Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The Force of Reasoning: Insight from Physics on the Nature of Argument

By G J Gillespie

“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.” -- Democritus (460 -- 370 BCE) 

Aristotle, the most famous debate coach of the ancient world, wrote his textbook The Rhetoric to teach students the art of persuasion. Key to Aristotle’s philosophy was the importance of learning to reason carefully. Humans in his view are the “rational animal.” Unlike any other creature, human beings have an unique capacity to draw conclusions from the evidence. We are driven to make sense of a fragmented world. We look for patterns in what happens around us and hope to predict what will happen next. 

The fact that the universe is intelligible permits scientific discoveries. Scientists apply reasoning to discover physical laws that govern our universe -- such as  Isaac Newton’s inverse square law of gravity (the closer you get to a point, the stronger the force). Usually truths that advance culture are established only after a long period of debate among the experts who fight over various proposals and hypotheses until a majority acquiesce.  The ability to debate is an essential part of what it means to be human. We question accepted ways of doing things. We argue over ideas to shape the direction of our future.  We present interpretations of what is observed, until others offer better explanations.

The controversial theories of Newton were vigorously challenged by his opponents at first.  But, he was able to prove his contentions by scientific experiments -- which became strong evidence in support of the new perspectives.  Newton’s reasoning eventually led to the discoveries such as the steam engine and electricity that made the industrial revolution possible. All social progress follows a period of reasoned debate by advocates who are able to convince the majority to take a shared position.

More recently physicists have debated the nature of fundamental particles, stellar objects and cosmic forces. The existence of black holes, (Overbye) the Higgs Boson – the theorized “God particle” (Weinberg) -- and mysterious dark matter and dark energy (Kahn) (thought to make up 95 percent of the universe) spurred heated debate among cosmologists – until recent scientific experiments confirmed that these properties actually do exist. Before the experimental evidence gave weight to the theories experts were all over the map, each taking a different stand. After the arguments were settled, most of these scientists moved to occupy a single spot on the landscape of knowledge. It may be that discoveries in quantum mechanics will lead to new technologies we might currently find hard to even imagine.

http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/common_img/d032170b.gifOne contribution to the study of reason based on ancient Greek and Roman teachers and developed in the twentieth century is the movement metaphor. This is the belief that reasoned persuasion is best explained as movement from diverse points on a plane to a single spot. To persuade an audience is to move them closer to our position. We advance ideas to sway others. Reasoning is a force we use to convince others. So, the comparison between an argument and physical properties in space and time is natural.

In advanced mathematics and physics, the idea of an imaginary space is called a manifold. An object in a manifold has a velocity that propels it across a plane from A to B. An arrow represents the velocity. The distance between A and B is called the order of magnitude. 

We see that the geometrical concept of a manifold is very much like an argument. An argument has a line of reasoning that is like the arrow of velocity: A (support) - - > B (claim). Like gravity or the nuclear force inside atoms, reasoning in an argument is the force that binds support to the claim. Without the binding force of reasoning, the bits of supporting material float chaotically -- appearing as random data that make no sense.  When we add reasoning in the mix, the bits of data cohere to form a pattern that makes sense. Children playbooks ask the reader to connect dots to create a picture of a cat, horse or in this case, a goose. (Connect the Dots). Reasoning is connecting the dots, pulling together bits of information to form a bigger picture. After hearing a persuasive argument, the audience will have an “Ah-ha” moment. “Now I get it!” 

The principle of connection in reasoning is like the velocity of movement of physical objects in space. Reasoning channels the energy in the support to propel an argument forward. The amount of ground that is covered from A to B, that is, how firm the connection between the support and the claim is established is the magnitude of an argument. 

http://www.nckas.org/images/objects/sao156110.jpgStrong arguments have high magnitude – meaning that when we add up a variety of supporting evidence it leads us to accept the claim. Just as high magnitude stars shine bright in our physical universe, so once we hear a strong argument, it dominates our thinking. Opponents find strong arguments difficult to dismiss, refute or ignore. We may look to the bright ideas of a strong argument to guide our thinking, exactly as ship captains of the past looked to the stars for navigation.

On the other hand, weak arguments have low magnitude, or weak persuasive force. These are dim bulbs that fail to enlighten. The support does not lead decisively to the claim. Just as the connections between the bits of support along the line of reasoning in a strong argument are difficult to break, a weak case is easy to tear apart. An opponent can point out that the support is insufficient, flawed, or irrelevant. The reasoning in poorly constructed arguments may be so fuzzy that the argument fails to make a clear mental picture.  The idea falls flat. The audience is unmoved or maybe even confused.

Again, the simple model of an argument can be visualized as the connection between two points on a two-dimensional plane: Support - - > Claim.

We can add other more complex models of how arguments flow. The chain model is a continuation of the simple model in which once a claim has been proven, it functions as support for a larger claim one after another. Each point is logically connected and builds on the point before.

Support - - > Support - - > Claim

The cluster model is a collection of independent reasons that each lends support for the claim.  
 

      Support - - > Claim < - - Support 

If it is true that persuasion is like momentum in space and time perhaps we might apply other physical laws to rhetoric as well?  Let us take the movement metaphor deeper by comparing reasoning to physical forces.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_roHywApChD0/TD3jZB1Hv0I/AAAAAAAAAAw/bmcpAWI0E9g/s1600/normal_super-string_theory1600.jpg Reasoning as Force in Argument Space


A force in physics is said to be the strength or energy that causes an object to undergo a change in speed, direction, or shape.  There are four fundamental forces that govern the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear.  These forces rule how planets, moons, stars and galaxies interact.

Similarly there are four fundamental forces that bind points together in argument space: reasoning by generalization, analogy, cause-effect and authority.  Like physical laws, each force of reasoning also has logical laws and rhetorical principles that we can use to predict the persuasiveness of an argument based on them.

Modern rhetorician Richard Weaver lists the four types in a hierarchy from the most ethical to the least ethical.

Argument from:

1. genus or generalization.

2. similitude or analogy.

3. circumstance or cause and effect.

4. testimony or authority. (Weaver)

Starting with the weakest and moving to the strongest form of reasoning, let us consider how each compares to the fundamental forces. 



http://www.khis.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gravity-why-so-weak-the-three-explanations-of-L-wPtP50.png

Gravity is like Authority



Gravity in the physical universe is a force that pulls matter together. It shrinks the distance between objects. The more mass of an object, the stronger the gravitational pull it exerts. The effects of gravity also depend on proximity since attraction increases the nearer you are to a massive object.  This is known as the inverse square law: the intensity is inversely proportional to the distance from the source. Even though the sun is one million, three hundred thousand times larger than the earth, we are held to the ground by the earth’s gravity because we are closer to the earth.

In the argument universe, reasoning also is a force that pulls debate matter together. The first example of the pull of reasoning between forms of supporting matter we will consider is reasoning by authority. These are arguments which rely on the strength of a trusted external source. 

We might say that the pull of authority in the rhetorical universe is like gravity in the cosmos.

Ideas that are shared by credible authorities possess persuasive weight for listeners. When an audience hears testimony from experts or eyewitnesses, or is given the conclusions of published scientific studies, their thinking will move closer to the position advocated.  Just as the inverse square rule of physics shows that proximity increases force, the closer an audience is to the position of an authority, the stronger the persuasive force. If the authority is perceived as a role model or is highly respected, an audience will find it difficult to dismiss.

Reasoning by authority draws upon collective wisdom of philosophers or sages in producing artifacts like sacred scripture or founding political documents such as the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  The sway of cultural authorities (religious leaders, artists, writers, sports or film stars) is especially powerful. The findings by scientists in published studies using the scientific method may be inescapable. Like the effects of gravitational fields spreading across the cosmos, reasoning by authority is a pervasive force across the argument universe.  If authorities are on your side, you will probably win the debate.

However, an advocate who simply cites an authority and is done with it -- who fails to provide other arguments to back up a claim -- will probably have a very weak persuasive impact. Because Weaver believed that "an argument based on authority is as good as the authority," he placed authority as the weakest argument type in his hierarchy. (Johannesen)

Similarly physicists say that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces.  Out of the millions of celestial objects floating in space a smaller body must be close to a more massive object before the force of gravity is felt. In the same way, audience members must be close to the authority who is recognized to have persuasive weight. In other words, he or she must already be in the orbit or pull of that authority's influence.

While we are familiar with the force of gravity in our everyday lives, a second fundamental force is invisible to us. Yet it turns out to be essential for our very existence.

http://www.quarked.org/askmarks/images/answer5b.jpg Analogy is like Weak Nuclear Force

Second, let’s consider how weak nuclear force is similar to reasoning by analogy and the creation of original metaphors.

According to physicist Micahio Kaku, the weak nuclear force is

“responsible for radioactive decay. Because the weak force is not strong enough to hold the nucleus of the atom together, it allows the nucleus to break up or decay. Nuclear medicine in hospitals relies heavily on the nuclear force. The weak force also helps to heat up the center of the Earth via radioactive materials, which drive the immense power of volcanoes. The weak force, in turn, is based on the interactions of electrons and neutrinos (ghost-like particles that are nearly massless and can pass through trillions of miles of solid lead without interacting with anything). These electrons and neutrinos interact by exchanging other particles, called W and Z bosons.” (Kaku)

In addition to permitting subatomic particles to interact and release energy, Kaku says the weak nuclear force causes the fusion that fires the sun and stars. Just as the weak force causes light to shine making it possible to see around us, an apt analogy in an argument is enlightening. While light is actually part of the electromagnetic spectrum; it has its source in the weak force. When the landscape is dark, travelers can look to stars in the night skies as glimmering points of navigation. In the same way, analogies are points in the rhetorical skies that guide our thinking – especially when an audience is unsure.

