pRiMo's noOk

2009-03-09T07:17:00.009+08:00

Fallacy is an argument which may convince some people but is not logically sound. Note that the truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is incorrect.

Fallacies can be categorized in a number of ways including:

Formal (or Logical) Fallacies versus Informal fallacies
A formal fallacy relies on a logical step in a proof or argument which is incorrect allowing a conclusion to be reached. An informal fallacy will not occur in this manner.

Verbal Fallacies
Which use some property of language, such as its ambiguity or length to mislead.
Though some of these classifications are not that sharp.
Fallacies are also often concerned with causality, which is not strictly addressed by logic, or involve implicit (or unstated) assumptions.
Fallacies often exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor, for example relating arguments to patriotism or family, or intellectual weaknesses targeting subjects which the listener knows little about. They may also take advantage of social relationships between people, for example citing support of important individuals to encourage listeners to agree with a conclusion.

Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure.All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.

Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.

Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.

Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.

Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.

Correlative based fallacies
Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.

Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.

Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.

False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several or more.
If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question.

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)

Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process.

Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.

Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right".

Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
Negative Proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way

Red Herring: also called a "fallacy of relevance." This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.

Propositional fallacies
Propositional fallacies:
Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.

Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.

Quantificational fallacies
Quantificational fallacies:
Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.

Proof by example: where things are proven by giving an example.
Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise

Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.

Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms.

Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.

Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.

Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore

Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

Burden of proof: refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe

Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other

Equivocation (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)

Fallacies of distribution
Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts

Ecological fallacy: inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Historian's fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.

False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument

contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning

False compromise/middle ground: asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct

Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
Incomplete comparison: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison

Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison

Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance

Loki's Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.

Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
Psychologist's fallacy: occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event

Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.

Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption

Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
Wrong direction: where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.

Faulty generalizations
Faulty generalizations:
Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored

Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole

Dicto simpliciter
Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for

False analogy: false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument

Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)

Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem

Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume

Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media

Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.

Red herring fallacies
A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion

Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.

Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party

Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true

Association fallacy (guilt by association)
Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it

Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party

Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side

Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason

Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party

Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support

Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer

Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum): thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is financially poor or incorrect because the speaker is financially wealthy

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam): concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence

Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it

Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held

Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

Golden Age fallacy: Also known as the Nostalgia fallacy. Where the solution to a particular problem is asserted as a return to the assumed social values or worldview of an earlier "Golden Age"; when said problem is deemed not to have existed, or was less significant than in the present time (and which is typically a historically incorrect assertion).

Judgmental language: insultive or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
Poisoning the well: where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say

Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument

Texas sharpshooter fallacy: information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning

Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out

Tu quoque: a Latin term used to mean a type of logical fallacy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
Conditional or questionable fallacies

Definist fallacy: involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other
Luddite fallacy: related to the belief that labour-saving technologies increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour

Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact

References
^ Gupta, Bina (1995). Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta: Epistemological Analysis and Interpretation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 197. ISBN 81-208-1296-4.

Do we need to dance the CHA-CHA?

2008-12-31T23:15:00.002+08:00

The net, i-phone, psp’s and the like. Long gone are the snail mails and the conventional ways of courtship. Youngsters use their cell phones and e-cards instead. Most if not all of this generation have their places somewhere in the net. Others use their blogs to express themselves in whatever there is to express under the sun.

This is the new picture. This is the new world.

It is right to say that there is nothing constant in this world but change. Though, we need to move with time and shift towards better options for the common good, there are “certain things” that need to be carefully viewed and scrutinized before any change be done.

The issue on charter change in the Philippine scene stirred the entire country and even divided its people on whether or not it is apt to amend the 1987 Constitution. This issue even earned various comments, views and opinions from political analysts around the globe.

Though there were claims that the constitution has its flaws and need to be revised the question on the “timing” and the “method/process” (Constitutional Convention or Constituent Assembly as the mode of revising the Constitution) of doing it remains dubious and questionable.

Under the Arroyo administration there were a number of attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. Among the first moves and it was very well remembered that Mrs. Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 453 which created a Consultative Commission tasked to propose the “necessary” revisions on the constitution. True to its purpose the Consultative Commission then came up with proposals that included a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.

