Hi Cate,
If you do not think that as a matter of critical thinking, being persuasive is a desirable feature of an argument , I do not understand why you objected to my original suggestion;
which was that we not include persuasiveness of an argument as a critical thinking criterion, and thus that we not include the field of argumentation, so interpreted, in the meaning of “AILACT”.
Bob
> On May 24, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Catherine Hundleby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> Just to be clear about claims being attributed to me, I am concerned with theorizing irrational forms of argumentation *only* insofar as understanding sources of error is important, and I nevertheless uphold a rational standard for *good* argumentation.
>
> I would insist, contra some on this list, that "argumentation" is a normative concept, although the term can also be used merely descriptively and in that way might include irrational persuasion. Even those who might not agree with my view should recognize that any number of philosophers and informal logicians, such as Sharon, treat argumentation as a normative concept. That is a matter of fact about the terrain of the field.
>
> -Cate
>
>
>
> On 2018-05-24, 1:01 PM, "AILACT DISCUSSION LIST on behalf of ennis, robert h" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Greetings colleagues,
>
> Using the sense of ‘argumentation’ offered by Sharon Bailin, I would have no trouble including it in the concept of critical thinking and including it as a chief concern of AILACT.
>
> But that is not the sense of ‘argumentation’ I believe I hear from Michael Gilbert, Catherine Hundleby, and others. In this sense, ‘argumentation’ includes attempts to persuade, whether rational or not, and making effective arguments in this sense would be a concern of critical thinking. If I am wrong about what they are saying, then I apologize to them, and take back my warning about including argumentation in critical thinking.
>
> Furthermore even if we use argumentation in the persuasion-including sense, it might well be a good idea to include argumentation and critical thinking in the same course, as in a debate course. That’s an example of what Robert Sternberg used to call the “mixed” approach to teach critical thinking.
>
> Bob
>
>> On May 24, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Sharon Bailin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings all.
>>
>> It seems to me that the critical thinking vs. argumentation debate has been somewhat side-tracked by the emphasis on persuasion and whether persuasion is a legitimate aspect of critical thinking. In a 2002 paper, Hitchcock characterizes argumentation as involving "constructing, presenting, interpreting, criticizing, and revising arguments for the purpose of reaching a shared rationally supported position on some issue.” In a similar vein, Mark Battersby and I have conceptualized argumentation as a dialectical process involving the comparative evaluation of competing views in order to reach a reasoned judgment (some other characterizations of the goal of argumentation: to yield knowledge or reasonable belief (Biro and Siegel), to lead to rationally justified belief (Lumer), the bettering of our cognitive systems (Cohen 2014)). Nowhere in these conceptualizations does the notion “persuasion” appear. This does not imply that rational persuasion (i.e., presenting to others the reasoning that has brought one to one's reasoned judgment) is not a legitimate and important aspect of critical thinking. But it is the notion of reaching a “rationally supported position,” “rationally justified belief” or “reasoned judgment” which is at the core of argumentation, and so very much at the heart of the concerns of critical thinking.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sharon
>>
>> Dr. Sharon Bailin
>> Professor Emeritus
>> Faculty of Education
>> Simon Fraser University
>> mailing address:
>> 2568 West 1st Avenue
>> Vancouver, B.C. V6K 1G7
>> Ph: 236-866-0839
>> Fax: 604-222-0839
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>> On May 20, 2018, at 11:14 PM, Mark Battersby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Re Kevin's two points
>>>
>>> I think he is right about the limited utility of translating AILACT, but since there is considerable activity re CT in non-English speaking countries, it seems appropriate to find some way of linking to those activities. I suggest that we provide links to newsletters, organizations, etc that are working in non-English speaking countries so that AILACT users could discover and if able, access these resources. I know for example that there is a CT group in China that produces a newsletter in Mandarin and two of its editors (former students of David Hitchcock) live in Toronto.
>>>
>>> Re Argumentation. Kevin assumes that the term has been captured by the Amsterdam school. But that is only one approach to looking at argumentative discourse. As someone who argued for viewing CT as "applied epistemology" I am sympathetic to his (and many others) criticism of the Amsterdam approach. But that does not mean that there is not a place for the study and instruction of rational deliberation and persuasion. For example, in our textbook (Reason in the Balance) Sharon and I have a chapter on how to keep discussions on a rational basis in the face of fallacious arguments. In this case, the identification of fallacies is used as a tool not simply for Logical Self Defense, but for providing strategies for preventing discourse from going off the rational rails. In addition an effective CT course is probably the best preparation for writing academic essays--which are surely exercises in rational persuasion. And writing such essays require consideration of relevant rhetorical factors (such as audience, essay structure, etc) to produce a quality (and persuasive ) essay. We should welcome the addition to CT of the focus on argumentative discourse advocated by Amsterdam School without accepting their approach to its treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Mark Battersby
>>> Critical Inquiry Group
>>> Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy
>>> Capilano University
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Possin, Kevin E <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> The discussion has diverged into two strands. I'd like to comment on both:
>>>
>>> Regarding translating the AILACT site into other languages: The site does not yet have enough content to be worthy of translation. Of the 16 "proposed measures" listed at the end of the AILACT Innovation Memo, approved by the Board [was that 3 years ago?], translating the website into an array of languages is not among them. Perhaps if a significant number of those projects were accomplished and their results posted on our website, we would have a site worth sharing with the world in more ways than just in English; but not now. I think our efforts would be better spent revisiting that Innovation Memo and working on its projects, as challenging as they are.