Without the weak force human life on earth would be impossible. Likewise since "all language is metaphorical," without metaphor and analogy language would be impossible. When we consider how new metaphors are generated we see more similarities between reasoning by analogy and the weak force. 

The weak force is said to permit “quantum tunneling”, the strange ability for particles to jump through otherwise impenetrable barriers. Electronics applies the principle in the working of transistors for radios and diodes in television screens. According to quantum mechanics, matter exists as both a wave and particle. This is the wave-particle duality. One interpretation of quantum tunneling is that particles are able to pass through barriers in the form of waves of energy. Once crossing over, the energy on the other side is the same, but the amplitude (power) is reduced.

Quantum tunneling is like an analogy or metaphor in that the persuasive energy in one body of matter “crosses over” to another unrelated body of matter. Normally an impenetrable barrier of logic separates the two material objects being compared since there is a literal difference. Like a person walking through a wall, or ghostly neutrinos shooting through miles of solid lead, original metaphors do the impossible. They spark never before heard of insight.

Reasoning by analogy permits the rhetorical energy (meaning) to jump the barrier of logic by relating the two objects figuratively. The persuasive energy now flowing in the second object follows the same recognizable pattern that exists in the first -- although the amplitude is reduced, making analogy a weak form of argument. No one is forced to accept it -- although they may be more willing to listen to our other arguments.

Some destinations are so distant from the position of the audience that we must inspire them to follow where our line of reasoning leads. It may take a creative analogy to make them receptive.  In this way, analogy in our argumentation may be a kind of “quantum tunneling” that transports our ideas through the thickest mental defensive walls. 

While the logical jump made by the analogy may generate a persuasive insight for the audience, they are not bound to accept it. Analogy lacks the binding force of a literal comparison in an example. The persuasive power of analogy and metaphor comes from generating what Kenneth Burke calls “perspective by incongruity”. (Burke) An apt metaphor gives new thought patterns that surpass everyday thinking and inspires emotional support for accepting an argument. 

Consider: “My love is a red, red rose.” There is a logical barrier between “a rose” and the “my love”. Reasoning by analogy bridges the barrier with emotional energy. The same wave pattern in a rose is transferred to the love, which is now understood differently by the viewer exposed to the analogy.

The tentative nature of analogy makes it the next weakest form of argument after relying on authority alone. It is always possible to point out false elements in any comparison or to offer competing analogies for opposite positions.  Logic does not force an audience to follow the direction that an analogy implies. They are free to reject it in favor of a competing analogy. Similarly, physicists say that the weak nuclear force has a field strength that has less magnitude compared to other fundamental forces. The weak force is said to be unable to produce “bound states” and lacks “binding energy” necessary to force objects together at the atomic level. 

Analogies at best are ways for catching attention and framing an issue, useful for winning over the heart of an audience. Subtlety may be exactly what is needed. Just as the weak nuclear force is responsible for earthquakes by heating up the molten core of the earth, so an inspirational analogy is able to shake up thinking.

https://community.emc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-3415-29801/vortex.jpg Cause and Effect is like Electromagnetism

Third, we can compare the fundamental force of electromagnetism to reasoning by cause and effect.  The essential characteristic of causation is the idea of movement between related materials.  Showing that something is caused by a related effect in a sequence produces the power of the argument.

We show that when one thing is observed, it is followed by another thing in such a way that the first caused the second. We can speak of a"chain of causation" to explain how complex events emerge. One thing leads to another and to another. Persuasive force is therefore generated by showing a relationship between cause and effect. In other words, the energy of our thinking moves from the cause to the effect to a conclusion that we are trying to prove.

An advocate is using cause – effect reasoning when he or she argues that because people exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of lung disease, secondhand smoke causes lung disease. Thus, smoking should be discouraged.  We can see a flow of rhetorical energy from the cause (breathing secondhand smoke) to the effect (lung disease) leads the audience to accept our claim that smoking should be curtailed.

This flow of mental energy is similar to the physical force of electromagnetism. Electricity can be explained as the flow of electrons or energy between groups of related matter.  We know that every atom has an electron cloud. The electrons sometimes break free and move to other atoms meaning that electricity is basically the movement of energy. Inventor Thomas Edison defined it as "a mode of motion" between charged particles. 

