhistory, the author
concentrates upon a single individual or community and
through study and analysis, attempts to reach
understanding of wider issues at play. Very tightly limited
both spatially and temporally, a microhistory might appear
of rather limited importance to a reader whose interests lie
beyond that particular point in time and space but, in fact,
the approach does have certain advantages. The author of
such a history is usually an expert in their field, knowing
not just the generalities but also the minutae of their study.
This allows a level of depth not usually found in more
broadly based works. In addition, they may avoid the
natural biases that come in macrohistories from the area of
specialization of the author. (Steele 2006)
48
Or put differently: from a small circle perspective (micro-level), what
is going on within the biggest circle (macro-level) could easily be described
as fallacious (according to micro-level standards and criteria). And what is
going on within the biggest circle might be described as absolutely correct,
valid and/or sound (according to macro-level standards and criteria), while
the standards and criteria of the small(est) circle might easily be described
as fallacious (according to macro-level standards and criteria). What is a
bit surprising, even strange about this micro-macro relationship, is that
both levels (micro and macro) could and would use the same ‘conceptual’
grounds for declaring something as fallacy.
Here is an illustration from well developed fields within humanities
and social sciences, the difference between macrohistory and microhistory:
A macrohistory takes a long view of history, looking at
multiple societies and nations over the course of centuries
to reach broad-ranging conclusions about the march of
history. Using vast amounts of data—some verified but
much of it estimated—the macrohistorian makes
conjectures based on averages. This approach might appear
to have the most interest on a general level, but often loses
sight of local and individual differences.
When writing microhistory, the author
concentrates upon a single individual or community and
through study and analysis, attempts to reach
understanding of wider issues at play. Very tightly limited
both spatially and temporally, a microhistory might appear
of rather limited importance to a reader whose interests lie
beyond that particular point in time and space but, in fact,
the approach does have certain advantages. The author of
such a history is usually an expert in their field, knowing
not just the generalities but also the minutae of their study.
This allows a level of depth not usually found in more
broadly based works. In addition, they may avoid the
natural biases that come in macrohistories from the area of
specialization of the author. (Steele 2006)
48
