1705136470 In the second kind of analogy, a debater might want to argue that two examples are so similar in known regards that they are also expected to be similar in unknown regards. That kind of argument by analogy also uses two parallel cases. The cases are said to be parallel because they both contain known similar features. However, the first case contains a known feature that is unknown in the second case. This argument by analogy infers that the features known in the first case and unknown in the second probably are present in both cases.

1705136471

1705136472 Using the earlier example of China and the US, the arguer might focus on similarities between the two parallel cases, China and the US. The arguer might suggest that those two cases are similar in two known regards: the presence of strong economic power and increasing numbers of women in the workplace. Based on the presence of those two known similarities, the arguer then might infer that a known feature of the first case, e.g., a general lowering of the rate of unemployment, will also be present in the second case. Thus, the claim made in that argument could be that 21st century China will witness a general lowering of the rate of unemployment. The analogy allows the debater to infer that something known in the first case is present, although unknown, in the second case.

1705136473

1705136474 In many instances, an argument by analogy supports a descriptive argument. Consider again the general analogy that 21st century China will be like 20th century US. A precise reading of that claim suggests that it merely describes, without evaluating, life in 20th century US, and 21st century China. However, this and most analogies are at least implicitly evaluative because the audience evaluates the first case (here, life in 20th century US.) in a particular way and, therefore, will likely come to evaluate the second case (here, life in 21st century China) in the same way. Depending on the audience, people may have either a negative or positive association with 20th century US. They may see the US, as an arrogant superpower and a terrible polluter, or, on the positive side, may see the US as an economic powerhouse and an advocate for human rights. So, depending on whether the audience sees 20th century US as positive or negative, the argument by analogy will lead them to evaluate 21st century China in the same positive or negative way. Thus, an analogy has the function of transferring the positive or negative evaluation of the 20th century US to 21st century China.

1705136475

1705136476 A precise reading of the second example’s claim that “21st century China will witness a general lowering of the rate of unemployment” also indicates that this is a descriptive claim. A more insightful reading, however, suggests that the claim is also evaluative given the assumption that most audiences perceive lowering the rate of unemployment as a positive thing. Thus, a more subtle reading of this claim indicates that it is evaluative as well as descriptive.

1705136477

1705136478 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132491]

1705136479 17.4 Argument by Causality

1705136480

1705136481 Causal links, as the name implies, are used to construct arguments of cause and effect. Constructing an argument about cause and effect is especially difficult because causes cannot be observed; we can only infer them. Over the years, people have developed a variety of ways to infer cause and effect relationships. Four of those ways include absence and presence, change over time, correlation, and controlled empirical studies.

1705136482

1705136483 One common way to support a cause and effect relationship involves comparing the absence and presence of possible causes and effects to find potential relationships between the two. Using the idea of presence, a person might first notice the simultaneous presence of a suspected cause and suspected effect. Observers might notice that the US, a country in which citizens own a large number of guns, has a large number of murders—about 160,000 murders per year in a population of 300 million (Harris, 2006). Thus, the simultaneous presence of a suspected cause (a large number of citizen-owned guns) and a suspected effect (a high murder rate) might lead an arguer to suggest that the number of guns contributes to the high murder rate. But the simultaneous presence of cause and effect does not provide particularly good evidence of a cause and effect relationship. Someone might point to other factors in the US that could be the real cause of the high incidence of murder—factors such as racial strife or inadequate numbers of police in some major cities. In other words, alternative factors unrelated to the suspected cause (citizen-owned guns) might be the actual cause of the effect (high murder rate).

1705136484

1705136485 In order to argue that alternative factors such as those mentioned above are not the real cause, the arguer must look not only to the simultaneous presence of the suspected cause and effect, but to simultaneous absence, as well. In the above example, the arguer might look for an instance where the suspected cause (citizen-owned guns) is absent, pointing perhaps to the case of China where citizen-owned guns are illegal. The question then becomes whether the suspected effect (a high incidence of murder) is or is not present in China. The arguer could then point to the fact that the likelihood of being murdered in the US is four times higher than the chance of being murdered in China (Harris, 2006). Therefore, the arguer could conclude that because both the suspected cause(citizen-owned guns) and the suspected effect (high rate of murder) are absent in China, citizen gun ownership contributes to the high rate of murder in the US.

