Linguistics Chapter 8 Mrieksecindd Page Userf Mrieksecindd Page Userf Support Values Applied Specific Belief These

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

CHAPTER 8 Support: Values 131

applied to a specific belief (14–16). These four options all have to do with shifts in the

hierarchy, in application, or in the meaning of a value. None involve the almost impossi-

ble act of changing values by adding a new one or dropping an existing one.

least two possible modifications that might be made: (1) limit abortions to the first trimes-

ter or (2) to cases such as rape, incest, health of the mother, or severe fetal deformity. If

either of these were generally accepted, it would represent Rescher’s third condition, alter-

ing the range of application. The first trimester proposal limits “life” to after the first tri-

mester. The second proposal limits the freedom to choose abortion. Neither satisfies those

who see either life or choice as an absolute value.

Find the Best Point of Attack on Values

The method for analyzing claims of fact or value discussed in Chapter 5 is used to deter-

mine the best point for attacking value . First, you must determine what values support the

claim. Second, you must determine what criteria to use in judging those values. Third, you

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) is a liberal journalistic organization like

the conservative one Accuracy in Media (AIM). (You might note that both groups use

terms from this value system in their names.) FAIR published an analysis of the programs

of popular conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh subtitled “Rush Limbaugh

believe, shows that these are unfair characterizations. To support his argument,

Limbaugh claims that volcanoes, for example, Mount Pinatubo, cause more ozone de-

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 131 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 131 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

132 PART 2 Tools

pletion by a thousand times “than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, dia-

bolical, and insensitive corporations in history.” FAIR cites the journal Science , to claim

that chlorine from natural causes, such as volcanoes, is soluble and, therefore, rain pre-

This short summary of a piece of FAIR’s argumentation illustrates the three steps

necessary to determine the best way to attack a value claim. FAIR has found the values

(truth, fairness, responsibility), found a criterion (science) for evaluating the argument,

and determined how to grade the values (truthfulness is primary). Such a system, Joseph

H. Tuman observes, leads to five alternative attack points on such an argument illustrated

by examples of what a Limbaugh supporter might have argued:

2. Concede the values and hierarchy but dispute the criterion.

3. Concede the value and criterion but dispute the hierarchy.

(Ex: “The most important criterion is supporting freedom.”)

4. Concede the value but dispute the criterion and hierarchy.

5. Dispute all.

(Ex: “Fairness is an inappropriate value in this case and even were it appropriate,

attacking a joke doesn’t make sense and freedom is more important than either of

these values.”) (93)

Relate Your Values to Decision Makers

The fact that limited options are available to you in a value dispute makes it clear that you

will be most successful by arguing within decision makers’ value systems . Adherence is

most likely when the values in your arguments are ones that relate to decision makers. To

achieve this, you must pay close attention to the particular social group or sphere to

which decision makers belong. Values are social, shared among the members of particular

groups. Indeed, to a large extent, interaction among the members of a group defines the

value system and its potential hierarchy. This is true of all kinds of groups: social, politi-

cal, religious. It is true of families, and it is true of gangs. The values of your family (e.g.,

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 132 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 132 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

CHAPTER 8 Support: Values 133

love, respect, cooperation, security) are positive to you because you are a member of that

group. You probably think that gangs who hang out, get in fights over turf, bully people,

and threaten authority are negative. To most of society, they are. Some sociologists who

have studied gangs say that their values are middle-class values stood on their heads. The

Use Evidence and Argument to Develop Values

We can talk about values by identifying specific words that reflect these values (e.g., free-

dom, work, happiness, reason, salvation ). However, you need to keep in mind that you

communicate values indirectly by the evidence and argument you use more than by a di-

rect statement. This is what we mean by implied values . Rather than telling someone that

your argument is “reasonable” or “factual,” demonstrate that it is. Remember the old

writing dictum: “Show, don’t tell.” Direct statements make more value-intensive argu-

your values are their values, but if you overuse values, you will make your case too obvi-

ous and open it to rejection.

A Sports Illustrated article in March of 2011 revealed the results of a six months’

investigation by SI and CBS into the “alarming number” of football players at major

programs who have criminal records. There aren’t so many direct statements of the neg-

SPHERE DEPENDENCE OF VALUES

Probably, no other function of argumentation defines spheres so well as values. We have

defined a sphere as a collection of people in the process of interacting on, and making criti-

cal decisions. The criteria by which the people in a sphere appraise arguments form a value

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 133 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 133 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

134 PART 2 Tools

system. People are not admitted seriously to the sphere unless they have the credibility iden-

tified by appropriate credentials (e.g., J. D., M. D., a successful election, ordination, a Ph.D.

in the right discipline). The permitted evidence, as we noted in Chapter 7 , is regulated by the

criteria of the sphere. The preferred kinds of argument, how one argues, and appropriate

Values in Scientific Argument

Scientific argument , as we use the term here (and in Chapter 13 ), refers to those disciplines

that use the physical sciences as a model to explain how physical, biological, human, and

social entities function and interact. From this definition, we could say that the scientific

330). Thus, scientific argumentation is judged by how well it can prove that the theory

explains all related phenomena. Any sign that there is an inconsistency between one ex-

planation and another must be accounted for or the explanation is deficient.

Scientists assume an order to data when they argue that one set of data will identify

the natural state of related phenomena. For example, a social scientist will claim that an

experimental examination of one group of children will provide a generalization about all

similar children.

It is the rupture of order that interests scientists. A communication researcher discovers

that TV takes up a good deal of a child’s time until age 14. Then, viewing time drops off

sharply. Why? Because other factors interfere? Because parents monitor TV viewing more?

Because TV programming is less interesting to teenagers? One does not decide to develop a

theory about something that is explained by current theories. Theories are developed to

explain a phenomenon that is different, and developing or revising a theory to explain the

change and accommodate the previous lack of change returns order returned to the sphere.

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 134 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 134 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

CHAPTER 8 Support: Values 135

Today, serious social scientists consider such measurement humorous because the

theory that head size determines intelligence has been rejected. There is a similar debate

today over whether the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is a useful predictor of suc-

cess in graduate school. Thirty years from now, the GRE may be as useless as determining

graduate school admission on the basis of hat size.

Prediction in Science. Implied in both order and usefulness is the value of prediction . It

means that the theory represented in a claim will tell one not merely about the instance

under consideration but also it will predict how similar instances will occur. The theory

Rationality in Science. Although it is an ambiguous term, rationality is the clearest way

to explain this value. It relates directly to the assumption that order exists. Abraham

Kaplan distinguishes between what he calls “logic-in-use,” which describes the actual

patterns of thinking used by scientists, and “reconstructed logic,” which describes the

discourse through which scholars justify their conclusions (8–18). In the process of dis-

covery, says Kaplan, imagination, inspiration, and intuition play enormous roles, but the

discoveries must be justified to other scientists by reconstructing the imagination, inspira-

tion, and intuition into a rational explanation that other scientists can follow and test as

an intellectually coherent commentary. The rational explanation must provide a set of

refined practices based on empirical evidence for the justification of claims.

Knowledge in Science. Nonprofessionals frequently describe science as the search for

“scientific truth.” Medical science has had a strong influence on this kind of thinking

by suggesting that there are certain diseases that it is learning to conquer one by one.

Curiously, there is always plenty to work on, even after hundreds of years of conquest.

A better term than scientific truth for this value is verifiable knowledge : an extended ex-

planation based on repeated attempts to justify related claims. Scientists seek knowledge

that, when lodged in theories, links to the other values. It gives order to the subject under

Values in Religion

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition of religion is examined in greater detail in

Chapter 14 . In this chapter, we briefly discuss seven values of argumentation in the

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 135 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 135 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

136 PART 2 Tools

religious sphere. Not all religious argumentation will cover all seven values we will

discuss here, and other values are sometimes added. These seven, however, reasonably

define the theological system: God, authority, human beings, morality, faith, salva-

tion, and the church.

God. The most forceful value in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic theological value system is

the concrete value of God. God is understood as an entity of some kind with complete

control over the world and all who inhabit it. For some, God controls every action. For

others, such as deists, God is the source of natural law who sets the system into motion.

In Christianity, God is frequently understood to consist of a trinity—Father, Son, and

Holy Ghost—in which the son, Jesus Christ, is seen as a primary source for the under-

standing of the religion. So, people speak of a “Christ-centered religion” to define the

value of God.

Authority. As we note in Chapter 14 , in the religions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic

tradition, the starting point of much religious argumentation is an authoritative figure

(God, prophet, pope) or text (the Torah, the Bible, and the Qur’an being the most

obvious examples). This explains the desire among religious writers to find the earliest

texts, those that are closest to the actual statements and actions of the originators of

the religion.

Conflicts over the criteria for judging texts abound in theological argument.

Conservative Protestants believe the Bible to be inherently and literally true. For them,

almost as important as being “Christ-centered” (the value of God) is that religion be

“Bible based” (the value of authority). More liberal Protestants accept the Bible as a

metaphor in many cases. Roman Catholicism uses specialized analysis to explain the

meaning of biblical texts. For most Christians, the New Testament is more significant

than the Old Testament. For Jews, of course, the Torah is the authoritative text. Some

groups, such as Roman Catholics and Latter Day Saints, find a pope or prophet to be

authoritative in some specialized situations. These differences among interpretive ver-

sions clearly illustrate the importance of authority to religious argumentation.

And God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said to them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and

fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of

the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 2:28)

CHAPTER 8 Support: Values 137

Morality. Although humans in most of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition are more

important than all other creatures in the natural world, they still are subservient to God.

They must acknowledge God and follow the commandments God gives them. Thus, a

very important value for religious persons is morality and how it is defined. Even people

who have no religious affiliations have obligations because the rules of religious morality

have been built into the laws and customs of the society. This general value of morality

begins with texts such as the Ten Commandments, which contain a series of values that

govern the relation of humans to God and to one another.

Faith. Faith is an instrumental value unique to religion. It extends human reason beyond

rational observation. To it is linked the “power of prayer,” the ability of the believer to

communicate with God. Faith in God, faith in prayer, and faith in authority are vital links

Salvation. For some people, salvation is the most important benefit one receives from

religious belief. For others, salvation is less important or even personally nonexistent. For

believers in salvation, it answers the question of immortality by not only granting it but

also by making it a happy existence in a postexistent state (such as heaven), sometimes

with a spiritual oneness with God and sometimes with a physical resurrection in paradise.

For some others, it means escape from the horrible eternity of suffering known as hell.

Salvation is more than a spiritual condition for those people who believe; it is an earned

reward for a lifetime of following the other values in this system.

The Church. Like salvation, the concrete value of the church is a value to which some

religious people give little power. In Islam, Judaism, and much of Protestant Christianity,

religious leaders get their status from their ability to gain the adherence of worshippers.

Religious leaders are chosen and dismissed by the congregation. The church authority is

in the members of an individual congregation.

For Roman Catholics and some other Christian denominations, however, the church

interprets the essential texts of the religion, provides an understanding of the traditions of

the religion, and administers holy sacraments in an authoritative way. In some ways, the

church is still a value, even for those who do not grant it such authority, because the

This discussion of religious values has been brief, but it points out that any theology is a

case that must be built using a value system for interpreting and grading these values. The deci-

sions one makes on one value will affect what is possible for another. Thus, if humans are inca-

pable of making proper decisions, some agency, such as the church or direct fellowship with

God, must be available to do so. The nature of God affects the nature of fellowship with God.

How one interprets salvation relates to the nature of humans. These are only a few examples of

how building a case for a particular theology involves the interrelationship of these values.

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 137 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 137 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

138 PART 2 Tools

The Relation of Science and Religion

We have examined these two spheres of argumentation (science and religion) to illustrate

how different two value systems can be. None of the value terms of one are found in the

other. Religion, unlike science, has concrete values as four of its seven values (God, au-

thority, humans, the church). In some ways, science has the most abstract value system of

These two value systems have been the subject of controversy for many years. Early

disciples of science, such as Copernicus and Galileo, found themselves in disputes with

the Roman Catholic Church. In 1633, Galileo was forced to recant the publication of his

belief in the Copernican theory that the earth rotates on its axis and, with the other plan-

ets in the solar system, revolves around the sun. The basis for judging the Copernican

theory a Christian heresy was the authority of the Church and the Bible that, taken liter-

ally, says that the sun revolves around the earth (Genesis 114–118; Joshua 10: 12–14).

This controversy between religion and science can be extended far beyond the Copernican

theory. However, the controversy illustrates at least a clash between the scientific values

of rationality and knowledge and the religious values for authority in sacred text, faith,

and Church.

For many people, the sharp contrast in value systems between science and religion

makes the two fundamentally antagonistic. For a natural system of order, there is the

counterpart of God and the centrality of humans. Prediction is opposed by faith and sal-

vation. Rationality is opposed by authority in sacred texts and the interpretation of the

church. Accepting one value system can make the other its secondary value system. For

instance, deists acknowledge God as a first cause. For them, God created the universe

with natural laws, wound it up like a clock, and set it to working. The working of the

The second way of using both value systems is to acknowledge the existence of two

spheres of argument that can complement one another. Scientific order, rationality, and

predictability are maintained and explained as science. God’s role with humans, morality,

and salvation cannot be explained by science because it is in a different argument sphere.

