Analyzing data, confirming and proving a position, reasoning logically on a certain topic is a skill that not every person is born with. However, regardless of professional activity, we need to learn to think and evaluate arguments, and the theory of argumentation will help with this. It is an interdisciplinary study that includes dialogue, discussion, conversation and persuasion. But what is the essence of this theory? What is included in the structure, strategy, varieties, methods and techniques of argumentation?
Argumentation theory: what is it?
The word “argumentation” in translation means presenting reasons and arguments in order to convince the interlocutor of one’s own position. After all, the process of presenting facts and a set of arguments is argumentation. This theory is used in work, everyday affairs, career, politics, negotiations and other types of discussions. There are two types of argumentation:
Straight. When you provide arguments and facts to a proposed proposal.
Indirect. You do not express your position, but refute the words of your interlocutor.
Every argument has structure, methods, techniques, strategy, and rules. Having good base knowledge about the theory of argumentation, !
Argument structure
If during a conversation it is necessary to convince another, a lively dialogue with serious arguments is required. The following structure is observed:
Thesis. This is a brief statement of a position, which the two sides begin to actively discuss. The thesis can be any proposal and any point of view. The goal is to prove truth and veracity.
Reasoning. At this stage, opponents actively present arguments, each in their own favor. Such evidence includes facts, theories, stories, experience, and laws. The irrefutability of evidence and statements plays an important role. If they can be easily questioned, then the desired result will not be achieved!
Demonstration. This is the connecting element between the thesis and reasoning. As a result, a conclusion appears on this issue.
All types of argumentative processes pass through this structure: criticism, confirmation, proof, refutation.
Argumentation Strategies
Although arguments differ in characteristics and types, the following strategies are distinguished:
Traditional.
When used in argumentation, this strategy requires a sufficient amount of time. During the discussion, the following questions are raised:
What suggestions do you have?
What is included in your reasoning?
How can they be understood?
What are the consequences?
What are the reasons for making this decision?
Are there any similar assumptions?
How effective and applicable are they?
This technique is very effective, because during the questions the person himself changes his point of view. At the same time, you do not convince him, but only help him consider other facets, the reasons for the appearance of the position and the consequences.
Eastern.
The second name for this strategy is intuitive. It is aimed primarily at the use of such techniques as associativity, deep thinking, and the connection of things that at first glance are far from each other. When presenting arguments, comparisons, metaphors and statements with abstract meanings are most effective. This strategy is applicable to those people who are prone to deep thinking and reasoning.
Pragmatic.
This strategy is typical of the American style. During the conversation, a clear boundary is drawn between knowledge and practice. Words in this case play an insignificant role, and practical arguments have more importance.
European.
The essence of this strategy is to break down a proposal into its component parts in order to influence another person and convince him of this position. Established norms, rules and positions play a significant role.
Each strategy has a right to exist, and depending on the situation, it is worth selecting a certain type of argument.
Rules of Argumentation
In order for your arguments to be accepted and have only a positive impact on the people around you, you should adhere to the established rules and norms:
Give only true arguments.
It is important that the arguments do not contradict each other.
It is important to provide enough arguments.
By following these three rules, you will notice how your arguments will become more effective and influential on other people. However, it is worth applying other tips that will allow you.
Use only terms whose meaning you know well.
Don't speak in front of a large audience on a topic you don't know.
Prepare at least 5-7 arguments.
Don't jump off topic to achieve results. It is recommended to strictly adhere to the given thesis.
Methods and techniques of argumentation
To win an argument and to attract your interlocutor to your side, you need to know and apply different argumentation techniques. Such techniques include:
Classic.
This method is widely and effectively used. It is used even by those who do not understand the concept of argumentation theory and strategy. This technique is based on putting forward a thesis, bringing a certain amount arguments and making a final decision. However, not in every case the result can be achieved using the classical method. In this case, you need to use or at least know about other methods.
To make your arguments more powerful, it is important to use scientific data, facts and figures.
Comparisons.
This method is more effective than the classical one, because it uses the mind, the ability to think and reflect on various issues. If you used more than one item in comparison, then it is already an analogy. To achieve better results when making arguments, do not forget about the power of hidden arguments. In this case, the arguments will gain a different strength, become convincing and interesting for discussion.
