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 <http://www.measuredreasons.com/> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > on behalf of Daryl Close <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: June 15, 2017 9:19:10 AM To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=mRWFL96tuqj9V0Jjj4h40ddo0XsmttALwKjAEOCyUjY&r=KTO-67piPlkvVwpkegE90CPhOOUVOHyNkd2ycJxraVlOjFMzr4s8w_Q89bvfLZgJ&m=Oq1gRhD_zHZ7FtaPGp9kUr_ustZf0ymR6uVxFOZh-lo&s=U_iyYySrHiLODBi8DBxGsDRV_F6wISwQ18qdS4LBWNI&e=> To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link: https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IGpvaG5zb2FAVVdJTkRTT1IuQ0EgQUlMQUNURC1MIJGv7yaOAEcP <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU_scripts_wa-2Dhc.exe-3FTICKET-3DNzM2NTI1IGpvaG5zb2FAVVdJTkRTT1IuQ0EgQUlMQUNURC1MIJGv7yaOAEcP-26c-3DSIGNOFF&d=DwMGaQ&c=mRWFL96tuqj9V0Jjj4h40ddo0XsmttALwKjAEOCyUjY&r=KTO-67piPlkvVwpkegE90CPhOOUVOHyNkd2ycJxraVlOjFMzr4s8w_Q89bvfLZgJ&m=Oq1gRhD_zHZ7FtaPGp9kUr_ustZf0ymR6uVxFOZh-lo&s=sJee-Dn5MrDBdkde2_XWNa4eM3tpGF5yJyerfJJIf8c&e=> &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 <https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHJoZW5uaXNASUxMSU5PSVMuRURVIEFJTEFDVEQtTCGK1fKzJA%2Fn&c=SIGNOFF> &c=SIGNOFF _____ To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link: https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHBmYWNpb25lQE1FQVNVUkVEUkVBU09OUy5DT00gQUlMQUNURC1MII4PvUUf99Lz <https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2NTI1IHBmYWNpb25lQE1FQVNVUkVEUkVBU09OUy5DT00gQUlMQUNURC1MII4PvUUf99Lz&c=SIGNOFF> &c=SIGNOFF ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link: &*TICKET_URL(AILACTD-L,SIGNOFF);