on strike...

[Brant Gaede]

Who is talking about whom about what?

--Brant

I know a wrastling match when I see it

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

When you use the term "evaluate" in reference to the "person's 'argumentation,'" what do you mean?

Do you "evaluate" pursuant to your sense of right and wrong?

Or, truth, or, falsity?

A...

When I use the term "evaluate" in reference to "argumentation," I mean evaluating for logic and truth. I evaluate people - their character - in terms of a sense of (moral) right and wrong, but not arguments. If a person uses arguments which I think the person knows or believes are incorrect, then I would judge the person as being dishonest at least in regard to using those arguments, but this would be a separate judgment from my judgment of an argument's truth or falsity and of its logic.

Ellen

[moralist]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness.

You're "leading" global warming "alarmists" are just useless unproductive liberal parasites leeching off of government grant money.

No alarm = no funding.

They can only lead whoever is stupid enough to follow them.

Greg

The reply has nothing to do with the statement I made

Ellen

I know.

Leading global warming alarmists, also unlike me, are liberal government funding detritus feeders who will say absolutely anything for money..

Greg

[Selene]

Ellen:

When you use the term "evaluate" in reference to the "person's 'argumentation,'" what do you mean?

Do you "evaluate" pursuant to your sense of right and wrong?

Or, truth, or, falsity?

A...

When I use the term "evaluate" in reference to "argumentation," I mean evaluating for logic and truth. I evaluate people - their character - in terms of a sense of (moral) right and wrong, but not arguments. If a person uses arguments which I think the person knows or believes are incorrect, then I would judge the person as being dishonest at least in regard to using those arguments, but this would be a separate judgment from my judgment of an argument's truth or falsity and of its logic.

Ellen

Excellent.

I thought that was your position and it is a perfectly proper way to evaluate an argument.

It does not have a philosophy of argumentation which is a relatively new field.

My evaluating Greg's argumentation and judging it, and labeling it as solid has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of his "argument."

More importantly, I was taught to be rigidly objective in evaluating argumentation.

As a debate judge, I was well paid per tournament because of my objectivity.

I could personally, vehemently and viscerally believe that one sides argumentation was based on pure evil, however their argumentation could be judged as solid.

I was fortunate to have three brilliant Aristotelian professors and colleagues,

Additionally, the Chairman of the Department was on the cutting edge of argumentation theory, employing the Toulmin structure of argumentation.

Mr. Toulmin, a disciple of Ludwig Wittgenstein, earned his undergraduate degree in mathematics and physics, and throughout his long philosophical career showed a marked inclination to ground his ideas in real-world situations.

In the introduction to a 1986 edition of his first book, “An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics” (1950), he wrote that “having been trained as a natural scientist, I had always hoped to relate philosophical issues to practical experience, and could never wholly side with Hume the philosopher against Hume the backgammon player.” His bent, he wrote, was toward “practical moral reasoning.”

Although he wrote on disparate topics like the history of science, international relations, medical ethics and Wittgenstein’s Vienna, he was best known for “The Uses of Argument,” published in 1958. In it, he criticized formal logic as an overly abstract, inadequate representation of how human beings actually argue. He also challenged its claims to universality, as well as its faith in absolute truth and moral certainty.

Although much of his writings were on:

...on disparate topics like the history of science, international relations, medical ethics and Wittgenstein’s Vienna, he was best known for “The Uses of Argument,” published in 1958. In it, he criticized formal logic as an overly abstract, inadequate representation of how human beings actually argue. He also challenged its claims to universality, as well as its faith in absolute truth and moral certainty.

“Stephen’s essential contribution was to bring philosophy back from the abstractions of reason and logic — the world of Plato and Descartes — to the human condition,” said Roy Pea, a professor of learning sciences and education and the director of the Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning at Stanford University. “He argued that if we want to understand questions of ethics, science and logic, we have to inquire into the everyday situations in which they arise.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/education/11toulmin.html?_r=0

Stephen Toulmin, an English philosopher and logician, identified elements of a persuasive argument. These give useful categories by which an argument may be analyzed.

Claim

A claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. This includes information you are asking them to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact.

For example:

You should use a hearing aid.

Many people start with a claim, but then find that it is challenged. If you just ask me to do something, I will not simply agree with what you want. I will ask why I should agree with you. I will ask you to prove your claim. This is where grounds become important.

