Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy

Arguments

When we use the word 'argument' in everyday speech, we usually refer to a disagreement or a dispute among people. You might, for example, get into an argument over which movie to see tonight, if you really were late for the date, or whether the government should fund new science initiatives. In the study of logic, or critical thinking, an argument refers to a set of statements in which one statement, the conclusion, is declared to follow from all other statements, the premises. An argument in this sense can have as many premises as you want, but only one conclusion. Before going further, however, let's define our terms.

In examining locution, particular forms of expression, speech and uses of phrases (as found in conversations among members of a specific group), it is helpful to examine the dynamics among interlocutors, persons taking part in a conversation or dialogue. If you have ever read the dialogues of Plato, for example, you find Socrates speaking with students or friends, interlocutors, with a sense of shared inquiry, responsibility and resolution. Propositions are put forth, they draw responses, and the responses are examined. Almost none of our daily conversations proceed in this way, argument and conversation is a free-for-all. But the care we take in knowing our interlocutors, listening to what they say and responding carefully, shows a willingness to cooperate.

A premise is a statement or proposition preceding the conclusion. In logic, premises are usually presented explicitly, as will be the case with our examples, in similar a sequence - premise, premise, 'therefore', conclusion. These premises often begin with an adjective such as 'all', 'many', 'some', or 'few.' Of course, premises can also be simple assertions; "Bill Clinton is a U.S. citizen." In daily conversation, however, the premises of our arguments are presented in different ways and at many points, before and after the conclusion. Still, we commonly use certain words and phrases in conversation to signal the premises of our arguments:

since
given
moreover
additionally
because
from
for
as
it is a fact that
for that reason
can infer
can deduce

A conclusion is a proposition derived from the premises of an argument. To clearly show how the conclusion follows from the premises, logic books will place the conclusion after the premises, often separating the premises from the conclusion with a solid line, or a symbol indicting the conclusion. Again, we often have to determine the presence of premises and conclusions within the context of unstructured discussions. Yet we normally signal the close of an argument with the following words and phrases:

thus
consequently
finally
as a result
in other words
that is
then
therefore
it follows that
in conclusion
to sum up

Validity

Here is a way to keep validity in mind and why it is important. Sometimes in the course of daily argument we commit or run across blatant, fundamental errors in reasoning, contradictions. A contradiction in reasoning is usually easy to pick out because the assertion (from a tabloid headline), "Boy Born Speaking French", runs completely counter to our intuitions about truth and reason. But contradictions in our daily arguments are not so straightforward. Premises and conclusions are expressed in true and false combinations. Rarely do we make a series of obviously true or false statements leading to clear-cut conclusions. Valid arguments give us a benchmark against which to compare true and false meanings, assertions and conclusions. By definition a valid argument is one that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. True input must yield true output. You can count on a valid argument.

You will note in the definition of a valid argument the word 'if.' Frequently we make and hear claims and conclusions which may or may not be true. And the argument may still be valid. With an invalid argument, however, you never know what you will get. It doesn't matter if all the premises are true or false, you may get either a true or false conclusion. There is no benchmark for invalid conclusions. True input may yield true output, but it may not. You cannot count of the fact that true premises will lead to a true conclusion. The concepts of validity and invalidity will later help us determine fallacious arguments.

Deduction and Induction

One can reach a conclusion through a process of deduction or induction. Deduction is the process of deriving a conclusion that necessarily follows from a set of premises. In a deductive argument, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be truth. For example:

All cats are mammals.
All mammals are warm-blooded.
Therefore, all cats are warm-blooded.

Induction is the process of drawing a conclusion, or supposing based on past observation, that a particular hypothesis is true. For example:

All previously observed birds have feathers.
Therefore all birds probably have feathers.