The force of cause and effect can in the same way “charge” the matter of our arguments, filling them with persuasive energy. Just as electricity is the movement of particles that possess either negative or positive charges, so in a debate our points will be positive or negative – positive matter seeks to attract the thinking of the audience to your position, while negative matter seeks to repel them from the position of your opponent.  Likewise, the atoms in the matter of magnetized objects are lined up, creating a magnetic field that can attract or repel. 

While other forms of reasoning besides cause and effect can also be used to create positive and negatively charged matter in a debate, when a debater wins causation arguments, he or she can be assured that the thinking of the adjudicators will be lined up with their own. Causation in this sense is a persuasive force that binds your arguments together to make them receptive to the minds of the audience.

Usually we speak of causal relationships as increases in probabilities rather than absolute links. Rarely do we know for certain that one event is caused directly by another. Instead, a debater is on firmer ground to say that the there is an increased probability of the relationship holding true. Smoking increases the probability of cancer. We say that rhetoric (or persuasion) is concerned with probabilities and logic is concern with certainty.

A type of logic called a syllogism can prove the certainty of a conclusion. If the premises are true, we can be certain of the conclusion. All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore, Socrates was mortal. If the premises (all men are mortal and Socrates was a man) are true, we are certain of the conclusion (Socrates was mortal). Again, the energy of the premises flow to the conclusion.

However, most controversies that are debated are unlike classical syllogisms. Most of the time we can only get the audience to agree that more than likely, or probably, we are giving them the best explanation or plan of action. We can not be certain, but we arrive at a level of probability good enough to take action.

The probabilistic nature of cause and effect reasoning is analogous to physics, since quantum mechanics – the study of how energy works on the subatomic level – is governed by what is called the “uncertainty principle”. The uncertainty principle says that we can never be certain of the position of an electron. Physicists can make a good guess where the electrons will most likely be present, but they cannot say exactly.  Physicists have a choice: either they can measure where an electron is or how fast it is, but not both at the same time. We are inherently uncertain about the quantum realm of the subatomic world. In the same way, when it comes to predicting the future or measuring the relationship between what causes effects to occur, we are never certain. The best we can get when debating social policy is statistical probability. Again we find a parallel between the forces of reasoning and the forces of nature – which makes sense since our minds are part of nature.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/strongforce.gif Generalization is like Strong Nuclear Force

Finally we turn to the fourth fundamental force, the strong nuclear, and compare it to reasoning by generalization. Strong nuclear force is what holds atoms together. It binds protons and neutrons to form the nucleus of an atom. On a smaller scale, the strong force also binds the subatomic particles (quarks and gluons) that make up protons and neutrons.  It is the strongest of all physical forces. When this atomic bond is broken it results in an explosion of massive energy -- utilized by nuclear power as well as weapons.

In terms of argument space, just as the strong force holds matter together in the physical universe, so generalization holds our arguments together. And according to Weaver, generalization -- or argument by what he calls genus -- is the strongest argument type.

There are two ways an advocate might reason by generalization: setting down key terms or philosophical principles, and by giving examples of a general class.  By referring to general principles or values favored by an audience, the advocate draws them to accept a specific case.  For example: a speaker might appeal to such values as "All men are created equal," or "Democratic forms of government are best".  Then he or she might say: We know that slavery is wrong because all men are created equal. Or: We oppose dictatorships because democratic systems are ideal.

Pointing out that a case supported by universal moral principles is a form of deductive reasoning. The debater draws conclusions based on larger premises already accepted by the audience. Once the premise is accepted, the conclusion follows. Poet Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "Now that is the wisdom of a man, in every instance of his labor, to hitch his wagon to a star, and see his chore done by the gods themselves." Debaters will likewise hitch their wagon to the star of great moral principles and let the force of those truths win the day. (Emerson)

Besides looking to lasting principles, the second way that a speaker makes a generalization is by citing typical examples that illustrate the general idea. Generalization by example works like this: say I have a sack of apples hidden from my view. If I reach into the sack and randomly select an apple to examine it and discover that the apple is rotten, I will generalize that all of the apples in the sack are rotten. Examples that illustrate a larger group are powerful.

The most effective speakers know that vivid examples and dramatic stories are at the heart of argument. Until it is clear to an audience that people are affected by some larger harm, it will be difficult to persuade them to accept a solution. For example, why should we curtail video games? Because it hurts the psychological development of children. While this point could be supported with a statistic or scientific study, examples of harmed children will add emotional weight to the argument. To make the point memorable, a speaker could tell the story of specific children harmed by video games. In this way stories embody a thesis.

In addition to individual examples to support a larger point, we can look to the structure of a story or drama to organize our analysis. Narrative structure follows a theme. A theme is a generally recognized course of action among humans that is similar to what happens in a drama or play. Themes form the basis for literary novels and films.

