CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 13
disagreement; various mental parts are constantly insisting that the other parts are wrong.
Certainty imposes consensus on the inner cacophony. It lets you pretend that your entire brain
467–478).
The Future Is Inherently Uncertain. The primary reason for uncertainty in argumenta-
tion stems from the fact that decision making invariably commits you now to actions to
be carried out in the future. Argumentation comes into play when you must choose, and
choice inherently involves uncertainty. It may be uncertainty about future consequences
of what you do today, future preferences, or how you will feel about today’s actions to-
morrow (Simonson 158).
Argumentation and Critical Decision Making describes a process by which you seek
the best possible choices within a context of uncertainty and ambiguity. Most of the deci-
sion making people do occurs in this context. From trying to understand how your own
Critical Thinking—The Internal Dialogue
A second element of critical decision making is critical thinking. Although argumentation
is a social process (audience-centered), it involves engaging individuals in making up their
minds about how to act through communication with other people. Many people speak
of critical thinking alone, as if it were an end in itself. But critical thinking that is uncou-
pled from behavior has little value. Argumentation theory asserts that critical thinking is
one important part of the larger process of making critical decisions. There may be times
when you are satisfied simply to think critically, but we are talking about the incessant
obligation to make a decision and act on it.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 13 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 13 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
14 PART 1 Principles
assess the force of reasons in the context in which reasons play a role” are other ways to
characterize critical thinking.
Many scholars argue that critical thinking means to follow the rules of formal logic,
or at least to avoid fallacies that often turn on logical errors. Courses in logic are taught
with the purpose of improving critical thinking. However, even those who have studied
formal logic find it difficult to follow it in their thought processes. “Over the last 40 years
there has been a great deal of work in cognitive psychology on people’s logical reasoning
abilities.... The conclusion of this work was that in many areas people seem unable to
Critical thinking is the personal phase of critical decision making. It is the first step
in the conscious reconciliation between your inner thoughts and your social experience.
Critical decision making requires us to focus on our individual thinking as well as inter-
act with others in developing and testing arguments. To rely totally on either your own
thoughts or social influence is dangerous. If individuals engaging in argumentation are not
willing and able to think critically, they will be unable to participate effectively in critical
decision making.
The idea is this: You are able to carry on a conversation in your mind that involves
both a “self” that represents you and “others” who stand for those people, real or imag-
ined, with whom you wish to try out an argument. In a sense, all of our communication
behaviors are pretested in social simulations (internal dialogue) prior to being shared in
actual social situations (Wenburg and Wilmot 21). It may be misleading, in fact, to distin-
guish between imagined and actual interactions. During any conversation, you may find
yourself doing some of the dialogue mentally while some of it may be spoken aloud, and,
at any moment, you may not be able to say with confidence which is which. Some socie-
ties make no such distinction (Regal 61–66).
In critical thinking, you become keenly aware of your internal dialogues. You identify
and put aside the tendency to think only of how to justify your thoughts while denigrat-
ing the thinking of others. Instead, you must apply critical tests, reflect on what you are
doing, and try to open your mind to the potential weaknesses in your position while truly
looking for other and better ways of thinking. Ian Mitroff calls it “smart thinking” and
says if you are adept at it you “know how to cut through complex issues, ask the right
questions, and solve the right problems.” He concludes, “The ability to spot the right
problems, frame them correctly, and implement appropriate solutions to them is the true
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 14 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 14 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 15
competitive edge that will separate the successful individuals, organizations, and societies
from the also-rans” (Mitroff 6).
It is critical thinking that makes you able to become a working partner in the next
element of critical decision making: dialectic .
Dialectic—The External Dialogue
Dialectic is an ancient process that is very much on the minds of contemporary scholars.
As an element of critical decision making, dialectic is the social dialogue in which people
seek to come to understanding by opening themselves to the thinking of others with an
interest in learning and changing. Critical thinking is the internal dialogue and dialectic is
an external, interpersonal, or intertextual dialogue (Montgomery and Baxter 2). In some
Aristotle defined dialectic as the counterpart of rhetoric—a companion in the critical
decision making process, a philosophical disputation. He believed that people are inherently
rational: “The function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational
principle” ( Nicomachean Ethics 1098a).
