Tom has given me a great chance in practice to demonstrate a point. The word "show" is much broader than the concept of justification. A complete justification shows something certainly but Einstein's EPR paper certainly shows a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation without justifying any novel claim. Showing "That doesn't work" doesn't need the machinery required for justification. Showing is sometimes just a matter of pointing to. A demonstration may show something while being incomplete as a justification. The "Law of Figuring Things Out " is about showing how something works or, is true or, is problematic. This is what critic-creative thinking focuses on, properly speaking. Can one make a lecture more accessible with a but of humor, a warm smile etc. - sure. And as valuable as all that is, that in itself is not Critico-Creative Thinking. Can one set before one self the problem of how to more robustly deliver a lecture? Again, sure! But figuring out that challenge while an example of critic-creative thinking is NOT an example of persuasive reasoning to one self. What is a major source of failing to show something? When the showing is done linguistically a major source is use of polemic to score one one's point. Professor's legitimately use polemic at times to help students' savor a technical point that at first blush may feel to them inaccessible. But this polemical trick is not a matter of showing anything. It is a gadget to get or preserve their attention sufficiently so that that the task of showing can complete. There is a difference. And as Bob has said this is not to demean the value of persuasion - especially in a classroom or say when courting the favor of a beloved, a voter or possible buyer. These are important to study just as all that is poured into showing (The law of figuring things out which employs logic - formal and informal, decision theory, Bayesian and inferential statistics, heuristics and awareness of heuristical misdirection, algorithmic protocols and game theory.) There is still value in Frege's awareness that the psychology of influence can be studied separately and apart from epistemic potency. Paul Wagner, Ph.D. Professor Philosophy College of Human Sciences and Humanities and Professor Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education University of Houston - Clear Lake Ste. 1119 Houston, Texas 77058 281-283-3571 ________________________________ From: AILACT DISCUSSION LIST <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Burke, Michael B <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 2:42:55 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [External] Re: Should AILACT's website be translated into other languages? I think all of us agree that a course in informal logic can properly include attention to ways of enhancing the rational persuasiveness of arguments. It can be hard to get others to grasp, focus on, and remember our main points and arguments. (Think of your experience with referees.) Skillful argumentation, aimed at successful communication, often involves more than clear presentation of a strong argument. It’s often important to *reiterate* the key argument (perhaps repeatedly), to *identify* it as such, to minimize distracting inessentials, to anticipate misunderstandings and faulty objections, and so on. Michael Burke Professor Emeritus of Philosophy IUPUI ________________________________ From: AILACT DISCUSSION LIST <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mark Battersby <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 6:09 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Should AILACT's website be translated into other languages? Hi Paul, Bob and Catherine et al Just a short note to SHOW my support for Catherine's view and to say that I was UNPERSUADED by Paul's argument or was it a SHOWING? I wonder if the judges who are "shown" each lawyers ?arguments? then "SEE" which is better or do they get PERSUADED? According to Merriam Webster: "Argumentation, the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion" Can't see the problem with this. I have over 30 years of anecdotal evidence from my critical thinking students that one of the great benefits of the course was improvement in their ability to write a (reason based and persuasive, I assumed) academic essay. If was assume that an important goal of CT courses is to improve a students ability to be a rational citizen then surely we should include argumentation. Mark Dr. Mark Battersby Critical Inquiry Group Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy Capilano University On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Wagner, Paul A <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Persuasion adds a great deal that is distracting. Critical thinking is about showing. It shows solutions to problems and it shows flaws in recommended solutions. Persuading others is not part of that agenda. Einstein and his colleagues wrote the EPR paper to reveal seemingly evident flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation. They were not trying to influence followers but rather showing where attention needed to be directed to augment or re-direct Copenhagen. They were not soliciting a vote. Even in the American court system this difference is evident. At the trial level the attorneys are trying to persuade the jurors within the constraints imposed by the courts. At the appellate level things are quite different!!!! There the attorneys are SHOWING whether or not there was a violation of procedure or evident misapplication of the law. Even at the SCOTUS while attorneys may be called before the bench to explain aspects of their brief and amicus curiae may be called in to comment. The intent is to SHOW a decision is or is not in alignment with precedent and no procedural violations faulted a decision. The intent OF THE PROCESS is not to have another go at persuading a trier of fact about the truth of some alleged claim. In a recent book published by Rowman and Littlefield titled THINKING AHEAD, the authors, somewhat tongue in cheek, offer as an insight into critico-creative thinking, the LAW of Figuring Things Out. By this they meant that critico-creative thinking is about SHOWING the most plausible solutions in a given problem frame or, demonstrating the presence of defeaters in an explanation. Logic - formal and informal - decision theory, game theory, the heuristical value and heuristical distractions described in the work of economists (Thaler, Susskind etc) and cognitive scientists (Kahneman, Tversky, Lichtenstein, Slovic etc) is all about moving the community of scholars forward in a quest for shared understanding. Matters of persuasion are important. BUT, they are not part and parcel of any Law of Figuring Things Out. Persuasion is about winning converts. People may seek truth or demonstrate truth without any intention of winning converts. Addendum: The fact that matters of persuasion may overlap at times simply is insufficient to claim they are simply of one cloth. I hope I have shown this but, you may want to persuade me differently. Of course, if I have effectively shown what I claim then your persuasion would be a distraction would it not? If I have evident holes in my reasoning then you needn't worry about persuasion at all in this case. Instead you can simply show where the holes exist. Presumably you would not do this to discredit me but rather to shed light on a gap for all in this community of inquiry to see. PS. Translating AILACT newsletter and pubs seems a good idea to me btw. Respectfully, Paul Wagner ________________________________ From: AILACT DISCUSSION LIST <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Catherine Hundleby <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:20:35 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: [External] Re: Should AILACT's website be translated into other languages? Hi Bob: I'm not trying to appropriate anything, just respond to your suggestion that we eliminate "argumentation" from AILACT. The reason you give is that it commonly is understood to include persuasion. I'm not sure why that is problematic, except that it involves social dimensions. Further, I don't think the Association can claim to be about informal logic if it's not addressing argumentation, so I really find this suggestion baffling. In trying to speculate about your reasons I clearly have ventured into territory beyond your intentions, though I maintain not beyond the implications of your suggestion. I don't want to clog this list any further, and this discussion is way beyond the original intent of this thread. If you wish to discuss this in private, feel free to email me. Sincerely, Cate n&c=SIGNOFF<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU_scripts_wa-2Dhc.exe-3FTICKET-3DNzM2ODU4IG1idXJrZUBJVVBVSS5FRFUgQUlMQUNURC1MINKwGXLp6dcn-26c-3DSIGNOFF&d=DwMF-g&c=mRWFL96tuqj9V0Jjj4h40ddo0XsmttALwKjAEOCyUjY&r=KTO-67piPlkvVwpkegE90CPhOOUVOHyNkd2ycJxraVlOjFMzr4s8w_Q89bvfLZgJ&m=1Sujvl4lQ5y_oCQRabv-64OBR6Whb-MKLPrUT6xsXQ0&s=m_6ynidfgFe50XWUt5quQfhN1qs0QuOOX6OjdJDbDJ4&e=> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link: https://HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU/scripts/wa-hc.exe?TICKET=NzM2ODU5IFdhZ25lckBVSENMLkVEVSBBSUxBQ1RELUwgIEOpzjdsijUb&c=SIGNOFF ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link: &*TICKET_URL(AILACTD-L,SIGNOFF);