In science, the process of inductive inference is presented as the process from which one moves from a specific case, or cases, to a general hypothesis. Each time someone makes an observation that corresponds to the general hypothesis , seeing another bird with feathers for example, is taken as evidence confirming it. So, each time we observe birds with feathers we help confirm the general hypothesis that all birds have feathers. However, just as arguments in everyday conversation don't necessarily follow the patterns found in logic books, neither is there a pattern or set of rules for what counts as confirming evidence of a hypothesis.

Argumentative Fallacies

In daily conversation, we generally equate argumentative fallacies with false ideas or superstition. With respect to logic, however, fallacies refer to faulty arguments in which the premises are inadequate to support the conclusion. Among other places, you can find argumentative fallacies in advertisements, news reports, political campaigns, talk-radio shows and press conferences. While fallacies are often presented in arguments concerning pseudo- and new-age "science", legitimate scientists, engineers, and their critics, share in committing the sins of bad argument.

The reason not to commit argumentative fallacies is a practical one. To maintain and promote a rational form of public discourse in which arguments lead to true belief, we, as citizens and scientific and technical communicators, must act as gatekeepers. Rhetoric and argument is the medium in which our ideas are expressed. In different social roles, as an engineer, neighborhood leader, juror, parent, you will face the same task distinguishing which claims, arguments and evidence make sense. One tool for making rational determinations is critical thinking.

Our society listens to many voices. In the "marketplace of ideas" people bring forward innumerable claims and arguments. Tabloid headlines plead with us to examine the latest evidence ("leading experts agree") for UFO's and miracle diets. The dignified, traditional format of science journals demands our respect and trust. Our approach to these sources and claims is often contradictory. On one hand, we want to remain open-minded to new ideas and find lurid appeal in the bizarre. On the other hand, we desire certain knowledge; a foundation on which to make judgments; to determine for ourselves what is sense and nonsense.

Before looking at fallacies let's work on our intuitions concerning logic, reasonable action and cooperation.

Using Your Intuition

In 1950 Melvin Dresher and Merrill Flood of the RAND Corporation formulated a paradox, tabbed by Albert Tucker in an article as the "Prisoner's Dilemma." Unlike many philosophical paradoxes, the "Prisoner's Dilemma" is a problem of reason and action many us will actually face in some form:

Suppose you and an accomplice, for whom you have no special feeling, commit a crime. You are promptly apprehended, thrown in separate jail cells and not allowed to communicate with each other. The prosecutor approaches you separately and let's you know she is offering each of you the exact same deal. The prosecutor explains:

We have a lot of circumstantial evidence on both of you. In fact, if we prosecute both of you we will undoubtedly get convictions and you will do two years in jail. But if you help us out, admit your guilt, and testify as to the guilt of your alleged accomplice, we'll let you go. Given your testimony your accomplice will get six years. But if both of you decide to plead guilty, each of you will receive four-year sentences.

Knowing your accomplice has the same information, you face the following dilemma. On one hand, if you don't claim innocence and your partner squeals, it's six years in prison. In that case you would be better off if you both admitted guilt, just four years. On the other hand, if your accomplice claims innocence then the best thing to do is admit guilt and testify, then you would be free. What do you do? An answer and variation on this dilemma are at the end of the chapter.

After confronting this paradox, you are now ready to tackle argumentative fallacies.

Ad Hominem

Translated from the Latin, ad hominem literally means "to the man." This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to refute an argumentative claim by attacking a person's character. The argument is logically invalid because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. A person's character or social standing has no logical relation to the truth or falsity of a given claim. The form of this fallacy with which most people are familiar is known as an abusive ad hominem; the person attacked is considered by the opposition to have a disreputable background (professors, conservatives, atheists, police officers). Here are some examples:

Professor Smith maintains that the Loch Ness monster exists. That's absurd! Everyone knows Smith is a communist.

Professor Jones believes the Loch Ness monster is a hoax. I don't believe Jones because she's a Christian fundamentalist.