Grounds

The grounds (or data) is the basis of real persuasion and is made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim. It is the 'truth' on which the claim is based. Grounds may also include proof of expertise and the basic premises on which the rest of the argument is built.

The actual truth of the data may be less that 100%, as much data are ultimately based on perception. We assume what we measure is true, but there may be problems in this measurement, ranging from a faulty measurement instrument to biased sampling.

It is critical to the argument that the grounds are not challenged because, if they are, they may become a claim, which you will need to prove with even deeper information and further argument.

For example:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Information is usually a very powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical or rational will more likely to be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. It is often a useful test to give something factual to the other person that disproves their argument, and watch how they handle it. Some will accept it without question. Some will dismiss it out of hand. Others will dig deeper, requiring more explanation. This is where the warrant comes into its own.

Warrant

A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit. It answers the question 'Why does that data mean your claim is true?'

For example:

A hearing aid helps most people to hear better.

The warrant may be simple and it may also be a longer argument, with additional sub-elements including those described below.

Warrants may be based on logos, ethos or pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener.

In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and hence unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

Backing

The backing (or support) for an argument gives additional support to the warrant by answering different questions.

For example:

Hearing aids are available locally.

Qualifier

The qualifier (or modal qualifier) indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. They include words such as 'most', 'usually', 'always' or 'sometimes'. Arguments may hence range from strong assertions to generally quite floppy with vague and often rather uncertain kinds of statement.

For example:

Hearing aids help most people.

Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations are much used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus they slip 'usually', 'virtually', 'unless' and so on into their claims.

Rebuttal

Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument.

For example:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing and so on. It also, of course can have a rebuttal. Thus if you are presenting an argument, you can seek to understand both possible rebuttals and also rebuttals to the rebuttals.

See also

Arrangement, Use of LanguageToulmin, S. (1969). The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm

He had some really cool concepts.

It fed off, at one level, the "diagramming of sentences" paradigm.

A...

Did not mean to get this deep in the weeds...

[Ellen Stuttle]

Adam,

I read your post above, and looked up some additional material on Toulmin's method.

Sorry, but I don't see any basis in that method for classifying what Greg presents as "argumentation" - and since my point to start with was that I don't think Greg presents "argumentation," we remain at an impasse.

Thanks, however, for citing the material.

Ellen

[moralist]

Sorry, but I don't see any basis in that method for classifying what Greg presents as "argumentation" - and since my point to start with was that I don't think Greg presents "argumentation," we remain at an impasse.

Any semblance to an argument is only incidental. As it's not my intention to argue but rather to describe my view and do my best to clarify the difference between it and the views of others.

Helen... you'll take the view you chose and all of its just and deserved consequences with you to your grave, just as I will, right along with everyone else. So there isn't really much of a point to argue when no one changes their view short of a genuine life threatening or life altering experience...

...and only the objective reality of life possess that power.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, but I don't see any basis in that method for classifying what Greg presents as "argumentation" - and since my point to start with was that I don't think Greg presents "argumentation," we remain at an impasse.

Any semblance to an argument is only incidental. As it's not my intention to argue but rather to describe my view and do my best to clarify the difference between it and the views of others.

Helen... you'll take the view you chose and all of its just and deserved consequences with you to your grave, just as I will, right along with everyone else. So there isn't really much of a point to argue when no one changes their view short of a genuine life threatening or life altering experience...

...and only the objective reality of life possess that power.

Greg

Helen--of Troy? I only vaguely remember her choices. Some big war was involved.

--Brant

a long time ago, in a continent far, far away . . .

it's true you don't argue; you lecture and preach and the sermon's always the same; arguing has to do 1) with thinking, logic and reasoning--your value to me is what I refine from the crude and your value to yourself goes without saying, but thanks for saying it--for spreading the wealth (this is not sarcasm) even though nobody's here to get lectured or preached at or proselytized, any of which I find grating, and 2) winning the argument, acceptable in formal debates or if you are right and it's important to win for an existential reason

[Ellen Stuttle]

Helen... [....]

Is misspelling my name (second time now) part of the chosen view of which you're getting the just and deserved consequences, or is that error correctable short of "a genuine life threatening or life altering experience..."?

Ellen

[moralist]

Helen... [....]

Is misspelling my name (second time now) part of the chosen view of which you're getting the just and deserved consequences, or is that error correctable short of "a genuine life threatening or life altering experience..."?