1705136486

1705136487 So, one method of supporting a causal relationship is to use the simultaneous presence and absence of the cause and effect. By itself, the simultaneous presence of a suspected cause and effect does not provide particularly strong evidence of a causal relationship. However, the added evidence of the simultaneous absence of the suspected causes and effects makes much better evidence for a cause and effect relationship.

1705136488

1705136489 A second way of arguing for a cause and effect relationship is change over time. When someone argues that one thing causes another, he or she frequently does so by observing that some change in the first thing is accompanied by a corresponding change in the second. The person is able to observe the changes in both, and, on the basis of those changes, can infer that the change in the first thing caused the change in the second. For instance, a man who changes from a high fat to a low fat diet and loses five kilos in a month might lead to his inference that reducing the fat content in his diet caused his weight loss. Two things were observed: a change in diet and a loss of weight. From those observations, the arguer inferred that the changes in diet caused weight loss.

1705136490

1705136491 A third way to make inferences about cause and effect relationships is to examine correlation. To use the method of correlation to infer a cause and effect relationship, an arguer can point to the fact that the incidence of a suspected cause and its suspected effect rise and fall in relationship to one another. For instance, the arguer will suggest that as the frequency of a suspected cause increases, the frequency of the suspected effect also increases. Of course, many are quick to state that correlation and causation are not the same things. Although correlation is not causation, correlation is one test of a causal relationship. If two events are not correlated, any inference that they are causally related to one another would be wrong. So, using the method of correlation, a debater might argue that smoking is one of the causes of lung cancer because, as the incidence of smoking increases within a society, the incidence of lung cancer increases, as well. Such a correlation provides evidence, although not perfect evidence, that smoking causes lung cancer. Correlation by itself may not be sufficient to prove a causal relationship, because correlation does not rule out other potential causes (such as living in a polluted area, being genetically disposed to lung cancer, etc.). Still, correlation is a method to make at least an initial inference regarding a causal relationship.

1705136492

1705136493 A fourth method of supporting a cause and effect relationship involves controlled empirical studies. As stated earlier, correlation and simultaneous presence of suspected causes and effects are imperfect methods of inferring causal relationships. Sometimes, scholars are able to design controlled empirical studies that help to offset those imperfections. For instance, an empirical study might examine the relationship between smoking and lung cancer while controlling for the effects of other possible causes (such as pollution, genetics, etc.) and might discover that, even considering the potential effects of those alternative causes, the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer still is substantial.

1705136494

1705136495 Debaters frequently use argument by causality to judge actions based on their consequences. A debater first uses causal links to convince the audience that a particular action will cause certain consequences. In that case, the argument is that an action (smoking) leads to a consequence (lung cancer). Then, the debater can argue that an action that has good consequences is justified while one that has bad consequences is not. Thus, in the smoking example, the debater maintains, either implicitly or explicitly, that society has an obligation to stop people from smoking to reduce the negative consequences of that action.

1705136496

1705136497 We must consider a variety of factors when judging the adequacy of this argument. As causes are inferred but not directly observed, they are difficult to prove and, even in the best of circumstances, cannot be proven completely.

1705136498

1705136499 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132492]

1705136500 17.5 Argument by Principle

1705136501

1705136502 Creating a link from a principle to a claim is a useful technique for supporting an argument of evaluation—especially in cases where debaters must justify a particular action. Whereas, the argument by causality is used to judge an action based on its consequences, the argument by principle, as its name implies, judges an action based on the principles involved. A simple comparison might clarify the distinction between consequences and principles. For instance, why is cheating on a college examination a bad idea? An argument based on consequences might suggest that cheating is a bad idea because students who are caught risk being expelled from school. An argument from principle might say you should not cheat because cheating goes against the important principle of honesty. Debaters using argument from principle ordinarily claim that principles are more important than consequences, and that, when consequences and principles point in opposite directions, people should follow the principles.