In dialectic, individuals engage in conversation, one person advances a claim tenta-
tively, seeks to point out the reasoning behind it, and then responds to the probing ques-
tions of the others. “Dialectic proceeds by question and answer, not, as rhetoric does, by
continuous exposition” (Kennedy in Aristotle On Rhetoric 26). Michael Leff identifies
four points of contrast between dialectic and rhetoric: (1) issues in dialectic are more gen-
eral and abstract than those in rhetoric; (2) dialectic deals with the relationship of propo-
William Isaacs describes dialectic as a dialogue enabling a “free flow of meaning,
which has the potential of transforming the power relationships among the people con-
cerned” (395). His program, he says, can help business organizations change their pat-
terns of behavior in productive ways. In many meetings, says Isaacs, people feel themselves
or their actions being challenged and this generates a tendency toward defensiveness.
However, in dialogue, Isaacs argues, one has the choice to “defend or suspend”: to sus-
pend one’s defensiveness in order to listen and learn from others (365).
In the dialectical stage of critical decision making, truly important work is done. It is
here that parties discuss the ultimate purpose of the decision making: What are we trying
to accomplish? They discuss how the decision making will be carried out and what start-
ing points will be available. They bring up (1) definitions of important terms; (2) the facts
they can agree on; (3) what their presumptions will be and who will undertake the burden
of proof; (4) what the key points of disagreement (issues) are; and (5) generally decide
how arguments will be criticized: what criteria will be applied.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 15 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 15 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
16 PART 1 Principles
Although Aristotle characterized dialectic and rhetoric as counterparts, the distinguished
rhetorician Wayne Booth claims that rhetoric plays a vital role during dialectic as well. He
says a key function of rhetoric at its best is facilitating dialogue, moving people to listen to
each other closely, and promoting reconciliation.
It is not only possible but it is also desirable that during dialectic, the issues are resolved
and critical decisions made without the need for more adversarial rhetorical exchanges.
During dialectic, the parties involved in the decision making establish relationships
with each other and set up ways of communicating that may or may not facilitate agree-
ment. Dialectic can fail if parties become angry, belligerent, threatened, or frightened,
allowing their differences to harden into non-negotiable positions. Dialectic succeeds if
those involved consciously engage in what Kathy Domenici and Stephen W. Littlejohn
call facework. They recognize that identity is socially constructed and requires people to
Often, if dialectic occurs when strong differences already have been expressed, people
find it difficult to engage in effective facework. Also, because this type of rhetorical be-
havior is difficult to perform, many people lack the understanding and ability to do it
successfully. Failure at this stage can sour the relationships so that cooperative decisions
are difficult, if not impossible, to reach. In this case, it is often wise to employ mediators,
who are professionals in helping people through a successful negotiation leading to in-
tegrative decisions, as we discuss later in Chapter 3 under alternative dispute resolution
methods.
Some contemporary scholars suggest that failure to understand and engage in dialec-
tic is at the heart of some of our most painful difficulties. They suggest that the dogmatic
rights-based diatribes that too often replace argumentation demonstrate the absence of
dialectic in our society. We need to be aware, say Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu,
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 16 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 16 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 17
being made not on solid, critical grounds, but by default (1–11). He proposes more effec-
tive use of dialectic through which values, presumptions, and criteria can be worked out
in advance (240–272).
Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter argue that psychological research into human
cognitive behavior such as perception, memory, language and mental representation,
knowledge, and reasoning must proceed from the fact that these processes are socially
and culturally embedded (14). They are to be understood through an examination not of
Spheres
We have spoken of appropriate decision makers as the object of your argumentation.
Now, we will locate decision makers within decision making groups, forums, organiza-
tions, societies, professions, disciplines, generations, or other such arrangements, which
we will refer to as spheres. We will provide a general definition of spheres first, and then
discuss some of the ways spheres work in argumentation and critical decision making.