Ellen

It's just subconscious. Your attitude is much more like a Helen than an Ellen.

Greg

[moralist]

...it's true you don't argue; you lecture and preach and the sermon's always the same

I'm a bird that sings one note.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Helen... [....]

Is misspelling my name (second time now) part of the chosen view of which you're getting the just and deserved consequences, or is that error correctable short of "a genuine life threatening or life altering experience..."?

Ellen

It's just subconscious. Your attitude is much more like a Helen than an Ellen.

Greg

You are rushing in where I would fear to tread.

--Brant

now you're trying to re-name her--the first iteration was just a mistake

[moralist]

I don't think he in fact lives by the "premises" he states

That's because they are premises you don't live by.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think he in fact lives by the "premises" he states

That's because they are premises you don't live by.

Greg

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do, but you really don't know Ellen's premises.

--Brant

but if you don't reality will grind you (how long, if so, will you keep smiling [or did you find a new drug?])

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

Ah, I withdraw any implication of perfection (100%) and, as a matter of principle reduce it slightly (99%).

Seriously, he could be consistently living up to his self-described principles as an adult, but that's not how he got there (if he did). He didn't--he couldn't have--Howard Roarked his way through childhood and adolescence under the moral tutelage of a great novelist, although the great big blank of those years is public knowledge for the both of them.

But the simplicity of his approach as to his own conduct makes it quite workable and there is no need to assume the sometimes reveled hypocrisy of members of the priestly caste ("I have sinned!") in his case (yet), but some victim of that--not likely from OL--may someday come forward with the vivisection of allegations delivered without anesthesia just to see him writhe in public agony or disappear from these shores to a more amenable context.

--Brant (Has Spoken)

[Brant Gaede]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

Well, who would heard of him then?

--Brant

you seem to think his moral narcissism is incompatible with righteous living and while it's likely statistically unlikely, there's no data just experience with others overly full of themselves who aren't thus disagreeable in their expressions of such--quite the contrary (at least I have enjoyed them [as a consumer, not a producer, of it])

[moralist]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

Well, who would heard of him then?

--Brant

you seem to think his moral narcissism is incompatible with righteous living and while it's likely statistically unlikely, there's no data just experience with others overly full of themselves who aren't thus disagreeable in their expressions of such--quite the contrary (at least I have enjoyed them [as a consumer, not a producer, of it])

Just think of me as providing lighthearted entertainment, and everything falls into its proper perspective.

Moral narcissism is the perfect descriptor, Brant...

I'd hazard a wild guess that most of the good folk here are atheists. After all the object of devotion of this forum was one. (and by the way, I also owe her the same devotion for writing a superb American Capitalist business operations manual.)

So someone who depends on Divinely designed moral law as something greater than themselves is naturally going to appear to be a moral narcissist to those who don't acknowledge the existence of Divinely designed moral law greater than themselves.

I am dependent upon Something greater than myself to provide me with moment to moment moral direction for my life in real time... Conscience. Conscience is a gift from a moral God who wants us to be good for our own good. So my assurance of it's objective moral indications of right and wrong is going to appear to be self assurance to anyone who denies the existence of an objective moral indicator which is greater then themselves.

So I can only say that my assurance is not in myself. It is in God... but not in God directly... in the moral guidance God provides in the form of Conscience.

Divinely designed moral law manifests itself in the physical form of action and its just and deserved consequences. Conscience is the preemptive indication of the propriety of action before it happens. So there are two methods of learning:

1. Learning from following the preemptive objective moral indications of Conscience.

2. Or learning from experiencing the just and deserved consequences of not following the preemptive objective moral indications of Conscience.

Each of us makes that choice of learning the easy way... or learning the hard way. Either way everyone will learn whether they like it or not...

...so I chose the easy way.

"Trust in God and rely not on your own understanding."

This means to trust in the objective moral indications of your Conscience instead of trusting in your own thoughts and emotions.

Your thoughts and the emotions they evoke are NOT to be trusted to guide your actions.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Much of what you are saying would make no sense (to me) if I didn't replace what you call "God" with what I call "reality." I don't recall you ever invoking the divinity of Jesus (Christ the Lord) which makes you, like me, not a Christian (unless you now do and become as nonsensical overall as the last three sentences in your last post).

