Anticipating Objections in Argumentation International Colloquium on Rhetoric and Argumentation, Coimbra, Portugal: Oct.

1. Anticipating Objections in ArgumentationInternational Colloquium on Rhetoric and Argumentation, Coimbra, Portugal: Oct. 2, 2008. Douglas Walton CRRAR Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric: U. of Windsor

2. Proleptic Argumentation • ‘Prolepsis’ [Greek prolambanein, to anticipate], has a variety of meanings. • One meaning is a figure of speech in which a future event is referred to before it happens: “If you tell the cops, you’re a dead man”. • Another meaning is the anticipation and answering of an objection or opposed argument before one’s opponent has put it forward. • ‘Proleptic argumentation’ in the sense used here refers to any move in argumentation that contains an anticipation and reply of this sort.

3. Importance of Anticipating • If you are writing a proposal, and you have not anticipated plausible objections, your argument is likely to appear shallow and unpersuasive. • The eloquence of the most eminent orators, such as Demosthenes, Cicero, Burke and Lincoln, is based on a dialectical sensibility marked by a well-developed capacity to recognize and counter argumentative objections (Leff,1999, 510).

4. Global Warming (GW) Example • Climate scientist Bruce, whose research is not funded by industries that have financial interests at stake, says that it is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. • The argument anticipates and counters the objection that Bruce’s research is biased, because it is funded by industries that have financial interests at stake. • The example is an instance of the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion.

5. Argument from Expert Opinion • Major Premise: Source E is an expert in domain D containing proposition A. • Minor Premise:E asserts that proposition A (in domain D) is true (false). • Conclusion:A may plausibly be taken to be true (false).

6. The Global Warming Argument • Premise:Bruce is an expert on climate science. • