Clash

All of your information from your senses goes first to a part of the brain called the Thalamus. We call the thalamus the “flight control center” of the brain. It takes in all of your senses, your hearing, sight, touch and decides how to route the messages it is receiving. One route takes the messages to the cerebral cortex, where our skill in decision-making allows us to contemplate alternatives and make a decision. But if the thalamus is triggered by more intense perceptions, the message goes straight to the Amygdala for action.

We all have an emotional brain that resides in the limbic system, located on top of the brain stem and buried under the cortex. When faced with the stress of an argument, your first reaction is a physical one that begins in an almond sized organ towards the bottom of your brain, called the amygdala. This organ actually keeps a record of your past dangerous experiences and strives to protect you from future harm. As soon as this organ perceives danger, it sends a distress signal to the hypothalamus.

You are taking a nice stroll outdoors when suddenly a snake slithers up on the path in front of you. Emotions are triggered. Oh no, this snake might strike and kill me. Do I stay and defend myself, or flee? You are experiencing, Fight or Flight.

This just doesn’t happen out in the wilderness. It can also happen at work. Your boss is looking for you to assign you a major project. Emotions are triggered, “Oh no I can’t do this,” or “My boss is trying to kill me.” Immediately you think, “I am going to stay and tell him that I can’t do this.” Or “Where can I hide?” This is Fight or Flight.

When the thalamus becomes aware of an emotionally charged perception, the amygdala is sent that perception. Snake! Or Project! Your amygdala has access to your memory and quickly relates the current situation to one of those past memories so it can immediately act. Only later will it look to the logical part of the brain for alternative reactions.

The amygdala swings into action. Immediately:

• Past memories of similar situations are examined
• Adrenaline is pumped into the body which prompts quicker physical reaction
• A surge of energy is experienced
• Stress hormones are activated
• Your pain threshold gets higher

These processes are so intense it may take you 20 minutes before you can get these emotions under control and allow the more logical part of the brain to take over and help with the decisions. This, by the way, explains read rage and why we should wait until the next day to respond to an email that has angered us.

While in this condition, you lose the ability for in depth thinking. The amygdala does not want you to look curiously at the snake and wonder, “What type is it?” No, it recognizes potential danger and is preparing you for survival. If you have ever had a stressful situation and then asked yourself afterwards, “What was I thinking?” The answer is, you weren’t. The brain was preparing you for your “fight or flight” mode and not allowing you to really think. There is no time to think. This is also an explanation for why we often think of something very witty to say to someone, after they have left.

If the situation is so emotionally charged, like a snake or project, then the emotions may totally take over your thoughts and reactions, creating a condition called “emotional hijack.” A way of expressing emotional hijacking is road rage. The impact of the perception is so strong that the emotions take over. Logic does not enter into it. Think about the time your partner did something that finally was the proverbial “last straw” or someone you may be supervising made the same mistake for the tenth time. Did you make an outburst that you now wish had been handled in a different way? All of this happens, before the rational part of our brain, the cerebrum, is asked for guidance.

Now, if we can get the amygdala under a bit of control, our cerebrum is notified of the danger and we now have a chance to think of alternative actions. Instead of just responding with the first reaction that occurs from our memory, we now have the opportunity for more in depth thinking.

A very useful formula to remember is E + R = O.

• “E” stands for Event and refers to some action that has happened to you.
• “R” stands for either Reaction or Response. Reaction is our quick, unthinking answer to an action while a Response is more of a thought our answer where we look at alternatives and select the best one for us in that situation.
• “O” stands for Outcome.

We can't always control the Event that happen to us, but we can create more desirable Outcomes if we Respond to a situation instead of just Reacting to it.

I find it very interesting that your brain gets you ready to either fight a perceived danger or flee from a perceived danger. Even before you are totally aware of the threat, you are in that state of fight or flight. Do you flee or stay and fight? I am hoping that this text will give you the skills to stay and fight in arguments and not flee from them. There are certainly a variety of ways to disagree with someone.

There are two sides to every argument. The two sides are called the pro-side and the con-side. The pro-side will speak in favor of the topic of the argument or what we call the claim being made, while the con-side will be speaking against the claim being made in the argument. There is no third position of an argument like, “I don’t know.” You are either for or against the claim. When you clash against an argument you are taking the con side of the argument.

A discussion is different. In a discussion, you can have a variety of different opinions on a topic. But when you get to the point of deciding on a particular answer, you have an argument. To better understand this, we need to look at the structure of the argument. And to do that we need to go back 2500 years to the Greek foundation for argumentation.

Enthymemes and Syllogisms

We often argue in what the Greeks referred to as an enthymeme. There are two parts to this type of argument, an observation that leads to a conclusion. Examples of an enthymeme could include:

• Ernie is going to be a violent person because he plays violent video games.
• If Terri exercises often she will be healthy.
• Vote for John Doe, he won’t raise taxes.
• Bill Gates is brilliant because he started Microsoft.