Definition of Spheres. Spheres are collections of people in the process of interacting on
and making critical decisions. They are real sociological entities (Willard 28). You can-
not make a critical decision completely alone. No matter how private you believe your
thoughts to be, your internal dialogue involves a myriad of “voices” from your life’s
experiences.
Spheres operate as decision making groups. Although millions of people may ulti-
mately play a part in a single decision, in practical terms, the process occurs in multiple,
overlapping small groups (see Frey 4–8).
John F. Cragan and David W. Wright define a small group “as a few people engaged
in communication interaction over time ... who have common goals and norms and have
developed a communication pattern for meeting their goals in an interdependent man-
ner” (7). Although the size of the group can vary widely, generally speaking at any time,
a group probably involves enough people to provide a diversity of opinion, yet still allow
the development of reasonably close interpersonal relations in which people know and
react to every other member.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 17 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 17 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
18 PART 1 Principles
Rules control how things ought to be done in the group and resources are materials and
attributes the group can use, “such as special knowledge, money, status, equipment, and
relationships” (56). Although groups develop highly individualized patterns of interaction
and sets of rules and resources, they are still in constant tension with external constraints.
Although spheres operate in the present, their interactions observed over time demon-
strate patterns that are related to one another and used time after time. In critical decision
making, these patterns of interaction include the starting points of argument, the way
argumentation is conducted, and the criteria used to evaluate arguments and form critical
decisions. Because they are thus predictable, the patterns guide your guesses about how
your arguments will be understood and criticized. Because they are predictable, patterns
of argumentation come to be associated with some groups and serve to increase the likeli-
hood that critical decisions will result. Groups are called spheres when their predictable
patterns of communicative behavior are used in the production and evaluation of argu-
mentation.
Location of Spheres. Spheres may consist of only a few people or may constitute groups
within complex organizations involving many people. Spheres may be transitory or en-
during. At any time, you may be a member of many spheres. Your internal dialogue, be-
cause it includes many voices, can work as a sphere. Basic social groups such as families,
friends, or people with common interests can function as spheres. Standing or temporary
task-oriented small groups such as committees or task forces function as spheres.
Groups working within the rubric of a religion, profession, academic discipline, vo-
cation, civic or charitable organization, business, or governmental unit may function as
spheres. Sometimes, the defining characteristic of a sphere is an ethnic association, a social
movement, or a political entity such as a state or nation. All spheres function within a cul-
ture and during a certain time or generation, both of which supply some of the argumenta-
tion patterns of a sphere.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 18 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 18 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 19
tation tend to be less easily discerned and predicted, so the chances of a critical decision
are lower than at other levels of activity.
Technical spheres are those in which formal argumentative patterns are enforced. The
highly specialized criteria are appropriate to the nature of the decisions made by profes-
sional groups such as lawyers, managers, scholars, engineers, physicians, and technicians.
Those with advanced education, possessing a special kind of knowledge, are most likely
to be found in technical spheres. Toulmin ( The Uses of Argument ) uses the term field
to describe special criteria for the appraisal of arguments within a particular technical
sphere. Charles A. Willard notes that a technical sphere may restrict access to its patterns
of argumentation by requiring decision participants to “master specialized codes, proce-
dures, knowledge, and language to limit what can count as reasonable argument” (50).
This may insulate it from interacting with other spheres without substantial translation.
Public spheres usually involve those people who seek participation in public debate
and are recognized by the relevant decision makers. They may be elected politicians or
publicly recognized spokespersons. Although politicians may use highly formalized argu-
ments, their decision making must be comprehensible to the public. The chief problem
with the public sphere is complexity. Public decision makers face complex organizations
Ultimate Purpose. Each sphere involves an ultimate purpose that provides a relatively
enduring set of tests (criteria) of arguments. Toulmin speaks of this concept as “well-
defined collective goals, which express the shared ideals of the discipline” ( Human
Understanding , 488). What critical tests arguments and decisions must satisfy are them-
selves rooted in “ what we [people in the sphere] want now, constructed from our sense
of purpose and what we are here for” (Willihnganz et al. 202). This generalized sense of
purpose resists change to the extent that it is unlikely that one person or one argumenta-
tive interchange will have much effect on it. We refer to the ultimate purpose throughout
this book as what the decision makers are trying to accomplish .