Another form of the ad hominem fallacy used frequently is the tu quoque, a retort charging an accuser with the same, or a similar, mistake or crime. A thumbnail version of this argument is, "Who are you to talk?" The fact, for example, that someone has made mistakes or performed some misdeed does not disprove their claim that you (or someone else) has done something wrong. For example:

The attacks by Democrats against Oliver North are politically motivated. Anyway, plenty of Democrats have lied to Congress. Therefore, they should leave Oliver North alone.

What do you mean I should pay back my student loans? You cheat on your income tax.

Ad hominem fallacies are committed when the point of the argument, the truth of the conclusion, is avoided by personal slander or appeals to the audience's prejudices. The question of personal character does play a role, in the courts for example, in challenging the veracity of a witnesses' testimony. However, the truth or falsity of a claim ultimately depends on the facts, not the character of the person asserting it.

Ambiguity

Fallacies of ambiguity occur when a person trades on the ambiguous use of words, phrases and sentence structure to make false premises appear true or invalid arguments appear valid. For example:

John: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Mary: Human beings are composed of energy.

John: Human beings can neither be created nor destroyed.

If we hold strictly to Mary's definition of a human being, John reaches a valid conclusion. But humans are composed of other things besides energy, and John's use of the words 'created' and 'destroyed' is ambiguous considering commonly held ideas of birth and death. Here is a similar example:

All logic is reason.

Frank Smith is reasonable.

Logic is irrefutable.

Frank Smith is irrefutable.

A number of things go wrong with this argument. The words 'reason' and 'reasonable' are used interchangeably, and the words 'logic' and 'irrefutable', designating both to a method and a person, refer ambiguously to two different things.

Appeal to Authority

Many disputes in science and technology are settled through appeals to authority and experts. On many occasions the opinion of a relevant authority acts as evidence for a particular conclusion. While the criteria for establishing authority require critical assessment, the appeal to irrelevant authority (ad verecundiam) is a fallacy. Here is a common example:

You should buy Hanes underwear because Michael Jordan endorses it.

In this case, Michael Jordan's authority is not established. While he may, in fact, be an authority on underwear, his expertise is not established in the structure of the argument. Your authority about underwear is as valuable as Michael Jordan's. Let's look at another set of examples:

Extraterrestrial intelligence exists in the universe. You can have no doubt about this because Robert Stack said so and he is the host of the television show Unsolved Mysteries.

Extraterrestrial intelligence exists in the universe. You can have no doubt about this because Professor Williams said so and he is a tenured professor in the civil engineering department.

There is an interesting difference in the two examples indicating how we subscribe to authority. Both arguments are examples of appeals to irrelevant authorities. However, the appeal to Williams (in the second example) appears more credible because of his status as a tenured professor in a discipline related to "things scientific." Robert Stack is a television personality. As a result we may have a tendency to afford Professor Williams unwarranted authority on the same disputed claim. But what about the claim itself? Here's another example:

Extraterrestrial intelligence exists in the universe. You can have no doubt about this because Frank Drake, a leading astronomer, has formulated an equation that estimates 10,000 to 100,000 advanced civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

Addressed scientifically both the claim, extraterrestrial intelligence exists, and the authority appear even more legitimate. Once taken as an empirical matter, a phenomenon that can be proved or disproved by experimental (and mathematical) evidence, extraterrestrial intelligence in the last argument becomes a matter for scientific investigation. Can we check Drake's assertion? Certainly. In 1960, Drake began the search for artificial radio signals from other planetary civilizations. And his work is continued by other scientists around the world. But in the case of such a claim, what would count as sufficient evidence proving the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence? How long should such a matter be investigated? At what cost?

Note how the assertion "extraterrestrial intelligence exists in the universe" changes in the context of each argument presented. The more "scientific" the authority, the greater credibility, rightly or wrongly, we lend the claim.

Is Drake a more legitimate authority than Robert Stack? Obviously. Still, as a society we have a tendency to quickly validate the authority of scientists even about disputed scientific claims. The fallacy of appeal to irrelevant authority is easy to determine in cases of transferring authority from one field to another such as a television personality or a civil engineer asserting the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But submission to legitimate authority should not in itself lend the sole basis for making decisions about science and technology in society. Even legitimate scientists and technologists hold disputed or pseudo-scientific beliefs.

Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy occurs when someone's argument is purposely misrepresented so that a person arguing against it can attack the false argument without tackling the real issue. An interlocutor constructs a "straw man" of the other person's argument because it is easier to knock down. Politicians often engage this tactic. For example:

Senator Adams: Bill Clinton believes in cutting some agriculture subsidies. I don't understand how Clinton can deny the suffering of Midwest farmers after last summer's flooding.

Did Clinton say he denied the suffering of Midwest farmers? No, he merely stated a belief in cutting some agriculture subsidies. The issue of flood relief is different from the issue of farm subsidies. Senator Adams is not attacking Clinton's position directly on farm subsidies, rather she appeals to an indirectly related popular issue. Another example is:

Jane: Physicists don't take cold fusion seriously because such a discovery would threaten their jobs.

Obviously Jane misrepresents the position of physicists. The physics community has neither a unified position of cold fusion, nor agrees on the implication of such research. Jane gives a caricature of physicists in order to prop up her belief cold fusion is an issue deserving greater attention.

Begging the Question

The fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) occurs when someone accepts the truth of the conclusion in order to accept the truth of the premises. In other words, in the context of argument when an interlocutor assumes the truth of the disputed point he or she begs the question. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning because it leads to no new discovery or information. If, for example, we are discussing the relative merits of scholarly pursuits and we assert:

"Physics is the only real science. You study biology. You're not a real scientist."

If you accept the premise that physics is the only real science, then you accept the conclusion. However, the argument begs the question in that one who sees the value in studying biology would not accept the premise. Here is a similar example:

Bob: All biologists assert that species change because the principle of survival of the fittest is true.

Sue: How do you know the mechanism for species change is survival of the fittest?

Bob: Because all biologists assert it.

Bob's reasoning begs the question because he supports his assertion that the principle of survival of the fittest is true because all biologists assert it. Bob's reasoning is circular in that he refers to the arguments premise, for which no evidence is given, to support his conclusion.

You can often find instances of circularity in occupational definitions:

Scientist: an expert in science
Historian: an expert in history; an authority on history

Until you get a useful definition of science and history respectively, you have little idea of what a scientist or an historian does.

Poisoning the Well

The fallacy of poisoning the well occurs when an argument is posed in such a way that if interlocutor agrees to the premise the conclusion is impossible for them to contest. This argument is a fallacy because the process of critical interaction is short-circuited. To elaborate the metaphor, once the water in the well is poisoned, the argument is corrupted, no one can drink from it, the interlocutors cannot debate. For example:

Lisa: Do you believe in ghosts?

Grace: No, I don't.

Lisa: Given your position, I cannot talk to you.

Because Grace doesn't agree to Lisa's premise, Lisa ends the argument, rejecting the importance of anything Grace has to say before she says it. The fallacy of poisoning the well takes more subtle and pernicious forms with respect to personal qualities or attributes:

Fred: Men just have an innate sense of what it means to be reasonable. I can't even talk to Ellen. As a woman she can't hope to understand male rationality.

Fred has disqualified Ellen as an interlocutor before hearing what she has to say. Fred's sexism poisons the well and silences the possibility of an exchange of ideas, and denies an opportunity for personal enlightenment.

Loaded Question

Perhaps the most famous loaded question asked to a man:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Posed as a yes or no question, either answer condemns the respondent. Answered yes the question implies the man has beaten his wife. Answered no the question implies the man continues to beat his wife. Within each loaded question lies a questionable assumption. Any answer to the question indicates agreement with its central assumption. To avoid the trap of the fallacy of a loaded question, you must reject the question on the grounds that its embedded supposition is fallacious. Some examples follow:

(1) Are you still wasting time and money on that research?

or;

(2) Professor: I've been studying the genetic basis for intelligence for 15 years and I know a great deal.
Student: Tell me professor, why are some races genetically better suited for rational thought than all other races?

or;

(3) Reporter: Is Dr. Jones allowing his belief in political theory to hinder more rational pursuits?
Colleague: I never see him working on anything else, so evidently he is.