Usually a dramatic theme follows this pattern: A victim is being hurt. Good guys are trying to save the victim, but they must overcome the action of the bad guys. Besides good versus evil, another theme might be social progression – that society is gradually improving over time as old forms of thinking are worn out and new ideas take hold. Dramatic themes like these glue together all the supporting material forming an overarching narrative that makes sense of the data for the audience, binding together all of the particular elements of our persuasive matter – just as the strong nuclear force binds the subatomic particles of physical matter.

Communication scholar Walter Fisher proposed the narrative paradigm of argument, claiming that all meaningful communication is a form of storytelling. He contends that "since human beings comprehend life as a series of ongoing narratives, each with their own conflicts, characters, beginnings, middles, and ends, arguments will also follow a narrative pattern. An argument is essentially a story." (Fisher)

http://img.bhs4.com/cf/2/cf2cab0e72f2aa8fa1b1e9071b704beedc9a4892_large.jpgStorytelling, then, is the atomic bond that makes the composite information in our speech cohere.

Quest for the Dark Matter of Argument


Overall, the four types of reasoning compose the universe of ideas just as fundamental forces shape time, space, planets, and stars.  Still, mastering the techniques of argument making may never be enough to automatically pull an audience into our sphere. Persuasion is a mysterious art rather than a precise science. With the advent of quantum mechanics scientists are also learning that reality is more mysterious than once imagined.

Physicists recently have discovered that the cosmos contains more mass than is accounted for by visible matter that we see around us. Most cosmologists have come to believe that visible matter is only about 5 percent and that 95 percent of the mass of the universe is made of “dark matter and dark energy.”  Dark matter may be based on a new kind of physics we have never experienced.

We could apply the concept of dark matter to public debate when we realize that what is said -- the matter that is exchanged in the communication between speakers and listeners -- is only a small part of the force that influences how an audience comes to believe. Most of the pull on our thinking is from unconscious information and cultural values that an audience brings to the setting. A speaker trying to influence an audience will take into account the weight of the “dark matter” of unconscious presuppositions and cultural values by lining up his or her arguments with the unstated assumptions hovering in the room. Harnessing this dark matter may require setting aside analytical reasoning in favor of intuition, creativity and poetry.

In summary we see that expanding the movement metaphor to include a comparison between physical forces and types of reasoning gives insight into how persuasion works. Just as the discovery of the four fundamental forces led to practical technologies like the steam engine, the electric light, transistors, and x ray photography applying these analogies from physics to rhetoric will aide our persuasiveness.

                •Like falling into a gravitational field of a celestial body, taking the side of authorities near to the heart of the audience will make arguments difficult to resist.

                •Like quantum tunneling, apt analogies, creative metaphors and comparisons have the surprising ability to break through walls of resistance, permitting an audience to see the light of our perspective.

                •Like a jolt of electricity, revealing the chain of cause and effect that make up a controversy will charge our case with power.

                •And, like nuclear forces inside atoms, tying our case to universal principles -- justice, equality or freedom -- and by storytelling -- we will strengthen the binding force of ideas.

With the continued promise of new discoveries, there are countless more comparisons between physics and the human mind. As nuclear physicist Isidor Rabi predicted:

“I don’t think that physics will ever have an end. I think that the novelty of nature is such that it’s variety will be infinite – not just in changing forms but in the profundity of insight and the newness of ideas.”  (Rabi)


Citations
Democritus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (date accessed: July 23, 2012, < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/ > )

Overbye, Dennis, "Astronomers Discover Biggest Black Holes Yet", New York Times, December 5, 2011. (Date accessed: July 26, 2012, < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/space/astronomers-find-biggest-black-holes-yet.html >)

Weinberg, Steven, "Why the Higgs Boson Matters", New York Times, July 13, 2012.  (Date accessed July 26, 2012. < http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/weinberg-why-the-higgs-boson-matters.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all >)

Kahn, Amina, "Dark Matter Filament Found, Scientists Say, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2012. (Date accessed: July 24, 2012. < http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/04/science/la-sci-dark-matter-filament-20120705 > )

Connect the Dots: Free Printable Pages, www.Coloring.ws. Date accessed: 7 26, 2012. < http://www.coloring.ws/t_template.asp?t=http://www.coloring.ws/ctd/cdgoose.gif >

Weaver, Richard, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953. 56.

Johannesen, Richard L., Rennard Strickland, & Ralph T. Eubanks, Eds. Language Is Sermonic: Richard M. Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1970. 216.

Kaku, Michio, Parallel Worlds, A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos, Anchor Books, A Division of Random House, Inc, New York, 2005. 80.

Burke, Kenneth,  Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose, Los Altos, CA: Hermes Publications, 1954.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, The Atlantic Monthly; April 1862; American Civilization - 1862.04; Volume IX, No. 54. 502-511

Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.