"Transfer of the arrow."
This technique is considered innovative, interesting and exciting. At the same time, it is quite simple to master it. It is worth asking the following question: “What results will we achieve by applying your proposal?” The correct formulation of the question allows you to effortlessly lead the other person into a dead end and tell you about your own proposal, which you no longer have to prove!
When using this method, do not forget about a friendly tone, which should be expressed in tone of voice, facial expressions and posture.
Contradictions.
Here your task is to identify contradictions in your interlocutor’s arguments that are not in your proposals. Your position and ability to skillfully express your point of view play a significant role here. Think about what you say so that, with the correct wording of the phrase, you achieve the desired effect.
Drawing conclusions.
Consistency is important when using this technique. And with each phrase it is necessary to draw conclusions and gradually lead the interlocutor to accept his own point of view. By drawing conclusions, you will notice errors in the judgment of the other, which will lead the person to a dead end.
The secret to successful argumentation and victory in a discussion is to think through your own steps and the response of your interlocutor. Try to be one step ahead, and then your point of view will be victorious!
January 24, 2014, 12:01ARGUMENTATION THEORY
ARGUMENTATION THEORY
Studying the variety of discursive techniques used by some people to change the beliefs of other people (the audience).
AT, which began to take shape in antiquity, has gone through a long history, rich in ups and downs. Now we can talk about the formation of a “new theory” of argumentation, formed at the intersection of logic, linguistics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, hermeneutics, rhetoric, and eristics. The urgent task is to construct a general AT that answers such questions as: argumentation and its boundaries; methods of argumentation, the originality of argumentation in various fields of knowledge and activity, starting from the natural and human sciences and ending with philosophy, ideology and propaganda; style of argumentation from one historical era to in connection with changes in the culture of the era and its characteristic style of thinking, etc.
The central concepts of general A.t. are: persuasion, acceptance of a statement, method of argumentation and its, audience, argumentation, argumentation, participant in argumentation, dissonance and consonance of positions, dispute and dialogue, evidence, truth and value, etc.
A.t. explores the ways in which beliefs (justified beliefs) are formed and deals with the problem of truth to the extent necessary to clarify the concept of belief. Beliefs may be accepted by the audience not only because they express truth, but also for many other important and secondary reasons; due, for example, to the fact that some consequences of the beliefs being discussed are confirmed by experience, because the beliefs are simple, expressed by an authority figure, consistent with tradition, presented in an aesthetically perfect form, are well consistent with already accepted beliefs, meet the interests of the audience, etc. On the other hand, if a certain proposition is true, it does not follow that it will certainly be accepted by the audience. What is presented may turn out to be too complex or uninteresting for her, does not correspond to her group or class preferences, etc.; the truth may be expressed by a person who does not enjoy trust, it may not correspond to established traditions, contradict generally accepted theories, seem useless, or even harmful, etc.
Oppositions are essential for argumentation: absolute - comparative, universally significant - contextual, truth - value, natural science - humanitarian, etc.
In the process of absolute argumentation, those convincing, or sufficient, arguments are given in support of the thesis, by virtue of which it should be accepted. Comparative argumentation aims to show that it is better to accept a given position than some other position. General absolute argumentation: “A is acceptable because C”; scheme of comparative argumentation: “A is more acceptable than B because C.” Here A is the thesis, B is its, C is the basis of the argument. Absolute argumentation can be interpreted as partial comparative: "A is acceptable because C" means "A is more acceptable than not-A because C." Absolute argumentation is also commonly called justification, comparative argumentation - rationalization (in this case it means the ability to choose the best of the available alternatives). Justification is an absolute assessment of knowledge, a comparative assessment (“A should be accepted, since C” and “It is better to accept A than B, since C”).
