1705136072 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132471]

1705136073 15.1.1 Kinds of Claims

1705136074

1705136075 A number of authors writing about argumentation and debate have proposed various taxonomies of claims. The most traditional method of classifying claims is by classic categories of “fact,” “value,” and “policy.” David Zarefsky has added a fourth category of “definition” (Zarefsky, 2005). Bill Hill and Richard Leeman, while following the traditional categories of fact, value, and policy, subdivided fact into being, designation, and relationship. The viewpoint advocated here is not to accept or reject any particular category system, but rather to suggest that no single system is capable of providing a list of categories that are exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

1705136076

1705136077 Claims can be made about a nearly endless number of concepts. However, creating a taxonomy for discussing claims is important for a variety of reasons. One reason is that different kinds of claims require different kinds of support. Thus, a taxonomy that distinguishes different types of claims from one another allows students of argumentation and debate to learn how to support various types of claims. A second reason that taxonomies are useful is a functional one. As discussed earlier, claims can be combined to create other claims. As will be discussed in Chapter 20, certain types of claims can be created by a combination of other kinds of claims. Thus, a taxonomy of claims is useful because different kinds of claims require different kinds of support and because certain kinds of claims can be combined to produce other kinds of claims.

1705136078

1705136079 In this section, a taxonomy of claims will be created and compared to more traditional taxonomies. As stated earlier, no taxonomy is perfect. The one suggested in this text is, in many respects, no better or worse than others. It is chosen because it is more functional for the purposes of this text. This taxonomy includes descriptive, definitional, associational, and evaluative claims.

1705136080

1705136081 15.1.1.1 Claims of Description and Definition

1705136082

1705136083 Claims of description and of definition are used in this text as a replacement for the traditional category of claims of fact. Some argue that, in addition to their factual dimension, claims about description and definition also carry value implications. In Schiappa’s words, “The primary thesis of this book [Defining Reality] is that definitional disputes should be treated less as philosophical or scientific questions of ‘is’ and more of sociopolitical and pragmatic questions of ‘ought.’”(Schiappa, 2003: 3). In other words, Schiappa is arguing that claims of definition and description ultimately are more about values than about facts. In order to explain the reasons that descriptions and definitions are appropriate replacements for the fact category, a few words about facts are in order. Linguist John Searle distinguishes between what he calls institutional and brute facts. Institutional facts are those that are most clearly human creations. What is marriage? What is the difference in a ball and a strike in baseball? Brute facts, on the other hand, are about those things that would continue to exist should humans completely vanish. What is a giraffe? What is water?

1705136084

1705136085 Definitions and descriptions are human creations about both institutional and brute facts. The difference is that, supposedly, a brute fact would be the same whether or not humans were around to describe it. Giraffes would be on the earth even if they were never defined or described by human beings. Institutional facts, on the other hand, would be nothing if humans did not define and describe them. Marriage for instance, would not exist if not defined and described as a human institution.

1705136086

1705136087 Definitions and descriptions of brute facts and institutional facts work somewhat differently. A definition or a description of a brute fact is a good one to the extent that the definition or description conforms to some empirical, observed reality. A description of a giraffe is a good description to the extent it conforms to the characteristics of an actual giraffe. A giraffe might be described as the tallest living terrestrial animal on earth. This is a good description to the extent that the description actually matches the features of a real giraffe. The criterion for a good definition or description of an institutional fact is different. A definition or a description of an institutional fact is good to the extent that it serves the needs and interests of the community(Rorty, 2000). So with respect to the definition of marriage, the question is whether, it serves the interests of the community to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, or does it serve community interests to define marriage as a union between any two persons? Certain religious communities insist that marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman. Others say that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one or more women. Still others believe that marriage is legitimately defined as a union of any two persons, regardless of biological sex. The point is that each of those groups would point to their own community interests to support their definition of the concept of marriage. Marriage, they would insist, is defined as they say because it supports their own religious or community beliefs.

1705136088

1705136089 Of course, the distinction between brute and institutional facts is not always a clear-cut one. Some things exist on the border of each kind. In other words, some kinds of facts are judged both by whether or not they conform to empirical, observed reality, and by whether or not they serve the needs and interests of the community. The following are a couple of examples of such borderline cases. First, consider the claim that “The universe began and will end with a ‘big bang’.” Whether or not the universe began and will end with a big bang is not dependent on what humans believe about the beginning and end of the world. How the universe began and how it will end is independent of any human belief or conclusion. So, on its face, that claim seems as if it should be judged by whether or not the claim conforms to some elements of observed reality. On the other hand, some will argue that a belief that the world began with a “big bang” does not conform to community interests because it appears, at least on its face, to be inconsistent with some versions of religion. To the extent that those versions of religion are seen as good for the community, the definition of the beginning of the world as being with a big bang will be seen as bad for the community. Consider a similar claim that “The human condition is the result of a process of evolution.” In order to satisfactorily support such a claim, a person needs to describe how the claim corresponds to empirical observations or lived experiences in the world. At the same time, some may argue against that claim because it, like the big bang example, does not serve the interests of a certain religiously inclined community.