An occasional miracle, for instance when prayer saves someone from a predicted death

from disease, is just that—an occasional event. It may be celebrated as an act of God, but

it does not refute the essential validity of scientific order. Neither does scientific rational-

ity refute God because God, operating in a sphere where science cannot argue, is seen by

the religious person as the first cause of natural law.

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 138 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 138 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

CHAPTER 8 Support: Values 139

broken the law but to have broken a moral code. Examples abound of people avoiding

conflict by separating the values they live by into spheres of argumentation.

However, when spheres of argument are seen to overlap, serious value problems

occur. A. J. S. Rayl and K. T. McKinney asked scientists if science proves that God exists.

Many argued that the question remains outside the sphere of scientific argumentation, but

Statements such as these clearly indicate that this mathematician believes that an ar-

gument about anything, even something as total as God, has to be argued by the values of

science.

A similar situation occurs in the area of creation science. The Creation Science

Association is a research and teaching organization that claims to provide scientific proof

through research that the literal six-day creation of the earth stated in Genesis is scientifi-

cally correct. However, a careful examination of their arguments shows that the proof is

clearly based on textual authority, God, and faith. David Klope shows the relationship of

science and religious values in one presentation of the Institute of Creation Research’s

(ICR) “Worldview”:

Some people, therefore, can bring these two spheres together, but they do so mostly

by acknowledging that each deals with different issues. When spheres come together and

claim to deal with the same subject, however, it is clear that argument becomes the unu-

sual case we noted earlier of a direct clash of values.

CONCLUSION

Values are an essential part of the analysis of every argumentative situation. They share

with evidence and source credibility the grounds and warrant for a claim. No matter what

kind of claim (fact, value, policy) is being argued, decision makers use values to judge

whether it is worthy of adherence. A value is a general conception of a desirable mode,

means (instrumental), or end (terminal) of action. It is differentiated from a belief, which

is a simple statement about a specific situation. Many times, values are openly stated

(freedom) or implied in statements about specific beliefs (“people should vote”).

Although values are usually treated as positive (freedom), they may be stated in the

negative (restraint). They are usually thought of as abstract (freedom), but they can be

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 139 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 139 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401

140 PART 2 Tools

them with the arguer. They can, therefore, be used in arguments to gain adherence. To

gain adherence, however, decision makers must believe that the values in a particular sys-

tem are consistent with one another.

There are a number of traditional value systems in the United States. Each of these

systems not only has to be seen as having values consistent with one another but they also

must be graded. That is, the decision maker must be able to see the hierarchy of values. It

has been said that more important than which values are in the system is how each is

graded in relation to every other value in the system.

Societies, spheres, and professional groups define ethical systems. These ethical sys-

tems indicate what is good and right for that group. They serve as standards to identify

correct and incorrect behavior and speech. They are based on values. They convert values

into ethical principles by which people and actions are judged.

The best point of attack on a value system is found by using the procedure suggested

in Chapter 5 for analyzing the claims of fact or value: Determine the values, the criteria

for judging them, and the grading of them. This usually results in one of three attack

points: dispute the criteria, dispute the hierarchy, or dispute both.

All arguments have values in them, but the most effective are those where the values

are related to decision makers. However, even well-chosen values are not simply stated;

they must be developed through evidence and argument.

All spheres depend on values. This is illustrated by a comparison of science and reli-

gion. Scientific argumentation is characterized by the values of order, usefulness, predic-

tion, rationality, and knowledge. Religious argumentation is characterized by the values

of God, authority, humans, morality, faith, salvation, and church. These two spheres have

frequently been in conflict with one another. There is no overlap in their value systems.

Conflicts between them are resolved by making one a secondary value system to the other

or by treating the two spheres as having completely different roles.

EXERCISES/PROJECTS

1. Analyze a newspaper or magazine editorial. Look for its stated and unstated, positive and

negative, terminal and instrumental, abstract and concrete values. On the basis of your analy-

sis, how would you characterize the value system the writer follows?

3. From contemporary magazines, collect six or so different picture and written text ads for the

4. Note the value differences between two magazines, web sites, or television programs that aim

M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 140 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501M08_RIEK0596_08_SE_C08.indd Page 140 1/18/12 9:52 AM user-f501 F-401F-401