In each example the dubious, and often pernicious, presumption built in to each question leads the interlocutor to agree to the existence of thoroughly questionable "facts." In question (1) the fact assumed is that the research is indeed worthless. In question (2) the student's question presupposed the truth of the notion that some races are genetically predisposed to intelligence, an unsubstantiated notion. Finally, question (3) and its subsequent answer assume that belief in political theory is irrational. In each instance, an issue is presented as question about a state of affairs about which the interlocutors implicitly agree. Once you reject loaded questions, you can move to an examination of the ideas motivating your interlocutor.

Correlation Equals Cause

Laypersons and scientists, on occasion, confuse the correlation among two or more things and a cause-and-effect relationship. The argumentative fallacy is often one of committing the wrong inference. This is a fallacious because the true cause is obscured. For example:

Many juvenile delinquents listen to heavy metal music. Juvenile delinquents who prefer heavy metal music engage in promiscuous sexual behavior, commit vandalism or physical assault and dabble in pseudo-Satanic ritualism. Listening to heavy metal music, then, causes deviant behavior and Satanism.

or another example;

Research has determined that people in bars drink faster in response to slow country music than people in bars who listen to faster tempo music. Therefore, slow country music causes alcohol abuse.

While listening to heavy metal music in the first example, and slow country music in the second example may, in fact, correlate to Satanic worship or alcohol abuse, they do not cause the effect that is claimed. Heavy drinkers who enjoy country music may simply prefer country music as a context for drinking. But the music itself does not cause one to drink. In the first example, wrongly inferring that heavy metal music causes other deviant behavior leads to a cause-and-effect correlation with Satanism. In these examples, the arguer is guilty of allowing a simple moral equation "evil things cause evil deeds" to provide a practical account of cause-and-effect.

Answer to the Prisoners' Dilemma

Logic tells you to confess, 4 years. But if both of you remain illogical and maintained innocence, and had been subsequently convicted, you would both be in jail for only half as long, 2 years!

In May 1983, Douglas Hofstadter presented a variation of this paradox in Scientific American which appears all the more relevant in this age of information exchange:

Assume you possess an amount of something (money, pictures, experimental results) you are willing to trade for something else (gems, industrial secrets, patent rights). You agree to trade with a person who is the exclusive source of what you want. Both of you agree to the amount of the exchange. The conditions of the exchange are that it must take place in secret and that neither one of you will ever meet again nor have any further dealings. Each of you agrees to leave a bag containing the item in a designated place. Upon doing that, you will go pick up the other's bag at the other's designated place.

The immediate fear of both parties is that the other person will leave an empty bag. Of course, there are other possibilities. Both of you may leave full bags and be satisfied. But the most intriguing possibility for both parties is leaving an empty bag and picking up a full one. What do you do?

Discussion

1. Employing Robert Boyle's reasoning argue why scientific and technical communication should be void of the use of metaphors and figurative language. What advantages and disadvantages do you see in a plain reporting style? If rhetoric, by definition, is the best means of persuasion in a given case, then how is the plain reporting style rhetorical?

2. The development of scientific and technical writing style in British early modern science appears to be the result of self-censorship. Scientists agreed about what subjects were and were not legitimate in accordance with the wishes of the king. Offer an argument for or against the idea that scientific expression and experiment should not be censored in any way. What subjects should not come under scientific investigation? How do scientists continue to constrain (or censor) their work in order to meet the demands of the government and/or private investors that support them? In what ways does meeting the demands of private investors and public officials make science and technology political institutions?

3. In what ways might the specialized use of common terms in science and technology, observation, result, success, significant, causes confusion among scientists and technologists? Among scientists, technologists and lay persons? How is the use of common terms in a specialized manner rhetorical? Provide examples from your own classes and experience in which common terms are used in different ways.