>>>
>>> Regarding the debate that Bob has generated, between CT and argumentation theory [AT]: I am rather sympathetic to Bob's point of view. The goal of CT is true belief, correct values, and rational action plans. The goal of AT is persuasion. The degree to which one thinks it is important to use argumentation and "dialectical" exchanges in the pursuit of the truth, is the degree to which one is interested in CT and justification and not solely interested in AT or sophistry. Both AT and CT are interested in informal fallacies and cognitive biases, but for different reasons: AT studies them descriptively, as argumentative phenomena and as useful means of persuasion--informal fallacies are notoriously effective at getting people to adopt beliefs, values, and action plans for which they have no good epistemic reasons. CT studies those fallacies and biases normatively, as rhetorical tricks and cognitive habits to be avoided, both rationally and ethically.
>>>
>>> CT holds that one is ethically obliged to follow one's best evidence to its sometimes bitter conclusions and to share those results with others rather than leaving them in error or ignorance. So, in this respect, CT is interested in persuasion; but not persuasion for personal gain, but rather persuasion for the epistemic gain of everyone.
>>>
>>> I am also inclined to agree with Bob's point of view regarding justification and knowledge: There is no difference between knowledge and justification with respect to an individual's belief or a social group's belief. To think that the group is more than the sum of its members is a category mistake a la Ryle's example of someone who still wants a tour of the university campus after seeing all the buildings, students, etc. The so-called "dialectal" exchanges that occur among individuals in a group, debating the pros and cons of a position, is no different than an individual mulling over the same evidence and counter-evidence with respect to that position on their own. Both are held to the same justificatory standards advocated by CT.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Lilian Bermejo Luque wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> The board of directors of AILACT is going to launch a series of questions in order to encourage members to colectively debate and decide about possible ways of invigorating our association. The first question we would like to ask is this:
>>>>
>>>> Expanding the presence of the Argumentation, Critical Thinking and Informal Logic community in non-English speaking countries seems like a sound goal for our association. Do you think it would be a good idea to have our website translated into other languages, like Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, etc.? In case you do, how do you think we should do it? Do you have other ideas to achieve this goal?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Lilian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dra. Lilian Bermejo Luque
>>>> Profesora Titular
>>>> Departamento de Filosofía I
>>>> Universidad de Granada
>>>> Tlf. +34 958249725
>>>> http://www.ugr.es/~lilianbl/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
>>>> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODU0IEtQb3NzaW5AUkVUSVJFRS5XSU5PTkEuRURVIEFJTEFDVEQtTB8Ris3MozLr&c=SIGNOFF
>>>>
>>>
>>> ********************************
>>> Kevin Possin
>>> Professor Emeritus
>>> Department of Philosophy
>>> Winona State University
>>> The Critical Thinking Lab
>>> 1012 Calle Dorthia
>>> Santa Fe, NM 87506
>>> USA
>>> 507.459.6689
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
>>> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODYzIHByb2Zlc3NvcmJhdHRlcnNieUBHTUFJTC5DT00gQUlMQUNURC1MILNOu6NvYC%2Fo&c=SIGNOFF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
>>> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODY0IGJhaWxpbkBTRlUuQ0EgQUlMQUNURC1MIM04%2FVkEFIjY&c=SIGNOFF
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
>> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODY4IHJoZW5uaXNASUxMSU5PSVMuRURVIEFJTEFDVEQtTKNLsT0gaEEO&c=SIGNOFF
>>
>
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODY4IGh1bmRsZWJ5QFVXSU5EU09SLkNBIEFJTEFDVEQtTBrUy4%2FpTELC&c=SIGNOFF
>
>
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODY4IHJoZW5uaXNASUxMSU5PSVMuRURVIEFJTEFDVEQtTKNLsT0gaEEO&c=SIGNOFF
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
https://hunter.listserv.cuny.edu/Scripts/wa-hc.exe?SUBED1=AILACTD-L
|