Rabi, Isidor -- cited in Zukav, Gary, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Harper Collins, 1979.  345.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

The Trinity of Argument

By GJ Gillespie

We see in my other essay that the Toulmin Model of Inductive Arguments might be compared to the Christian trinity in that Reasoning is like the Son, Evidence is like the Father and the Claim is like the Holy Spirit.

Here I speculate that three basic types of arguments may also be analogous to the trinity.

First consider the three types of arguments: Arguments by rational analysis, arguments by credible authority and arguments by emotional narrative.

Incorporating all three elements of the triad is necessary to form the strongest possible argument case. Yet at the same time, each element possesses unique persuasive force that stands alone. There is unity in diversity in pure eloquence. When we look closely at the nature of each facet we find a correspondence with the three persons of the Christian trinity, shedding new light on the nature of effective rhetoric.

1. Arguments by analysis or sequential thinking may be associated with the divine Logos, the Word of God or the Son of God.


Analytical arguments require information processing on the left side of the brain.

There are two kinds of analytical arguments. The first are arguments by definition or genus (based on reasoning from generalization).

"All arguments made through genus are arguments based on the nature of the thing which is said to constitute the genus," according to rhetorician Richard Weaver who placed this form at the top of his hierarchy for ethical debate. (Weaver, Richard, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953. 56).

Here the speaker appeals to rational principles or values which if accepted lead to conclusions.

"All men are created equal," or "Democratic forms of government are best".  We know that slavery is wrong because all men are created equal. We oppose dictatorships because democratic systems are ideal.

Appealing to powerful principles in proving a point is known as deductive reasoning. The debaters draws conclusions based on larger premises already accepted by the audience.  Utilizing deductive reasoning is like a ship captain looking to the North Star to guide a sea voyage.

A debater also uses left-brain thinking in making a second form of argument based on seeing cause-effect relationships.

"Since oil fracking pollutes ground water it should be banned." "We should reduce the size of government since lower taxes and fewer regulation spurs economic growth."

When an effect is attributed to a cause the mind begins with particular information that lead to a conclusion sequentially.

Argument from cause flows like an electrical current in an electronic device. Like cause-effect reasoning the persuasive power flows from a generating source to a destination which illuminates the light bulb.

Cause effect arguments are based on inductive reasoning -- when a speaker begins with diverse data or evidences which taken together make sense in the conclusion. The components of these arguments are particle-like -- the bits are fit together to form a coherent whole.

2.  Argument by Authority may be associated with God the Father.


These are arguments which rely on the strength of a trusted external source. Weaver offered the maxim "an argument based on authority is as good as the authority."

(Johannesen, Richard L., Rennard Strickland, & Ralph T. Eubanks, Eds. Language Is Sermonic: Richard M. Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1970. 216.)
http://cdn7.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP806/k8067959.jpg
We do not accept the proof because we "think it through" ourselves. Rather we are persuaded by a conclusions of a credible outside source who we trust.

Ethos or ethical appeal--as defined by Aristotle --is probably the most powerful form of persuasion. When an audience respects the source of the information the conclusion advanced is usually accepted. We will be move moved to accept the position of an expert in a field with advanced degrees more readily than the opinions of a child or criminal. 

Expertise is a test of evidence. We ask, does the source have the qualification to make this claim? Can we trust this source? Highly credible authorities are difficult to dismiss since we are drawn by the persuasive force of their reputation and experience. Like smaller celestial objects attracted to the gravitational pull of a more massive object such as a planet, star or black hole, we are pulled in by the gravity of a expert's views.

When we take the whole universe into account, we see that only some objects possess a gravitational field. Most objects, such as a small asteroid or a single person, have a very weak gravitational attraction. In the same way, in the universe of a controversy only some sources have strong attraction. A speaker or writer will seek to discover which sources out of thousands have the rhetorical mass necessary to pull listeners into persuasive orbit.

In this way, referring to authority is as natural as gravity. It keeps our feet on the ground. By taking on the mind set of an authority the tentative thinking of listeners is brought into focus. Learning from authorities is essential for human interaction. Children learn from parents, students from teachers, novices from mentors and we all are influenced by opinion leaders in our social sphere. Humans are necessarily social creatures who, like our ancestors ten thousand years ago, look to tribal leaders for guidance.

The wholly other God the Father is the most powerful authority imaginable. In the old testament we see that God issues the ten commandments to Moses. The ancient Hebrew community accepted the commandments because of the authority that issued them. Sacred scriptures of various religions -- as well as founding legal documents of a nation such as the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution -- are accepted on the basis of authority.

3.  Arguments by Narrative may be associated with the Holy Spirit.


Telling a story which encapsulates your argument is persuasive since it appeals to emotional meaning that is processed on the right side of the brain. We are captivated by vivid stories or analogies that clarify an abstraction in our mind. Here the speaker appeals to the intuition or "heart knowledge" of the audience. It is the Pathos of Aristotle's classical proof.

