Arguing about Argument

Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse
One fascinating thing about logic is that it is common property.  We all reason from what we already believe to new conclusions.  Sometimes logic helps us to make up our minds; by thinking through the implications of an idea, we can weigh its merits against others.  To think at all is to employ logic; as Aristotle noted, even to question logic is to deploy it.  Logic is inescapable. 
Logic's inescapability explains its grip on us.  Exposing a logical error is always a winning argumentative strategy.  And that's because no matter how deeply people might otherwise disagree about other important matters, we all embrace the strictures of logic and the standards of good reasoning that they supply.  Oddly, the universality of logic also explains why logic is so often misapplied.  As Charles Peirce observed, few actually study logic because everyone thinks himself an expert.  Consequently we all strive to be rational; yet there is a lot of poor reasoning around.
A complicating feature is that our powers of logic are frequently exercised within interpersonal contexts of disagreement with others.  In these contexts, extra-rational factors -- social standing, good manners, pressures to conform, and so on -- can infiltrate our logical activities and lead us astray.  And yet it is undeniable that reasoning is a collective endeavor.  In order to reason well, we must reason with others.  But reasoning with others forces us to confront disagreement.  Accordingly, the study of logic leads us to the study of argumentation, the processes of interpersonal reasoning within contexts of disagreement.
There are at least two tracks upon which argumentation theory travels.  One is explored in our forthcoming book Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement (Routledge 2013).  An alternative is suggested by the pseudonymous author ("Protagoras") of the first installment in a series at The Guardian about "How to Argue."  (Interestingly, Protagoras's opening column is titled "Why We Argue— And How To Do It Properly"-- further evidence that the subject matter is common property).  The historical Protagoras held that "man is the measure of all things," and we suspect that this is the inspiration for the current Protagoras's proposal that we argue because we find ourselves needing to convince others to agree with us.  Note that the need here is practical; disagreement obstructs plans for action.  Successful argument, then, removes or dissolves such obstacles by convincing others to share one's view.  Protagoras hence associates proper argument with the "art of rhetoric," the skill of bringing others in line with one's own thoughts.  It should be mentioned that this art is not as manipulative as it might appear, for the aim is not simply to compel agreement, but to actually convince others of one's view.  As it turns out, the artful rhetorician must take careful account of the reasons and commitments of his or her audience; the rhetorician must attempt not only toreason with the audience, but reason from the audience's own premises to the rhetorician's preferred conclusion.

Continue reading "Arguing about Argument"