Depending on the nature of the basis of argumentation, all methods of argumentation can be divided into generally valid and contextual. Generally significant (theoretical and empirical) methods include: direct and indirect (inductive); thesis from the accepted general provisions; checking the thesis against other laws and principles, in particular with the regulatory principles of simplicity, familiarity, etc.; thesis with t.zr. the fundamental possibility of its empirical confirmation and refutation; checking its applicability to a wider class of objects; a thesis into some theory; improvement of the theory containing it, strengthening of its empirical basis and clarification general principles, identifying the logical connections of its statements, minimizing its initial assumptions and, if possible, its axiomatization and; formulating explanations and predictions based on theory, etc.; reference to the effectiveness of the method by which the thesis was obtained, etc. Contextual methods of justification and rationalization include reference to intuition, faith, authorities, tradition, the use of various kinds of “personal arguments” and other rhetorical techniques.
General contours of the new A.T. have emerged in the last three to four decades. It restores what was positive in antiquity. rhetoric and is sometimes called new rhetoric on this basis. It became obvious that A.t. cannot be reduced to a logical theory of proof, which is based on truths and for which the concepts of persuasion and audience are completely foreign. A.t. Nor can it be reduced to the methodology of science or the theory of knowledge. Argumentation is a certain human process that takes place in a specific social context and has its ultimate goal not in itself, but in the acceptability of some provisions. The latter may include not only descriptions of reality, but also assessments, norms, advice, declarations, oaths, promises, etc. A.t. Nor can it be reduced to eristics - the theory of argument, for it is only one of many possible situations of argumentation.
In the formation of the main ideas of the new A.T. an important role was played by the works of X. Perelman, G. Johnston, F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and others. However, in A.T. lacks a single paradigm or a few competing paradigms and represents barely visible different opinions on this theory, its main problems and development prospects.
In A.t. the argumentation is considered from three different positions, complementing each other: from the perspective. thinking, with t.zr. man and society and, finally, with t.zr. history. Each of these aspects of consideration has its own specific characteristics and is divided into subdivisions.
Analysis of argumentation from the first, logical-epistemological point of view. includes three main areas:
1) ways to substantiate and rationalize descriptive and evaluative statements; These methods include not only such traditional generally valid (universal) techniques as, say, deductive and inductive confirmation of consequences, but also contextual methods of justification, such as references to intuition and tradition;
2) analysis of the dependence of the argumentation on the problematic situation within the general framework of which it occurs;
3) identifying those features of argumentation that are associated with its application in different areas of thinking; There are three such areas and, accordingly, three types of argumentation: theoretical, practical and artistic argumentation. Theoretical argumentation, in turn, breaks down into natural science and humanitarian, practical argumentation into ideological (including, in particular, propaganda) and utopian.
Analysis of argumentation as human activity character, presupposes the audience in which the argument unfolds. The narrowest audience includes only the one who puts forward a certain position or, and those whose beliefs he seeks to strengthen or change. A narrow audience could be, for example, two people arguing or someone putting forward a new concept and someone trying to evaluate it. The broader audience in these cases will be all those who are present at the argument, or all those who are involved in the discussion of the new scientific concept, including non-specialists recruited to one side through propaganda. The study of the social dimension of argumentation also involves analyzing the dependence of the manner of argumentation on general characteristics that particular integral society or community within which it occurs. A typical example is the peculiarities of argumentation in the so-called. collectivist (closed) societies (totalitarian, medieval feudal society, etc.) or collectivist communities (“”, army, totalitarian political party, etc.).
The study of the historical dimension of argumentation includes three temporal aspects:
1. Taking into account the historically specific time in which the argumentation takes place and which leaves its mark on it.
2. Study of the style of thinking of a historical era and those features of its culture that leave their indelible imprint on any argumentation related to a given one. Such a study allows us to identify five fundamentally different, successive types, or styles, of argumentation: archaic (or primitive) argumentation, antique. argumentation, medieval (or scholastic) argumentation, "classical" modern argumentation, and modern argumentation.
3. Analysis of the changes that argumentation undergoes throughout human history. It is in this context that it becomes possible to compare argumentation styles from different historical eras and raise questions about the comparability (or incomparability) of these styles, the possible superiority of some of them over others, and, finally, about the reality of historical progress in the field of argumentation.
