{"id":685,"date":"2019-06-03T10:00:36","date_gmt":"2019-06-03T09:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=685"},"modified":"2019-05-30T08:46:18","modified_gmt":"2019-05-30T07:46:18","slug":"argument-repair","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/argument-repair\/","title":{"rendered":"Argument Repair"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s easy to blame current problems with public discourse on the brevity of on-line communication. People are moving away from blogs to image exchanges. TLDR<\/a>. Limited word counts (such as on Twitter) and the combination of immediacy with anonymity lend to verbal fighting. Quick comebacks receive rewards of \u201clikes\u201d and \u201cthumbs up\u201d. We might mitigate or even reverse this momentum by directing attention to how we engage other people when we argue with them, and so I recommend we make argument repair part of our practice and our teaching.<\/p>\n

Constructive engagement seems to require a longer format and detailed reasons. That analysis jibes with the dual process model of cognition developed and made famous by Daniel Khaneman<\/a>, especially in Thinking, Fast and Slow<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> According to dual process theory, quick thinking tends to employ biases of various kinds, including basing views on single experiences and other problematic ways of generalizing but also basing views on social stereotypes.<\/p>\n

The answer then seems to lie in fighting the tendency to reason quickly. In North America, Australia, and the UK, critical thinking courses that involve argument analysis and evaluation tend to be a standard part of college and university education for students in all sorts of fields. Perhaps this could be done as a more basic part of education, in secondary school, and in more post-secondary education.<\/p>\n

Yet, we need to consider (for this and other reasons) whether the way we teaching critical thinking suffices to resist the pull of quick tussles on the internet. A strategy for slowing down reasoning and an alternative model of argumentation would help.<\/p>\n

A model for this can be found in Richard Epstein\u2019s<\/a> notion of argument repair, which involves improving other conversants\u2019 arguments by deleting weak premises and adding strong ones. Related techniques can be found in reasoning textbooks by Sharon Bailin and Mark Battersby<\/a> and by Michael Gilbert<\/a>. All of these treatments are more specific than vague appeals to charity in interpretation.<\/p>\n

Epstein suggests<\/a> that we are justified in adding a premise or conclusion if and only if all the following hold:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The argument becomes valid or strong<\/li>\n
  2. The premise is plausible and plausible to the other person.<\/li>\n
  3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The first and third of these we can sort out ourselves. The second requires conferring with the person whose argument seems unacceptable on the face of it. In all cases we treat other people as engaged with us in a shared project of understanding. So, argument repair builds both reasons and interpersonal relationships.<\/p>\n

    Epstein explains that argument repair implicitly involves a certain regard for other arguers. We must assume they:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Know about the subject under discussion.<\/li>\n
    2. Are able and willing to reason well.<\/li>\n
    3. Are not lying.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Often these may not be true of people we argue with, and certainly not all disagreements are sites for argument repair.<\/p>\n

      In fact, a certain sort of troll preys on those who adopt this pro-social attitude in the trolling technique known as \u201csealioning<\/a>\u201d (the term based on a comic, here<\/a>). Sealions are antagonists who play at desiring respectful discussion and enlightenment while feigning ignorance. The main harm done is to waste time and annoy the other person.<\/p>\n

      It would be great to find ways to spot sealions, avoid them, and deflect their trolling, but I\u2019m not sure there\u2019s a simple strategy to be had. A culture of argument repair need not contribute to the problem, however. A more robust culture of on-line respect in which the limits of reasonable questioning and reasonable expectations of assistance becomes clear could provide an indirect strategy against sealioning. While argument repair provides some improvement on the principle of charity, more could be done to develop it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"It\u2019s easy to blame current problems with public discourse on the brevity of on-line communication. People are moving away from blogs to image exchanges. TLDR. Limited word counts (such as […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":686,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"An excellent post by Cate Hundleby, \"Argument Repair\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[60,5],"custom_author":[185],"class_list":["post-685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-argumentation","tag-debate","custom_author-hundleby-catherine"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-b3","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":197,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/arguing-virtuously\/","url_meta":{"origin":685,"position":0},"title":"Arguing Virtuously","author":"Andrew Aberdein","date":"August 14, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"I recently found out that I had been collecting books by accident. Rearranging some shelves, I discovered I had several books with similar titles, all acquired at different times, and for different reasons, but with a strikingly similar theme: Winning Arguments; How to Win An Argument; How to Win Every\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/330px-1909_Tyee_-_Debate_and_Oratory_illustration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1064,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/is-jk-rowling-transphobic\/","url_meta":{"origin":685,"position":1},"title":"Is JK Rowling transphobic?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 30, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Is JK Rowling transphobic? According to many transgender activists and their supporters, including Harry Potter stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Eddie Redmayne she is. The LGBTQ+ organisation GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has said that the author \u201ccontinues to align herself with an ideology which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/BWTrans_Women_are_Real_Women_39819062561-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":624,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/epicurus-on-losing-arguments\/","url_meta":{"origin":685,"position":2},"title":"Epicurus on Losing Arguments","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Epicurus\u2019s Vatican Saying #74 runs: \u201cthe one who loses in a philosophical dispute gains more the more he learns.\u201d\u00a0 I remember reading that line as an undergraduate, thinking it curious and perhaps a bit perverse.\u00a0 How would Epicurus himself apply this to his own views, after critique from the likes\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":921,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ethicists-hold-your-horses-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":685,"position":3},"title":"Ethicists, hold your horses (Part 2)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Fleur Jongepier\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Karin Jongsma In Part 1 we have argued that it\u2019s better if ethicists do not publish their takes on triage at this moment. A democratic\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/lego.2_0_image003-300x169.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":908,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ethicists-hold-your-horses-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":685,"position":4},"title":"Ethicists, hold your horses (Part 1)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Fleur Jongepier\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Karin Jongsma If intensive care beds or ventilators run out, who should be saved? And how should such decisions be morally justified? These are horrible, indeed impossible, decisions that clinicians currently face, or may be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/corona.2_0_image001-300x200.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":249,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-democracy-needs-good-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":685,"position":5},"title":"Good Democracy Needs Good Questions","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?\u201d This question was asked to both candidates at the second U.S. presidential debate, during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As per the \u2018town-hall\u2019 format of the debate, the question was asked by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/argument-2.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/685","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=685"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/685\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":687,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/685\/revisions\/687"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=685"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}