There were claims that changing the constitution will afford more venues for economic stability, job offers, price deregulation and even usher wage increases. Surely, a hungry Juan dela Cruz upon hearing these claims would be given hope amidst the economic crisis in his “Lupang Sinilangan”. But wait; does Juan dela Cruz really need cha-cha just to savor these claims of hope?

What the supporters brag about unicameralism is the idea that urban areas with large populations will have more influence than sparsely populated rural ones. It is said that in many cases the only way to get sparsely populated regions on board a unified government is to implement a bicameral system such as the early United States. Supporters say that this is a great advantage since unicameralism will provide better apportionment and benefits along with it. On the contrary, and even a little kid will understand that in scenarios like this urban areas or rural regions for that matter will also be given more power as a result.

“Unicameralism” also claims to control government spending and the elimination of the redundancy of work done by both chambers. On the other hand, unicameralism points out the double checks and balances that a bicameral system affords, forcing a greater level of consensus on legislative issues.

It is also one of the concerns of some the move of abolishing the Senate. As we all know, it is has been a necessary component in our democracy. Where it checks and balances the systems and procedures especially on legislative issues and functions of branches of government including the Executive as well.

If Federalism is the solution to all these tribulations, we can have so at same time having bicameral legislatures like Canada, Australia and Japan. Most countries with federalism form of government have bicameral legislatures as well. So why abolish such?

Things are said straight from the horse's mouth and we got the idea… cha-cha aims to provide better living and better service for the Filipino people. But are the horses sure that changing the constitution is the answer and the savior of all the ills in this society?

It is said that the presidential form of government is a source of corruption among other things. As Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo of the CBCP said and I quote “We should ask a different question: Is it the presidential form that is the source of corruption, or the people in authority who corrupt and abuse the system? Any form of government will have its positive and negative characteristics; but the people who run the government are very crucial; they can either corrupt it or make it serve the common good. Any system or form of government in the hands of honest, just and incorruptible people will be a source of good for the governed. Will the parliamentary- unicameral form of government not be corrupted by the people who will create it?”

Bluntly saying it… “CHA CHA: Is it for the benefit of the common good or just simply an act to extend the terms of those who will benefit from it?” Fine, we cannot judge them (they know who they are) and we cannot question their intentions as well, but if such change is geared for their own personal gains rather than to do away with this seemingly endless cycle of poverty then the issue of charter change is passé.

So much for the cha-cha… here’s hoping that you will have a Happy New Year. Well, you can always do the cha-cha-cha and the boggie this holiday season. Have fun!

3rd U.S. Presidential debate

2008-12-31T23:10:00.005+08:00

I should say that presidential debates are usually exciting. Aside from considering these debates as venues for presidential candidates to boast off their governmental reforms, they also have the chance to show off their stance on different issues that may directly or indirectly affect the country’s/state’s economy, political scenario and administration as a whole.

While it is true that a candidate’s personal stature, reputation and charisma makes him the “man for the position”, it is also a fact that his views and discernment on certain issues can “make or break” him.

The 3rd Presidential debate between Senators John Mc Cain and Barack Obama was indeed a show to catch and watch. With all the media hype people around the globe stood still, listened and watched their performance as they both tackled every issue with spontaneity and great candor.

Both Mc Cain and Barack delivered their pieces evidently and with confidence. Both were able to convey their message clearly. Their straight to the point statements coupled with their body gestures made good physical contact with their audiences. You can really feel the sincerity in their words.

It is always inspiring to hear “proposed” political programs and economic reforms from these men. It is as always elevating to hear programs like tax cuts and tax reforms in order that families have much to spend than having big chunks of their earnings going to government taxes. Plus the desire to strengthen and reinforce the programs on education and health care. Of course, there is also the promise to create more job opportunities for the middle class and rebuild broken job policies.

Both candidates expressed their desires to augment their present political and economical situations. Both did their job well in sharing what is there to expect when they (of course there can only be one) will be in the white house.

To top it all, both really used that debate to project the best presidential profile America will and can choose from.

