Members of AILACT,

Tony Blair is right. My interest has all along been in the content of critical thinking courses, and I thought it would be helpful to survey AILACT membership. I also thought that a good way to do the survey would be to ask members how they feel about defining argument as attempted justification rather than, for example, attempted persuasion or other causal process, assuming that arguments (including simple ones) are a key feature of a critical thinking course. I regret that my suggestion caused so much confusion, but still wonder whether inquiring about support for the justification definition of ‘argument’ would be a quick simple way to solicit input from AILACT members.

I believe that other activities than formulating and judging arguments are important in critical thinking courses too, for example, investigating/inquiring and clarifying, which we haven’t discussed, but doing so would probably make things too complicated at this point.

Bob Ennis


> On Jun 15, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Anthony Blair <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I hate to say it, but it looks to me that this discussion thread has become tangled partly because we’ve not attended to how Bob Ennis is using ‘define’ and ‘definition.’
>  
> Bob has distinguished between teaching ‘argument’ “defined” as an attempt to justify and “defined” as an attempt to persuade. Nearly everyone focused on the idea of definition.  But Bob’s point could equally have been expressed as the need to distinguish between ‘argument’understood or meant as or in the sense of an attempt to justify and understood or meant as or in the sense of an attempt to persuade. It’s not the definition of the term that he’s interested in discussing; it is the content of the critical thinking course that he wants us to think about. His use of ‘define’ is a perfectly ordinary and legitimate one. In this sense of ‘define’, Churchill famously “defined” democracy as (something like this:) “the worst form of government except for any of the alternatives”.  
>  
> It’s embarrassing (a) that we all (me too in my own thinking) went baying after the red herring of “the correct definition of ‘argument’” and lost the trail of Bob’s quarry—what function of arguments to emphasize in our CT courses. And it’s embarrassing (b) that in arguing over the right definition of ‘argument’ nobody stopped to think critically about what should go into a good definition.
> 
> Tony Blair
> 
> From: AILACT DISCUSSION LIST <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Peter Facione <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: June 15, 2017 2:21:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: define argument
>  
> Bob’s helpful message reminds us of the difference, stressed by J. L. Austin decades ago, between what we do in using words vs. what we do by using words.  
>  
> Austin called the first “illocutionary acts” and the second “perlocutionary acts.”  For those not familiar with the distinction here is an example.  We enter a contract, for example, by using words to make a binding promise.   We use an argument to justify a claim/conclusion.   That’s what how we do those things – with words.    We use words in a certain way in a certain context and with a certain intention.   But the purposes we hope to achieve by entering into a contract may be many and varied. e.g. to obligate the other party to behave in certain way, or to prevent the other party from doing something.  The purpose is, of course, in Austin’s terminology, perlocutionary.  One purpose for which people use arguments is to persuade.   
>  
> I still do not know what the fuss over defining “argument” is all about.  I do believe that there is a problem. Seriously, do we really think that we are going to shape the behavior of the general public or students or faculty colleagues by insisting that they use the word “argument” in accord with whatever prescriptions AILACT promulgates? 
>  
> To achieve the goal Bob is holding up for us, we would be better served simply by affirming the ordinary usage.  In most every familiar context people use arguments with the intention of justifying their claims by giving their reasons.  And, in most circumstances, the purpose of doing so is to persuade someone of their point of view.  But, you know, on some occasions it might simply be to play devil’s advocate, or to consider the other point of view more carefully, or whatever.  
>  
> Getting married is what we do by taking vows, but the purposes for which people marry can be many and varied.     
>  
> No special definitions of “marriage,” “contract,” or “argument,” needed if we focus no on the semantics but on the interpersonal pragmatics of the uses of language.
>  
> As I have suggested to some of you, my hope is that at some point AILACT woult take on the challenge of the bigger and more important project – working to improve the critical thinking skills and habits of mind of the general public both for the sake of their own successes in personal and professional life and for the sake of the health of the democracy.
>  
> Bob, Peace Brother, I am basically on your side. But, we have got to get out of the weeds.
>  
> Pete
>  
>  
>  
> Peter A. Facione, PhD
> www.measuredreasons.com
> 650-743-8632
>  
> From: AILACT DISCUSSION LIST [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ennis, robert h
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 9:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: define argument
>  
> Member of AILACT,
>  
> I appreciate Daryl Close’s reminding us of my suggestion to Jim Freeman that we see whether the members of AILACT support a definition of ‘argument’ that emphasizes justification. However, at that point I did not give the background for my suggestion. 
>  
> I feel that there is some pressure from various sources these days to expand the meaning or province of 'critical thinking’ to include engaging in persuasion, debate, and other causal processes. It would be interesting and significant to learn how this pressure is being received by the members of AILACT.
>  
> Over the past century critical thinking has become more popular with a first sudden increase around 1980 and another stronger one developing recently. For example Former US President Obama in his inaugural address early in 2014 listed critical thinking as one of the six goals of education. And on June 6, 2017, one of the USA’s two leading national newspapers, “The Wall Street Journal”, published a front page article claiming that “at some of the most prestigious flagship universities the average graduate shows little or no improvement in critical thinking over four years.” Complaints can be made about the bases of this conclusion, but what strikes me is the importance the article attaches to critical thinking.  Critical thinking is now widely regarded highly, as one can see from these and many more such recent examples.
>  
> Someone interested in promoting the causal processes I mentioned above might well find it attractive to latch onto critical thinking’s current popularity.
>  
> 'Argument’, defined as an attempt to justify, is a key feature of critical thinking. I believe that this has been the case for the many years in which I have been working in the area. And defining ‘argument' as an attempt to persuade has not been a key feature of critical thinking. However, one might want to make it a key feature of this very popular area, critical thinking, by somehow incorporating the “persuade” definition of ‘argument.’ Different concepts of argument are in operation here. The point of my proposed survey was to find out how the members of AILACT feel about having  justification be the primary concern of critical thinking. I felt that asking for members’ feelings about the justification sense of argument would be a good way to learn their position.
>  
> Thus this discussion, which some have belittled, and at which others have sneered, though it may have seemed to be just quibbling over words, has an important underlying issue. I felt the definition-of-argument approach to be the easiest way to frame the issue.
>  
> Bob Ennis
>  
>  
>  
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Ralph Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this, Daryl.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> Dr. Ralph H.Johnson, FRSC
> Professor Emeritus
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Windsor
> Windsor, ON N9B3P4
> CANADA
> From: AILACT DISCUSSION LIST <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Daryl Close <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: June 15, 2017 9:19:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: define argument
>  
> Ralph,
>  
> Check out the hyperlink in my post.  I provide several definitions in that hand-out.  I’m attaching the PDF in case you have trouble with the link.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Daryl
>  
>  
> 
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> 
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IGpvaG5zb2FAVVdJTkRTT1IuQ0EgQUlMQUNURC1MIJGv7yaOAEcP&c=SIGNOFF
> 
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHJoZW5uaXNASUxMSU5PSVMuRURVIEFJTEFDVEQtTCGK1fKzJA%2Fn&c=SIGNOFF
>  
>  
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHBmYWNpb25lQE1FQVNVUkVEUkVBU09OUy5DT00gQUlMQUNURC1MII4PvUUf99Lz&c=SIGNOFF
> 
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHRibGFpckBVV0lORFNPUi5DQSBBSUxBQ1RELUwgINamGv67VUVD&c=SIGNOFF
> 
> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
> https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHJoZW5uaXNASUxMSU5PSVMuRURVIEFJTEFDVEQtTCGK1fKzJA%2Fn&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