This list of arguments contains an implicit assumption. For example: “Ernie is going to be a violent person because he plays violent video games” implies that “people who play violent video games become violent people.” These general assumptions are left out in many, many arguments. The person making the argument assumes that you will just accept the general assumption. The Greeks decided to add this assumption as the third part of their argumentative analysis.

To expand the argument the Greeks used a format called the syllogism. This format is a form of deductive reasoning that starts with two initial propositions that lead to a conclusion. The initial proposition is the assumption implied in the enthymeme.

All professors are brilliant.

Jim Marteney is a professor.

Jim Marteney is brilliant.

First note that the name of any professor could be placed here.

As accurate as we might like the conclusion to be in this argument, what if we found one college professor that was not brilliant? This Greek style of argumentation was an all or nothing approach. The argument was either 100% valid, or 0% valid. Classical Greek argumentation would suggest the entire argument is invalid and we could never make any conclusions.

But, in critical thinking we would argue that if there is just one example of a professor who is not brilliant there is still a high degree of validity, or probability, that the conclusion is still accurate. The argument may still be valid enough to reach the threshold of the target audience to accept the claim. In critical thinking, we make decisions when an argument reaches our threshold. The threshold does not have to be absolute 100%. Even in a court case that threshold is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” and not “Beyond any Doubt” which is less than 100% certainty.

This realization was the basis for Dr. Toulmin’s approach to analyzing arguments.

If you are arguing against this claim:

• You might want to add additional Reservations.
  • Unless there is an economic downturn
  • Unless they have health issues
• You might want to challenge the backing for the Warrant
  • You could suggest that earning $1,000.000 over a lifetime would not automatically make you successful.
  • You could argue that there was a problem with the analysis conducted by the Rochester Weekly News

No Absolute Certainties

In argumentation, we don’t deal with absolute certainty of a claim. The skeptic and scientist both have the attitude that there are no absolute certainties. In other words, there are doubts on each claim that is argued. One scientist, R. A. Lyttleton, has described this process as the “Bead Model of Truth.” It is important to note here that Lyttlleton does not use the word “Truth” as the absolute “Truth” but instead uses the word “Truth” to represent the validity of a claim.¹

To understand his model Dr. Lyttleton imagines a bead on a horizontal wire. The bead can move left or right on that wire. On the far-left side of the wire is the number which corresponds to total disbelief. On the far-right hand side of the wire is the number 1 which is related to a position of total belief or where you would believe the claim with absolute certainty.

Dr. Lyttleton would argue that the bead should never reach the far left or right end. As additional evidence is presented the belief is true the closer the bead moves to the number 1. The more unlikely the belief is to be accepted the closer the bead moves to 0.

According to Toulmin,

“Any claim is presented with certain strengths or weakness, conditions, and/or limitations. We possess a familiar set of colloquial adverbs and adverbial phrases that are customarily used to mark these qualifications. Such adverbs are: presumably, in all probability, so far as the evidence goes, all things being equal, for all that we can tell, very likely, very possibly, maybe, apparently, plausibly, almost certainly, so it seems, etc. All of these phrases can be directly inserted into the claim being advanced, and as a result, would modify the claim indicating what sort of reliance the supporting evidence entitles us to place on the claim.” ²

Let’s go back to the “Jim Marteney is brilliant” syllogism. Below is how Dr. Toulmin would analyze the argument. Now you can ask questions about the parts of the argument that are blank, the backing, reservations and qualifier.

The argument as presented is 100% valid because there are no Reservations leading to a Qualifier. There is also no Backing presented for the Grounds and Warrant, so at this point they are just assertions.

• Now you begin your analysis by asking questions, or as we will be calling them, Issues. What is the Backing for the idea that all professors are brilliant? Poor backing would create doubt with the Warrant and its ability to be an absolute, general rule.
• Are there any professors who are not brilliant? If so, that could be part of the Reservation? This is where you show your skepticism.

The answers to these questions could damage the argument. If there are Reservations there is a Qualifier. The more reservations, the weaker the Qualifier becomes the Claim becomes less valid. If there are no exceptions the Qualifier is 100% and you would be 100% certain that the Claim is correct. But with a couple of Reservations your Qualifier could be reduced to maybe 80% sure. Now, does that reach your threshold? There is still a degree of validity, but it may not be enough for you to accept the claim.

Examining the quality of the backing of the Grounds and Warrant might lead us to question the accuracy of those statements. With questionable backing the accuracy of the argument is challenged. The weaker the accuracy the less valid is the Claim.

This is what a completed Toulmin might look like.

With this completed Toulmin analysis of the argument we can immediately see two weaknesses in the argument.

• The publication, National Education which supports the Warrant that “All professors are brilliant,” might be prejudiced in favor of professors. This weakens the accuracy of the warrant.
• Since there are two Reservations to the Warrant, the Claim cannot be 100% valid. There then has to be a Qualifier that suggests a lower level of validity.

Notice that the Qualifier is now, "There's a chance." This would lead me to reject the Claim that Jim Marteney is brilliant.

