首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Models for Arguments I. Three models for arguments A. the first model for arguing is called【T1】______: 【T1】______ —arguments ar
Models for Arguments I. Three models for arguments A. the first model for arguing is called【T1】______: 【T1】______ —arguments ar
admin
2019-05-14
47
问题
Models for Arguments
I. Three models for arguments
A. the first model for arguing is called【T1】______: 【T1】______
—arguments are treated as war
—there is much winning and losing
—it is a【T2】______model for arguing【T2】______
B. the second model for arguing is arguments as proofs:
—warranted【T3】______【T3】______
—valid inferences and conclusions
—no【T4】______in the adversarial sense【T4】______
C. the third model for arguing is【T5】______: 【T5】______
—the audience is【T6】______in the argument【T6】______
—arguments must【T7】______the audience【T7】______
II. Traits of the argument as war
A. very dominant: it can shape【T8】______【T8】______
B. strong arguments are needed
C. negative effects include:
—【T9】______are emphasized【T9】______
—winning is the only purpose
—this type of arguments prevent【T10】______【T10】______
—the worst thing is【T11】______【T11】______
D. implication from arguments as war: 【T12】______【T12】______
—e. g. , one providing reasons and the other raising【T13】______【T13】______
—the other one is finally persuaded
III. Suggestions on new ways to【T14】______of arguments【T14】______
A. think of new kinds of arguments
B. change roles in arguments
C.【T15】______【T15】______
【T4】
Models for Arguments
Good morning, everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So, welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue? Why do we try to convince other people to believe things that they don’t want to believe? Is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they don’t want to think? Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.
(1)The first model—let’s call this the dialectical model—is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that’s like—there’s a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.(2)And that’s not really a very helpful model for arguing, but it’s a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times, in the street, on the bus, or in the subway. Let’s move on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematician’s argument. Here’s my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?(3)Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises?(4)No opposition, no adversariality—not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.(5-1)And there’s a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience.(7)We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something.(6)But there’s another twist on this model that I really think is important, namely, that when we argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument. That is, you present your arguments in front of an audience who are like the juries that make a judgment and decide the case.(5-2)Let’s call this model the rhetorical model, where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.(8)It dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments. We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. That’s, the kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments. When I’m talking about arguments, that’s probably what you thought of, the adversarial model. But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue.(9)First, it elevates tactics over substance. You can take a class in logic argumentation. You learn all about the strategies that people use to try and win arguments, and that makes arguing adversarial: it’s polarizing. And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph—glorious triumph—or disgraceful defeat.(10)I think those are very destructive effects, and worst of all, it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration. Um, I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.(11)And finally—this is really the worst thing—arguments don’t seem to get us anywhere: they’re dead ends. We don’t get anywhere.
Oh, and one more thing.(12)That is, if argument is war, then there’s also an implicit aspect of meaning—learning with losing. And let me explain what I mean.(13)Suppose you and I have an argument. You believe a proposition, and I don’t. And I say, "Well, why do you believe that?" And you give me your reasons. And I object and say, "Well, what about...?" And you answer my objection. And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean? How does it apply over here?" And you answer my question. Now, suppose at the end of the day, I’ve objected, I’ve questioned, I’ve raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspective, and in every case you’ve responded to my satisfaction.
And so at the end of the day, I say, " You know what? I guess you’re right. " Maybe finally I lost my argument, but isn’t it also a process of learning? So, you see arguments may also have positive effects.(14)So, how can we find new ways to achieve those positive effects? We need to think of new kinds of arguments. Here, I have some suggestions: If we want to think of new kinds of arguments, what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers—people who argue. So try this: Think of all the roles that people play in arguments. There’s the proponent and the opponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument. There’s the audience in rhetorical arguments. There’s the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer, but you’re also in the audience, watching yourself argue?(15)Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue? That means you need to be supported by yourself. Even when you lose the argument, still, at the end of the argument, you could say, " Wow, that was a good argument!" Can you do that? I think you can. In this way, you’ve been supported by yourself.
Up till now, I’ve lost a lot of arguments. It really takes practice to become a good arguer in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately, I’ve had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.
OK. To sum up, in today’s lecture, I’ve introduced three models of arguments. The first model is called the dialectical model, the second one is the model of arguments as proofs, and the last one is called the rhetorical model, the model of arguments as performances. I have also emphasized that though the adversarial type of arguments is quite common, we can still make arguments produce some positive effects. Next time, I will continue our discussion on the process of arguing.
选项
答案
opposition/arguing
解析
细节辨认题。针对数学家式辩论,讲话者提到No opposition,no adversariality—not necessarily any arguing in theadversarial sense.也就是说,辩论双方既没有反对,也没有争论,故本题答案为opposition或arguing。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/8aEK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Shop-lifterscanbedividedintothreemaincategories;theprofessionals,thedeliberateamateurs,andthepeoplewhojustcan
Shop-lifterscanbedividedintothreemaincategories;theprofessionals,thedeliberateamateurs,andthepeoplewhojustcan
Onceuponatime,peoplewholivedalonetendedtobethoseoneithersideofmarriage—twentysomethingprofessionalsorwidow
Ifsustainablecompetitiveadvantagedependedonwork-forceskills,Americanfirmswillhaveaproblem.
Thequestionofwhetherlanguagesshapethewaywethinkgobackcenturies;Charlemagneproclaimedthat"tohaveasecond【S1】__
Thequestionofwhetherlanguagesshapethewaywethinkgobackcenturies;Charlemagneproclaimedthat"tohaveasecond【S1】__
Humansarethoughttoberesponsibleforalargenumberofenvironmentalproblems,rangingfromglobalwarmingtoozonedepleti
Itisthedutyofsonsanddaughterstotakecareoftheirparents.However,duetothepressurefromworkortheirownfamily,
ModelsforArgumentsI.ThreemodelsforargumentsA.thefirstmodelforarguingiscalled【T1】______:【T1】______—argumentsar
随机试题
最佳的经济增长率一般是
下列不属于晨僵的护理是
患者,男,47岁,心悸失眠,虚烦神疲,梦遗健忘,手足心热,口舌生疮,舌红少苔,脉细而数,治宜首选
物理降温后30min,所测体温的绘制符号是
财务分析的基本方法主要有( )。
注意事项1.申论考试是对应考者阅读理解能力、综合分析能力、提出和解决问题能力、文字表达能力的测试。2.作答参考时限:阅读材料40分钟,作答110分钟。3.仔细阅读给定材料。按照后面提出的“作答要求依次作答。4.请在《
不像其他樱草,自花传粉的樱草无须依赖昆虫来给它们传粉。在很多年里,昆虫传粉者很稀少,并且在这些年里,典型的非自花传粉的樱草结的种子比典型的自花传粉的樱草的少。在其他年份里,两种樱草的种子产量几乎相等。因此,自花传粉的樱草具有种子平均产量高的优点。除了种子产
师徒二人加工同样多的零件。当师傅完成了1/2时,徒弟完成了140个。当师傅完成了任务时,徒弟完成了4/5,那么,师傅加工了()个零件。
①作为一种尚在实验室的全新网络技术和产品,其未来潜力也不应被_______高估。②针对如今垃圾短信_______的现象,电信专家表示,想要治理垃圾短信,关键在于从法律和制度上进行规范,对违规行为给予严惩。填入画横线部分最恰当的一项是:
Howdifferentwouldconditionsbetodayeconomicallyandpoliticallyifunemploymentwere7percentinsteadofitscurrent8.2p
最新回复
(
0
)