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 19 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 19 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
20 PART 1 Principles
and the entire Democratic State Senate delegation had left the state to deny a quorum and
object to the governor’s efforts.
The arguments often centered on this question: what is the governor trying to ac-
complish? Initially, the governor said it was necessary to balance the state budget by ask-
ing the public employees to make concessions on health insurance and retirement plans.
When the employee unions agreed to the concessions and the governor continued to call
for reduced union negotiation rights, people asked, again, what are you trying to accom-
Complexity of Spheres. Our description of spheres may make them seem straightfor-
ward and clear, but that is not the case. In fact, there is considerable discussion among
argumentation specialists about how to define spheres of argument and how they func-
tion. Scholars realize that the concept of spheres is just that—a concept. There have not
been sufficient studies of people in the act of making decisions to make us as confident as
we would prefer. For example, some commentators have argued that part of the concept
Rhetoric
The fifth element in critical decision making is rhetoric. Aristotle defined rhetoric as the
“ability [of a person, group, society, or culture] in each [particular] case to see [perceive]
the available means of persuasion” (On Rhetoric 36). To perceive the available means of
persuasion is to understand an issue from all points of view and ways of thinking. It is not
necessary to use all of the available means, just take them into account (13).
Although the meaning of rhetoric has varied dramatically in the almost 2,500 years
since Aristotle, we will discuss its contemporary relevance to argumentation and critical
decision making. There are three key rhetorical elements we need to explain here: audi-
ence, probability, and proof.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 20 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 20 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 21
In his discussion of rhetoric, Aristotle observed rhetoric occurring throughout society:
deciding on public policy, resolving legal disputes, and developing and strengthening the
values that underlie most arguments. He noticed that different people respond differently
to arguments, so he talked about how rhetoric can be adapted to the young, middle-aged,
and elderly; to the wealthy and the powerful; and to those in all stations of society.
Aristotle divided knowledge into two groups: scientific demonstration, which he be-
Probability. As we have said, argumentation deals with those tasks that require decision
under uncertainty. In a condition of uncertainty, the best we can seek is probability. We
need to talk about two different meanings for the word probability.
In statistics and other forms of mathematical analyses of frequencies or chance, objec-
tive calculations can be made of the probability with which a certain phenomenon will
occur or the probability that the phenomenon that did occur was the result of pure chance.
For example, serious gamblers can say with high confidence the frequency with which
certain combinations of numbers will appear on dice or roulette. Weather forecasters can
Rhetorical probability is a more general concept that embraces mathematical proba-
bility as well as what might be called human or subjective probability. Early research into
decision making revealed that people do not necessarily stick to mathematical probability
even when it is explained to them and guaranteed to produce greater profits (Edwards
Economists Andrew W. Lo and Richard H. Thaler note that people are presumed to
behave rationally when making such decisions as investing money. For example, before
buying securities, you should “maximize utility” by seeking to receive the most satis-
faction for your money, and rationally that means paying the “right price” based on
the intrinsic value of the stock you are buying. Price-earnings ratios, charts of past per-
formance, and the behavior of factors that influence stock performance can be studied to
produce mathematical probabilities of future values. But, as Lo and Thaler say, people
regularly reject such rational probabilities to act instead on, “behavioral assumptions
such as overreaction, overconfidence, loss aversion, and other human foibles that each of
us exhibits with alarming regularity” (Lo and Thaler 13–15). They conclude that markets
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 21 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 21 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
22 PART 1 Principles
are not rational in the traditional economic sense. Investors ultimately act on the basis of
rhetorical (subjective) probability.
Rhetorical probability works in two ways: the extent to which one person is will-
ing to advance a claim and be held responsible for it, and the extent to which people are
willing to accept and act on a claim. In critical decision making, both of these probability
judgments apply.