This is what defense attorneys attempt to do in a courtroom. They don’t have to prove that their client is innocent. They have to attack the prosecution case to reduce the validity of the Claim that their client is guilty. They want the Qualifier to reflect a low number by questioning the backing and adding more and more examples to the Reservations. If in a criminal case they can reduce the validity to below reasonable doubt, the jury should find their client “not guilty.” Notice they don’t say the accused is “innocent.” They can only say that the prosecution did not have a valid enough case for them to find the accused guilty.

Stephen Toulmin developed this model for analyzing the kind of argument you read and hear every day--in newspapers and on television, at work, in classrooms, and in conversation. The Toulmin Model is not meant to judge the success or failure of an attempt to prove an argument; instead it helps break an argument down to its most basic pieces. The Toulmin Model helps to show how tightly constructed arguments are, and how each part of an argument relates to the overall validity or reasonableness of that argument.

Reference

1. Hale, Jamie. "Limitations of Science." PsychCentral, https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-limitations-of-science/. Accessed 30 October 2019.
2. Toulmin, Stephen E. The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

After analyzing an argument using the Toulmin approach you can begin arguing against that argument. There are two overall con-side strategies when clashing with the pro- side.

Reducing the significance of the problem or potential advantage. The only reason we ever change from something we have been doing is that there is a significant reason to change. This reason may be that there is a problem that is getting worse and worse, or that there may be an advantage out there if we make the change. Currently more than one state legislature is arguing that all social welfare recipients should be tested for drugs before they are allowed to receive welfare payments. The con-side could argue that the problem is not significant to warrant the change in policy and that the status quo should be maintained.

The Scientific Method

"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you actually don't know."

--R.Pirsing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

This goal then is to weaken the impact of the contentions and thereby the certainty of the Claim is lessened. Those involved grow more skeptical of the Claim. The hope of the con-side is that the certainty of the Claim will fall below the threshold needed to accept the Claim. At this point, the Claim will be rejected and the con-side will win the argument.

The pro-side solution will not solve the problem they intend to solve. The con-side argues that the Claim argued by the pro-side will not work, or in some cases may make the problem even worse. Clashing against the argument that the state should drug test welfare recipients, the con-side may say that the test is not accurate and makes too many mistakes or false positives. They may also talk about how many ways there are to cheat the test. If the con-side can demonstrate that that the pro-side solution cannot work, then the Claim should be rejected.

To accomplish the two, overall con-side strategies the con side can select one of the following alternatives.

Straight Refutation

In straight refutation, the con-side directly refutes, point-by-point, the arguments brought up by the pro-side. In using this approach, the con-side argues for keeping the status quo in place. The status quo is the current fact, value or policy that is being challenged by the pro-side. The con-side argues against any of the pro-side case approaches by:

• Refuting the problem and/or solution
• Denying all advantages from a change in the status quo
• Arguing against the alternative(s) being presented

If the pro-side stated that there were two reasons why we need to test welfare recipients for drugs:

• Many recipients of welfare are using drugs.
• Testing will find out who the drug users are.

The con-side using straight refutation would say, “The people promoting the claim state that many recipients or welfare are using drugs, but I argue that there are not that many recipients of welfare that are using drugs.” and “They also say that their tests will find out who the drug users are, but I will argue that the testing that is proposed will not give us an accurate picture of who is actually using drugs. The con-side will still need to use evidence to prove their contentions or else they are just assertions and not real arguments.

Defense of the status quo with just minor repairs

This approach is that the status quo is generally doing an effective job. If there is a problem, it can be dealt with by making a minor change or repair in the status quo. There is no need to make a major change or an overhaul of the system like the claim suggests.

An example of minor repairs occurs when, a couple needs a larger house to accommodate their growing family. Instead of purchasing a new home, they adopt the minor repair approach and add-on to their existing home. Another example is when people avoid the cost of buying a new car by getting their old one repaired.

Counter proposal

In this approach, the con-side admits that the overall goals of the pro-side’s case are good, but the way the pro-side had offered to reach them is not a good approach. In this alternative, the con-side presents what they feel is a better alternative. The con side admits that the pro-side has shown a weakness in the present system, which cannot be denied or refuted. The con side, however, does not agree with the way the pro side wants to remedy the weakness, and offers a better plan of attack.

You and that special someone have been living together for a period of time and are having trouble with the relationship. You suggest that it would be best if you broke off the relationship. The other person agrees that the relationship has problems, but suggests a trial separation would be a better solution. Since both of you agree that the status quo has problems, the argument comes down to which alternative will ultimately gain target audience approval.

Hopefully, after this chapter your confidence is growing and you are more willing to “Clash” with those making arguments with which you disagree.

In the next few chapters we will be looking closely at parts of the Toulmin Model. There is an entire chapter on the Claim, Backing (Evidence), and use of Warrants (Reasoning).

“I don’t mind arguing with myself. It’s when I lose that it bothers me.”

-- Richard Powers

“Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place.”

-- Johnny Carson