1705136090

1705136091 Definitions, in particular, almost always contain an imbedded question about the needs and interests of the community—about the values and principles by which the community lives. Claims of definition frequently suggest that a certain definition ought to apply to a particular category of things. Claims of definition frequently involve controversial questions—what should something be named? Should a group be called “terrorists” or “freedom fighters?” Should an abortion be called “terminating a pregnancy” or “killing a baby?” These claims of definition not only are attempts to answer controversial questions, but are also efforts to provide answers that can then be used to develop other kinds of claims, especially evaluative ones. For instance, supporting freedom fighters has a more positive connotation than supporting terrorists, even though the people described as “freedom fighters” may be engaging in the same kinds of activities as those who are described as “terrorists.” Similarly, “terminating a pregnancy” does not have nearly the negative connotations as “killing a baby.” Thus, by supporting certain definitions of “freedom fighters” or “pregnancy termination” the arguer provides a more effective way to evaluate those concepts.

1705136092

1705136093 In Botswana, the debate over how to use wilderness areas and manage wild animals features a claim of definition. Government sources use “natural resources” to refer to animals and exotic locations, advertising on roadside billboards using gigantic pictures of rhinoceroses and giraffes accompanied by phrases such as, “Save our natural resources.” A nation that historically has relied on its diamond mines to raise its standard of living above that of surrounding countries, the government of Botswana is attempting to supplant the dwindling diamond supply with a “natural resource” that brings income through tourist business. Thus, the claim is that exotic animals and locations should be defined as a “natural resource.” Farmers who defend their livestock against attacks by lions, and ranchers who give up land to wilderness areas may find that they need to argue against defining animals and wilderness areas as “natural resources.” For them, lions and other animals that attack their livestock are “wild, predatory animals,” not “natural resources.”

1705136094

1705136095 15.1.1.2 Claims of Association

1705136096

1705136097 Debaters use claims of association to show how people, institutions, concepts, or policies are associated with one another.3 Things and concepts are associated with one another in a variety of ways. Two of the most common kinds of association used by arguers are associations of cause and effect and associations by similarity. Both of these kinds of association go beyond defining and describing objects to assert that two or more objects are associated with one another by the forces of cause and effect or by similarity.

1705136098

1705136099 For example, the claim that “The embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States has weakened the Cuban economy” is an assertion about the cause and effect association between two things: the embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States, and the Cuban economy. The statement suggests that those two are related to each other by cause and effect. The cause is the United States’ embargo of Cuba and the effect is a weakened Cuban economy.

1705136100

1705136101 Claims of association by similarity are useful when debaters need to ascribe the characteristics of one thing to another. For instance, some have compared exploitation of animals for work and food to human slavery. To make such a claim, a debater might argue that in order to use animals for work or for food, humans need to consider animals as “property” in the same way that slaves were considered property. Since most audiences reject slavery on moral grounds, this kind of claim of similarity is used in an attempt to convince an audience to reject the idea that animals can be considered property.

1705136102

1705136103 15.1.1.3 Claims of Evaluation

1705136104

1705136105 Claims of evaluation include several kinds of claims, all of which involve values or evaluations in similar ways. First, these kinds of claims can be used to order values so that one value is considered more important than another. For instance, a debater might assert the claim that “Freedom is more important than security.” Such a claim is interesting by itself because it brings to light a particular hierarchy of values. A value hierarchy can be used to assign certain concepts, people, institutions, or actions a higher or lower value in terms of how those things will be evaluated. Thus, this kind of value hierarchy may also become important when debaters create claims to assign values to objects.

1705136106

1705136107 Second, some evaluative claims assign values to objects. These claims are quite common in debate. For instance, the claim that “The culture of ancient Greece was the most enlightened in human history,” assigns a positive value to the culture of ancient Greece. Similarly, to argue that “The 2008 Beijing Olympics were the best Olympic games in modern history,” assigns a very high value to the 2008 Olympics relative to other Olympic games.

1705136108

1705136109 Third, another very common type of evaluative claim involves policy or action. “The nations of the world should reduce dependence on nuclear power” is an example of a claim that supports a particular policy. Another is “The government of Botswana should do more to protect wildlife within its borders.” Both of these claims evaluate a particular action, whether that action is reducing dependence on nuclear power or protecting wildlife.

1705136110

1705136111 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132472]

1705136112 15.1.2 A Taxonomy of Claims

1705136113

1705136114 Claims recommending changes in policy may involve debates about definitions and descriptions, associations of cause and effect or similarity, as well as values. Policy claims are among the most complex claims that can be debated. Still, as a matter of convention, they are probably the most common.

1705136115

1705136116 Thinking about how to classify different kinds of claims is more than just an academic exercise. By considering how a particular claim is classified, a debater can also better think of how to support that claim. As they become more experienced, debaters will learn to use certain types of claims, either singly or in combination with one another, to support various kinds of claims. Methods of combining types of claims to support claims of evaluation will be considered more fully in Chapter 20.

1705136117

1705136118 The category system used in this text is different from systems used in other books about argumentation and debate. As stated earlier, the traditional and most common taxonomy is fact, value, and policy. Because debaters will undoubtedly come in contact with this traditional method of organizing claims, a description of the similarities of the traditional taxonomy and the one used in this text is presented in the table below. The table uses Hill and Leeman’s taxonomy as a starting point because it is perhaps the most complete.

1705136119

1705136120

1705136121

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136072e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]