Rather than sequential, bit by bit reasoning of cognitive analysis, intuitive thinking is "all at once" insight that comes from deep places of human unconsciousness.

Blooms cognitive domain is well known. But, he also referred to the affective domain of emotional meaning. Some people have high IQs, or intelligence, others have high EQs, or what is called emotional intelligence.

Weaver categorizes emotional arguments as those that appeal to similitude, analogy or metaphor. Poetic forms of expression often can say more than the propositions of rational thought since right brain holistic information processing permits "pattern recognition".  This is the creative side of human consciousness.

It is said that all language is metaphorical. New words are generated on the right, emotional side of the brain where similarities between diverse objects and experiences are perceived.

"My love is a red, red rose" is a metaphor that compares a plant to a person. Rationally such a comparison may be groundless, but emotionally the poetic image is appealing.

While rational proof and the proclamations of authority is "particle-like" when bits of data are added up to form a whole, narrative arguments are "wave-like" or "fuzzy". Waves of emotion carry the listener to the conclusion. We believe because of the gut level, all at once pattern recognition of emotional intuition.

Story telling is the most effective way to stir emotional in an audience. An inspiring narrative may make the point better than any argument from reasoning or authority alone. 

http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Holy-Spirit.jpgAfter hearing a vivid, emotional story our consciousness is transformed on a deep level. Like the revelation of the Holy Spirit, intuitive arguments provide insight that we know is true. We are convicted or enlightened.

The intuitive, emotional pathway to knowing leads us to valid conclusions unattainable by the digital, left sided thinking of reasoning.

Electric pianos have two master keys. One switch is labeled digital and the other analogical. When the digital mode is on, the piano sounds like a traditional piano. When the analogical switch is on, the music may sound like a drum, guitar or violin.

The difference between digital and analogical information is like the difference between music played on a CD and a vinal record. Some music lovers prefer vinal records because the life-like imperfections remind them of a live performance. The perfectly clear CD technology eliminates the random imperfections of authentic human experience.

In the same way, arguments by narrative express analogical meaning that permits a speaker to slip past the rational defenses of the audience and get to the heart of an issue.

Traditional formulations of the trinity assert that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Applied to our model this could be taken to mean that effective emotional arguments must follow careful reasoning that is also consistent with trustworthy authority. In this way, creative thinking expressed as narratives, metaphor or analogies must proceed from established reasoning and authority.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/Swintrin2.png
Moreover, we could consider that creative insight that produces works of poetry, music or art usually come after our rational analysis or effort is exhausted. We may think about a problem or work of art rationally and turn to the mentoring of some authority for instruction in our chosen field, but our own unique heartfelt discovery of truth usually comes afterwards. In this way, creative emotional expression proceeds from reasoning and from authority. A good story will be primarily grounded in reasoning as well as used by authorities.  

Overall, all three types of interconnected arguments will be present in the most persuasive cases. For example, the persuader will present some rational arguments, perhaps citing statistics, or show that advantages of a proposal outweigh the disadvantages. The speaker will refer to the positions of authorities respected by the audience. Finally he or she will tell stories, provide analogies or make creative metaphors or employ poetic figures of speech. Taken together this triad of proof make up the essence of eloquence.

GJ Gillespie
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r111/heather_marie726/0lightworkblog/holyspirit.jpg




Thursday, July 12, 2012

Triune Inductive Proof Matrix

By GJ Gillespie

There are three basic parts of an inductive argument: A claim is supported by evidence and reasoning. In other words, Evidence (data, supporting facts and opinions) plus Reasoning (the warrant, analysis, rational link, explanation) equals Claim (thesis, conclusion). (Toulmin model)

All three must be present and operating with equal weight in supporting relationship for an argument to be probable or strong. Each part must be equally valid.

  •  A speaker will make observation of the evidence, then using his or her reasoning powers will advance a claim. The reasoning process leading to a conclusion is called Proof.
  • Going from data directly to conclusion is intuition-like Inference. Or, evidence may lead directly to the claim--with the reasoning inferred–similar to an enthymeme.
  • A firm conclusion requires both the heart felt conviction of truth and the process of rational analysis to confirm that the conclusion is possible, plausible and probable.

Analogy to the Trinity

Perhaps these three elements in an inductive argument are analogous to the divine persons of the Christian trinity? The trinity is conceived as the three divine persons existing as one God, equal in substance but distinct in their relationship to each other. The Orthodox formulation maintains that the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me,” John 15: 26. Earlier in this chapter Jesus says that the Father sends him.