A.t. interprets argumentation not only as a special technique of persuasion and substantiation of put forward positions, but also as a practical one, which presupposes the ability to choose from a variety of possible methods of argumentation the totality and configuration that are required by the characteristics of the audience and the problem under discussion.
Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .
See what "ARGUMENTATION THEORY" is in other dictionaries:
A theory that studies the various discussion techniques that are used in the process of argumentation. A. t., which began to take shape in antiquity, has gone through a long history, rich in ups and downs. Now we can talk about the formation of a new... Dictionary of Logic Terms
argumentation theory- , units Interdisciplinary scientific theory, which arose as a result of philosophical, logical, psychological, linguistic and political science research and describes argumentative structures, their structure, goal setting, ethical... ... Educational dictionary of stylistic terms
Indo-Europeans Indo-European languages Anatolian · Albanian Armenian · Baltic · Venetian Germanic · Illyrian Aryan: Nuristanian, Iranian, Indo-Aryan... Wikipedia
Evolutionary doctrine (also evolutionism and evolutionism) is a system of ideas and concepts in biology that affirm the historical progressive development of the Earth’s biosphere, its constituent biogeocenoses, as well as individual taxa and species, which can be ... Wikipedia
- (critical theory) A theory that can provide the analytical and ethical justification necessary to identify the structure of the phenomena underlying social practice and reveal the possible deformation embodied in them social life(Sean... ... Political science. Dictionary.
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY- (RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY) Rational choice theory, the origin of which is associated with economic science, is a rapidly developing direction of sociological theory, the more precise name of which is approach or paradigm... ... Sociological Dictionary
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY- one of the influential Western social theories, developed by J. Habermas in line with the critical theory of society and aimed at an integrative understanding of social reality. K.D.T. substantiates the critical theory of society based on the analysis... ... Modern philosophical dictionary
Argumentation presupposes the presence of evidence, but is not limited to it. Proof is the logical basis of argumentation. At the same time, argumentation requires, along with evidence, persuasive influence. The compelling, necessary nature of evidence, its impersonality, constitute the main difference between evidence and argumentation. The argumentation is non-forceful in nature; its correctness cannot be established mechanically. When comparing the results of argumentation and evidence, they sometimes say: “Proved, but not convinced.” (And logicians say differently: “When they can’t prove it, then they argue.”)
In general, if we characterize the relationship between logic and the theory of argumentation, we can say that both of these disciplines study the techniques and forms of organizing thinking. But in accordance with their objectives and methodology, they do this in different ways. Symbolic (i.e. modern formal) logic studies the problem of the validity of our reasoning in the aspect of their evidence, using rigorous mathematical methods. Methods of symbolic logic are effective for solving a range of problems that can be formalized. The theory of argumentation introduces into scientific consideration a wider class of contexts and living speech situations, called discourses, which can only partially be formalized. These are the arguments of philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, history and other humanities. And in this sense, for example, legal argumentation carefully developed over many centuries, based on empirically established judgments and material evidence, is not considered logically sound argumentation.
But we must not forget that argumentation is a rational form of persuasion, since in it the conviction is based on the arguments of reason and logic, and not on emotions, feelings, and especially not on volitional and other influences or coercion. Typically, argumentation takes on a logical character, although the person using it may not know the laws of logic, just as a competent writer cannot accurately name the rules of grammar. In this case, laws and rules are applied unconsciously, automatically, as self-evident norms, since they lead to the right results. But when errors occur in oral reasoning or in writing, then the laws of logic or the rules of grammar make it possible not only to detect them, but also to explain the reasons for their occurrence. This is why logic and grammar play such an important role in the persuasion process.
Since the judgments of logic express the relationship of our thoughts to reality and they are characterized as true or false, logic has priority in rational argumentation. Of course, the most convincing arguments in argumentation are ultimately facts, but they must be properly ordered and systematized, and this can only be achieved with the help of logical judgments and inferences. Ultimately, rational belief is achieved through logically correct reasoning in which conclusions are deduced or supported by true premises. If the conclusion follows from the premises according to the rules of logical inference, the reasoning is called deductive. If the conclusion is only confirmed and justified by premises, then the reasoning will not be deductive, but, for example, a conclusion by induction or analogy, or a statistical inference.