--Brant

[moralist]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

Ah, I withdraw any implication of perfection (100%) and, as a matter of principle reduce it slightly (99%).

Just because I talk about Something which is perfectly objective... does not mean that I am perfectly objective.

Seriously, he could be consistently living up to his self-described principles as an adult, but that's not how he got there (if he did). He didn't--he couldn't have--Howard Roarked his way through childhood and adolescence under the moral tutelage of a great novelist, although the great big blank of those years is public knowledge for the both of them.

You are absolutely right. Learning is a continuum... not a locus.

But the simplicity of his approach as to his own conduct makes it quite workable and there is no need to assume the sometimes reveled hypocrisy of members of the priestly caste ("I have sinned!") in his case (yet), but some victim of that--not likely from OL--may someday come forward with the vivisection of allegations delivered without anesthesia just to see him writhe in public agony or disappear from these shores to a more amenable context.

Hypocrisy is exempting yourself from that which you hold others to be subject. I've never done that, and have consistently affirmed that everyone is subject to exactly the same moral law of action and consequence.

--Brant (Has Spoken)

...and very well, I might add.

Greg

[moralist]

Much of what you are saying would make no sense (to me) if I didn't replace what you call "God" with what I call "reality."

I'm totally ok with that descriptor, Brant... because reality is how we experience God. A word is not that which it describes. So I'm not hung up on needing to use the word God, or Jesus Christ, or even the Holy Spirit for that matter. (Although I will add that the Holy Spirit is another word for Conscience.)

I don't recall you ever invoking the divinity of Jesus (Christ the Lord) which makes you, like me, not a Christian (unless you now do and become as nonsensical overall as the last three sentences in your last post).

I can... but I need to have some consideration for the people I'm talking with here.

Greg

[moralist]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

Well, who would heard of him then?

Exactly.

Speaking of an ideal is not being that ideal. Was Ayn Rand the ideals she spoke of?

She spoke of what inspired her.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Much of what you are saying would make no sense (to me) if I didn't replace what you call "God" with what I call "reality."

I'm totally ok with that descriptor, Brant... because reality is how we experience God. A word is not that which it describes. So I'm not hung up on needing to use the word God, or Jesus Christ, or even the Holy Spirit for that matter. (Although I will add that the Holy Spirit is another word for Conscience.)

I don't recall you ever invoking the divinity of Jesus (Christ the Lord) which makes you, like me, not a Christian (unless you now do and become as nonsensical overall as the last three sentences in your last post).

I can... but I need to have some consideration for the people I'm talking with here.

Greg

That's the funniest thing you've ever posted on OL.

--Brant

[anthony]

This means to trust in the objective moral indications of your Conscience instead of trusting in your own thoughts and emotions.

Your thoughts and the emotions they evoke are NOT to be trusted to guide your actions.

Greg

Hey, Greg: I find I'm often nodding my head to what you say (I accept where you're coming from - metaphysically; no point in debating that!) including the matter of "conscience" (my Dad's good advice: "listen to your conscience, boy.") --then it's all fall down when you write, again, that thoughts and emotions are not to be trusted. Ow.

Where do you imagine your wiser words come from? Or your conscience?

Oh hell, I know...;)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, as the (self-appointed) not-Greg Greg expert on OL, I think you do [live by your "premises"].

I think that if Greg consistently walked his talk, we'd never have heard of him.

Ellen

Well, who would heard of him then?

--Brant

Family, close and trusted friends, people he does business with directly - and very few others. Certainly not the denizens of a public discussion board.

you seem to think his moral narcissism is incompatible with righteous living and while it's likely statistically unlikely, there's no data just experience with others overly full of themselves who aren't thus disagreeable in their expressions of such--quite the contrary (at least I have enjoyed them [as a consumer, not a producer, of it])

I do think that his "moral narcissism," as you expressed it, indicates a character flaw, but that isn't what I was thinking of. Instead, I was thinking of his advertising his existence on a public discussion board. Also his engaging in plentiful commentary on sorts of issues which he claims he ignores as being ones over which he has no control and thus as being irrelevant to his life and of no interest to him.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Greg exists on two planes. The lower, basic one, where he's best, and the upper one he tries to connect, without much uncontradictory success, to the basic, using parallelism instead of logic. It's a kind of metaphorical reasoning in reverse, using abstractions instead of concretes.

--Brant