This triune interaction is the only possible way to distinguish between three equal points in a space without any other reference. The pattern forms a unique and irreducible relationship between the three. By unique I mean that there is no other combination of relationships between three equal points that are possible to indicate that each point is distinct. By irreducible I mean that all three elements must be present for each to remain recognizable. The relational structure permits unity within diversity. The same qualities of coherence seem to apply to a strong argument.

Analogy and its Implications

We may consider that the Claim is like the Holy Spirit, Reasoning is like God the Son, and Evidence is like God the Father.
  • Claim is the Spirit (Revealer of truth, Spirit of Truth, liberator for action, life giving power, the essence). Notice that the Claim proceeds from Reasoning and from Evidence exactly parallel to the doctrine of the trinity in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
  • Reasoning is the Son (Logos, the Word, making known the Father, making the mysteries of life and cosmos understandable, like light in darkness).
  • Evidence is the Father (Source of meaning, originator of truth, Ground of Being, Creator of diverse array of data in the cosmos, mysterious wholly other.)
  • When the claim is inferred without reasoning, the process is analogous to natural revelation. “The law written on the heart.” (Romans chapter one.)
It is possible to come to the claim without evidence and rely only on reasoning. This is analogous to divine revelation. (The Bible, Word of the prophets.)

Ideally, both evidence and reasoning are equally employed in proving the claim. Evidence backed up by reasoning forms a line of thinking that is stronger in proving inductive arguments.
All three elements will usually have equal weight for the argument to be persuasive.

Fallacies as Heresies

Fallacies in argument may be analogous to theological heresies that fail to accept all three persons of the trinity, stressing one over the others.

  • Monism that sees God as one only is like accepting a claim without any evidence or reasoning, failing to rationally account for the diversity of evidence.
  • “Jesus only” is like refusing to provide evidence to support a reasoned understanding of a claim or equivocal reasoning for a vague claim.
  • Polytheism or nature worship is denying importance of reasoning. It is having an irrational leap of faith in your beliefs, ignoring contradictions, going from one bit of evidence to the next without credible analysis.


More similarities between inductive proof and trinity

Using our reasoning ability to draw conclusions about truth from our experiences in the world is what makes human communication distinctive. Each of the three elements implies the others, exactly like the theological formulation of the trinity: beginning with the claim we can naturally infer both the evidence and reasoning, beginning with reasoning we can infer the evidence.

Evidence by itself without any rational explanation or linked to a specific claim may not inherently imply anything. But a piece of evidence does seem to call for analysis and some conclusion about it. A poll showing that 52 percent of respondents favor one candidate for president (evidence) taken by it self does not imply any conclusion necessarily. But, such a statistic might suggest in the mind of a reader reasoning and a conclusion. The statistic might imply the generalization that in a democratic society the will of the majority should rule. A natural conclusion might be the candidate favored by the larger poll number will win the election.

In the same way theologically, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” (John 14:11) and “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30) are scriptures that show that Christ and the Father are equal and intimately related, just as reasoning and evidence merge in rational thought. In the natural world, the existence of a son implies the existence of a father. A father implies a son (or at least a child.)

The Holy Spirit may be thought of as the single unifying purpose or essence of the Father and the Son. The Spirit makes the Father known to worshipers. Through the Spirit the presence of Jesus is experienced. Just as evidence and reasoning lead to a single claim of truth, so the Father and the Son send the Spirit of Truth into the world.

A claim founded upon compelling evidence and reasoning is a powerful motivator for action. “Your house is on fire!”(evidence). People who remain in a burning house usually die (reasoning). “Get out of the house now!” (claim) The power of the argument comes in the claim. The Spirit of God is his power in the world. The Spirit “convicts of sin,” or motivates action, just like a well argued policy claim calls for action.

The single sentence of the claim is “short hand” or embodies both the evidence and the reasoning without having to re-state either. When a neighbor in your back yard is yelling, “get out of the house!” he or she may not need to explain the reasoning or evidence for the claim. The claim by itself implies both. In this example at least, the support is “present” in the claim without being directly stated. In the same way, the Father and the Son are present in the Spirit.

The work of the Spirit functions as “short hand” for -- or represents -- the Father and the Son, signaling the central purpose of each of the other persons of the trinity in the world. It is through the Spirit that we know the Father and the Son. The Spirit reveals the Father and the Son, just as a valid claim will imply its backing in evidence and reasoning.

This triune inductive argument matrix, therefore, suggests that the Spirit may be thought of as God’s thesis statement for humanity. Just as a thesis summarizes the entire content of an article, the Spirit reveals the heart of God. The matrix also reminds us that the process of thinking inductively -- beginning with evidence, moving to reasoning and leading to a conclusion -- must be coherent in forming a single unity called an argument.

Next: The Trinity of Argument

https://sites.google.com/site/geometricarts/triangolora.jpg