Argumentation is the science and art of making your opinion justified and convincing another person of it.
Rationale And belief - These two fundamental principles of argumentation give it duality. On the one hand, the theory of argumentation is a logical discipline based on logical methodology, since proof is a prerequisite when advancing and defending one’s position both in scientific research and in public discussion. On the other hand, argumentation includes a rhetorical component due to the fundamentally communicative nature of proof: we always prove something to someone - a person, an audience.
The most important area of application of argumentation is disputes and discussions. Argumentative debate in antiquity was called dialectics, which meant the art of verbal interaction, the intellectual game of questions and answers. This understanding of dialectics distinguishes it from simple dispute - eristics. A dispute arises from a confrontation of opinions; it can take place like a game without rules, where there are gaps in reasoning and there is no logical coherence of thoughts. Dialectics, on the contrary, presupposes as necessary condition the presence of logical contacts and connections that give the flow of thought the character of sequential reasoning. The dialectical process is a process aimed at seeking knowledge or reaching agreements.
In addition, Aristotle, who can rightfully be called the founder of not only logic, but also the theory of argumentation, as well as rhetoric, gave dialectics another meaning - the art of plausible (probabilistic) reasoning, which deals not with exact knowledge, but with opinions. Actually, this is exactly what we encounter in discussions where certain points of view are discussed - opinions on certain socially significant or representative scientific interest questions.
As we have already noted, the theory of argumentation deals with evidence in a broad sense - as everything that convinces of the truth of any judgment. In this sense argumentation is always dialogical and broader than logical proof(which is predominantly impersonal and monological), since argumentation assimilates not only the “technique of thinking” (the art of logical organization of thought), but also the “technique of persuasion” (the art of coordinating the thoughts, feelings and wills of interlocutors). That is, we can say that in argumentation, emotional, volitional and other actions, which are usually attributed to psychological and pragmatic factors, play no less a role than methods of reasoning. In addition to them, a person’s moral attitudes, social orientations, individual habits, inclinations, etc. have a noticeable influence on conviction.
The following levels of argumentation are distinguished:
- 1) informational - the level of content of the message sent to the addressee; that information (primarily about facts, events, phenomena, conditions) that they strive to bring to his attention;
- 2) logical - level of organization of the message, its construction (consistency and mutual consistency of arguments, their organization into a logically acceptable conclusion, systemic coherence);
- 3) communicative-rhetorical- a set of methods of persuasion and techniques (in particular, forms and styles of speech and emotional influence);
- 4) axiological - systems of values (general cultural, scientific, group) that the arguer and the recipient adhere to and which determine the selection of arguments and methods of argumentation;
- 5) ethical - the level of “practical philosophy”, the application of a person’s moral principles in practice, during a communicative dialogue, the moral acceptability or unacceptability of certain arguments and techniques of argument and discussion;
- 6) aesthetic - level of artistic taste, aesthetics of communication, construction of dialogue as an intellectual game.
The fundamental concept of argumentation theory is the concept justifications. Justification, or giving reasons for an argument or judgment, requires critical steps to reflect on the essence of the subject under discussion. Along with rational arguments in modern theory argumentation types of justification include arguments to personal experience, since for an individual it is personal experience- the most natural criterion of truth and persuasiveness, appeals to faith and a number of others.
Argumentation includes evidence (validity in the objective sense) and persuasiveness (validity in the subjective sense). Evidence in science, as a rule, coincides with persuasiveness (though within the framework of one paradigm or another). In real communication, the opposite is often the case - for a number of argumentative practices (dispute, business negotiations), the art of persuasion comes to the fore.
As a result of our consideration of the phenomenon of argumentation, the following complete definition can be given.
Argumentation - This is a verbal, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a rational subject of the acceptability (unacceptability) of a point of view by putting forward a certain set of statements that are compiled to justify or refute this point of view.
This definition was developed by the Amsterdam school of pragma-dialectics. By shortening and simplifying this (and others similar to it) definition, we get a “working” version: argumentation is a communicative activity aimed at forming or changing the views (beliefs) of another person by presenting rationally based arguments.