1705136503

1705136504 An argument from principle ordinarily has three parts. First, the debater must select a principle. Second, the debater should argue for the importance of that principle. Third, the debater should apply the action being contemplated to the principle. One action sometimes justified on principle is the abolition of capital punishment (the death penalty). That example can be used to explain the three parts of an argument by principle.

1705136505

1705136506 In the case of capital punishment, the debater might, for instance, select the sanctity of human life as the appropriate principle. Having selected that principle, she or he would then turn to a consideration of the importance of that principle, perhaps suggesting that we should never violate the sanctity of human life because life is the essence of human existence. Without life, the very essence of humanity is gone. Having selected the principle and shown why it is important, the debater would then apply the action to the principle showing how capital punishment quite obviously violates the sanctity of human life because it involves the intentional taking of a human life.

1705136507

1705136508 One of the difficulties with the previous example is that many people do not accept the principle of the sanctity of human life in all situations. For instance, most societies are willing to set aside that principle in matters of self-, family-, or societal-defense. In other words, most societies agree that the taking of a human life in self-defense, in defense of one’s family, or in defense of one’s nation is justified. As a result, some debaters might revise the argument slightly by modifying the selected principle and, as a result, the rest of the argument. That modified argument would, of course, need to argue that capital punishment is not needed in matters of self-, family-, or societal-defense.

1705136509

1705136510 The adequacy of an argument from principle depends on several assumptions. First, the argument presumes that the articulated principle is sound, in general, or at least in the context in which it is being applied. Frequently, persons who use an argument by principle claim that the principle applies universally. For example, some claim that the sanctity of human life is absolute and universal—that no cases exist in which the intentional taking of human life is justified. In other cases, arguers might define a specific context in which the principle is applicable. A debater might be unwilling to defend the sanctity of life as an absolute and universal principle, and might acknowledge certain instances where the principle should be set aside. The debater might, therefore, refine the principle by arguing that the sanctity of life should apply in situations that do not involve self-defense or defense of one’s family or community.

1705136511

1705136512 A second assumption of the argument from principle is that the action being defended applies unambiguously to the principle. A debater would have little difficulty demonstrating that capital punishment clearly applies to the principle of sanctity of human life, because capital punishment obviously ends a human life; however, the debater would have to construct a more elaborate argument to show that capital punishment applies to the principle against taking a life except in self-defense. In that case, the debater would need to argue that capital punishment is not necessary for a society to defend itself against potential murderers. The debater could argue that capital punishment is not necessary for self-defense for a variety of reasons, for instance, that life imprisonment without parole, instead of capital punishment, is a sufficient means of societal self-defense. Whether the principle involves the sanctity of human life in general, or the sanctity of human life except in cases of self-defense, the debater would need to establish that capital punishment is unequivocally related to the principle.

1705136513

1705136514 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132493]

1705136515 17.6 Argument by Incompatibility

1705136516

1705136517 Incompatibility is a kind of argument used to refute an opponent’s argument and, by implication, support the debater’s own. Using this kind of argument, a debater can attempt to show that an opponent holds incompatible views on a particular issue and that, as a result, one of those views must be discarded. For instance, a debater using that argument might argue, “How can my opponent be a supporter of human rights and still support the US war in Iraq?” The assumption is that the US war in Iraq was incompatible with human rights, and, thus, a person cannot logically support both human rights and the US war in Iraq simultaneously, and that, as a result, the opponent cannot logically support the war.

1705136518

1705136519 The argument from incompatibility has its foundation in principles of both logic and physics. A principle of physics maintains that two objects cannot be in the same place at the same time. Analytic philosophers hold to a precept that they call the “principle of non-contradiction.” That principle states that an object cannot simultaneously be and not be X. Those two principles are similar to an argument by incompatibility, but are not the same. Although two objects cannot be in the same place at the same time, an arguer can, even logically, hold two positions that seem incompatible. The difference is that the properties of the physical world are not amenable to change by interpretation. A person cannot “interpret” the physical world such that that person and an oncoming train would be able to occupy the same space at the same time. However, an arguer may be able to interpret the “US war in Iraq” and “human rights” in such a way that they are not incompatible.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513647e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]