It can be pure media mileage. However, since the populace now listens and scrutinizes every word and action a political candidate makes, that debate was still apt for Uncle Joe to think whether or not McCain or Barack after all did “make or break” it.

Research: ARGUMENTATION

2008-11-23T16:06:00.010+08:00

ARGUMENTATION

Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationallyIn order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

KEY COMPONENTS OF ARGUMENTATION

Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.

PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT

1. Claim
Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)

2. Data
The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)

3. Warrant
The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.” (3)

4. Backing
Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

5. Rebuttal
Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

6. Qualifier
Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”

The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.

KINDS OF ARGUMENTATION

Conversational argumentation
Main articles: Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis

The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.[13] It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech.
Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.

Mathematical argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of mathematics

The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

Scientific argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of Science

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.

Legal argumentation
Main articles: Oral argument and Closing argument
Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.

Political argumentation
Main article: Political argument

Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events. [14]. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.
Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.

INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS

Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following:
1. a set of assumptions or premises
2. a method of reasoning or deduction and
3. a conclusion or point.

An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.

Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.

In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.

TWO MAIN TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

I. The difference between a formal debate/argumentation and an informal persuasion.

Argumentation- means that to argue for a certain position (or a certain statement) by

1. offering strong evidence to support yourself,
2. considering the current situation as well as your audience, and
3. Refuting your opponent's argument.To win your case, you need to:

Present your case clearly and support it sufficiently with statistics, evidence and examples,
Consider and refute the Opponent’s perspectives and their Counter-Arguments
call the audience's attention to the importance of your issue and make emotional appeal to your audience, .

Informal Persuasion: A debate usually ends with deciding which team wins the case. In real life, however, it's not so easy to decide who wins, and it's harder to make others agree with you in a short time and with only a speech. It's sometimes not necessary or possible to present the full case with all the reasons and data. This is when informal persuasion is needed. You use informal persuasion when designing an ad, writing to an editor or to your friends and relatives. In such informal persuasion, you need to:

1. Finds ways to get the audience to listen to you; (for instance, to move him/her emotionally by presenting your own experience, by showing how you understand him/her);
2. Consider more your listener's reasons, give them credits;
3. Modify your statement, and sometimes --
4. Compromise a little to find a solution acceptable to both sides.

In real life situation, your goal may not be to win the others to your side. You've achieved a lot simply by having them listen to you and think about the issue.
However, don't forget that whether with informal persuasion or formal argumentation, you need:
I.A clear argument as well as clear understanding and refutation of the counter-arguments.

II. The skills needed for argumentation:

Definition-- you need to clearly define your position. (For example, in a debate over whether women are losers in pre-marital sex, you need to define each of the important terms--sex, losers-- and the related terms of love, marriage, and virginity complex.)

Classification: a statement implies not just this statement. Besides carefully defining it, we should also work on its premises, the related current situation, and its possible consequences. Take "women are losers in pre-marital sex" again as an example:

Premise: Virginity complex. a woman's body should be kept pure before marriage, should be a gift for her husband. But this does not apply to men. Men are not required to keep their virginity.

Current situation:
How many men and women still keep this concept about virginity.
The general views about sex and pre-marital sex.
Sex education and contraceptive measures available.
Recent events or arguments related to this issue.

Possible consequences:
emotional,
physical,
on future relationships

The other necessary skills are:
1. In-Depth Analysis of causes and effects;
2. Narration and Description of concrete examples
3. Research into social events and statistics needed for support

III. What to avoid:

Generalization and absolute statement
e.g. "All women dislike men who smoke cigars."

How to avoid generalization:
Modify your statements Get concrete examples or proper statistics

2008-11-23T10:48:00.001+08:00

Welcome to my first post in the world of endless possibilities.

Days ago i'm not really into blogs and net social groups (except for maintaining my emails and some stuffs) ... i was more into personal encounters. Thanks to a mentor who really pushes me (well, including some souls in that classroom at the 3rd floor, of that building inside that campus, within the queen city of the south) to create and maintain a blog profile in the net as a requirement to pass that one subject in that course, in that prestigious university.

To top it all, WELCOME brother bloggers!

Here's hoping that we will have interesting web encounters.