4. Give examples of jargon you encounter or use frequently. Where is jargon located? When do you use jargon? What are some rhetorical functions of jargon? How does jargon cause confusion among its users?

5. Arguments are part of our daily interaction. And no matter how carefully we pay attention to these arguments we get caught up in the emotion of the moment. Our personal interests, attention span, our feelings about the person with whom we argue, knowledge and concern about the subject, all of these elements, and more, cloud our judgment. Science has always been portrayed as a passionless form of inquiry. In what ways are arguments over scientific matters different emotionally and intellectually than everyday arguments? In order to be objective, do you think scientific and technical communicators should fully disclose the personal, emotional, and intellectual contexts that go on in the process of intellectual argument? Why or why not?

Exercises

1. In examining the logical fallacies presented in this chapter, listen to or watch a radio or television political call-in show, or a show with a debate-style format (Crossfire and The McLaughlin Group are examples). In a brief response paper document the logical fallacies that occur during the show. In analyzing these fallacies, consider the following questions: How many, and what type, logical fallacies are committed? Do the interlocutors note they are committing logical fallacies? Do you think it matters to the average listener that logical fallacies are being committed? Do you think the perpetuation of logical fallacies damages political discourse? How? How does political debate of this type compare to debate in science and technology? Are logical fallacies simply and unavoidably components of daily conversation and thought?

2. Buy a copy of a tabloid newspaper (e.g., National Enquirer, the Star, the Globe, the Weekly World News) heralding a scientific or technological breakthrough. In a review of articles you select, provide an analysis of the arguments presented. Describe any logical fallacies that occur. Also in your analysis, provide an study of the type of language used to persuade the audience their claims are true. Based on your analysis of the arguments and language presented, give a profile of the audience for whom this article is intended. After formulating your analysis, check with journals or scholarship that seeks to debunk these types of claims (the Skeptical Inquirer, the Zetetic Scholar). Give an analysis of their attempts to debunk these claims. Do you think the criticisms are effective? Provide a study of the kind of language used by the critics to persuade the audience their claims are true. Who is the audience for these "debunking" journals? In an informal oral presentation, report your findings to your classmates.

3. There are a number of books dealing with the current state of science and technology. For example, Jeremy Rifkin's Algeny offers claims about (among other things) about the hazards of genetic engineering and the ultimate direction of the Industrial Revolution. However, many of these book seem long on proselytizing and short on argument. Find a book about science and technology that fits this general bill. In a book review to your instructor develop a check-list for non-fictional accounts of science and technology. What are the characteristics that discredit non-fictional accounts of science and technology? Consider, for example, how language is used, the amount of documentation, and the argumentative claims forwarded by the author.

4. Locate a multi-authored document giving special attention to how the interests represented by each author appears in drafts and in the finished document, examples might include grant proposals, instructions, and multiply-authored memoranda. You might examine arguments for and against the funding of Space Station Freedom from various groups, scientists, non-scientists, ordinary citizens and politicians.

5. Attend a local event, demonstrations, town council meetings, election debates, campus rallies, see how they are described by the media. In a short report draw a comparison/contrasts of the analyses, importance, estimated attendance, reception/mood of the audience, provide by different media, student newspapers, local newspapers, television and radio.

Works Cited and Consulted

Boyd, Richard, Philip Gasper and J.D. Trout (eds.) The Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Gray, William D. Thnking Critically About New Age Ideas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern. New York: Bantam Books, 1986.

Miller, Harlan B. Arguments, Arrows, Tress and Truth. 2nd. ed. Reynoldsburg, OH: Advocate Publishing Group, 1980.

Myers, Greg. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.

Persuasion and Critical Thinking
Chapter 6: Part 2

James H. Collier with David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Chapter 6: Part 2

Persuasion and Critical Thinking Chapter 6: Part 2

James H. Collier with David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Chapter 6: Part 2

Persuasion and Critical Thinking
Chapter 6: Part 2