A stranger stops you and asks, “Can you tell me what time it is?” You reply,
“Certainly, it’s 10:00 o’clock.” “Thanks,” replies the stranger, “I’m setting a watch.”
“Oh,” you interject, “If you’re setting your watch, it’s actually 10:03.” “It’s good you
corrected that,” the stranger says, “because the watch I’m setting is used to control locks
on our vaults.” Shocked to learn the importance of the original question, you blurt out,
“Maybe you should ask someone else. I’m not sure my watch is accurate.” What changed
during the interaction? Not the time of day—it was your willingness to be held account-
able for your claim, or the level of rhetorical probability you wanted to communicate
toward the stranger’s decision.
Consider the decision to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities during World
War II. There were scientific probabilities about whether the bombs would work and
whether they would cause extensive destruction. There were tactical probabilities about
whether the Japanese would surrender once the bombs were dropped, or if they were
about to surrender anyhow. The alternative, dropping the bombs on a deserted area while
Japanese leaders looked on, was rejected as unlikely (improbable) to cause surrender.
There was the military probability of how many lives would be lost on both sides if an
invasion of the Japanese home islands occurred. There was the moral probability whether
history would judge the dropping of the bombs to be justified.
On the fifty-eighth anniversary of the dropping of the bombs, Nicholas D. Kristof
reported in the New York Times that “there’s an emerging consensus: we Americans have
blood on our hands” (August 5, 2003). But he argued in reply that the consensus is “pro-
foundly mistaken” and that the bombs helped end the war. On the other hand, Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen, writing in 2009 on mass murder, included Truman alongside Adolph
Hitler and Joseph Stalin as among history’s leading killers.
Proof. Mathematical calculations and experimental demonstrations constitute proof for
some scientific probability claims. Rhetorical proof, which includes such scientific proof,
is more complex.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 22 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 22 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 23
Aristotle included three forms of proof in his discussion of rhetoric. Logos repre-
sented the use of reasoning taking the form of logic as support for claims. In Aristotle’s
system, examples served as the rhetorical equivalent to induction, and the enthymeme (a
rhetorical syllogism) served as rhetorical deduction. In a symbolic format, induction and
deduction are forms of logic that work on problems outside the domain of argumenta-
Pathos , for Aristotle, included the feelings, emotions, intuitions, sympathies, and
prejudices that people bring to decisions. It suggested the fact that people accept or reject
claims and make or refuse to make decisions on the basis of the values that are connected
to the arguments. It is common for people to speak of separating reason from emotion, as
if using emotion is bad. But the most current studies of our brains lead to the conclusion
that “decision making is itself an emotional process” (Sternberg 69).
Ethos identified the extent to which people are inclined to go along with an argument
CONCLUSION
We have introduced you to the domain of argumentation by identifying the elements of
argumentation and critical decision making. In argumentation, a key term is adherence,
which characterizes the audience-centered focus of argumentation on the appropriate
decision makers, who have also been defined. Claims, the points or propositions you
offer for others’ consideration and adherence, the support or materials provided to help
others understand and subscribe to your claims, and the definition of argument as the
intersection of a claim and its support have been discussed. Arguments serve to resolve
issues of fact, value, and policy. Criticism, the give and take of making your claims
and noting the weaknesses in alternative claims, has been explained as a key feature of
argumentation.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 23 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 23 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
24 PART 1 Principles
In summary, we have said that argumentation provides the mechanism that mediates
the tension between individual judgment (your mind) and social judgment (your culture)
to bring the most powerful and relevant criteria to bear on any decision. The product is
social (audience-centered) critical decision making.
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
Read the editorials in one issue of a newspaper and answer these questions for each:
1. What adherence is sought from the reader?
2. Who are the appropriate decision makers? Why?
3. What claims does the editorial make?
4. What support is provided for the claims?
5. What criticism can you make of the arguments?
1. In what kind of sphere is the decision to be made?
2. What is the ultimate purpose of the decision?
3. What proposition expresses your desired decision?
4. What issue do you want to address?
5. What claim do you wish to make?
6. What kind of support will you supply?
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 24 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 24 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396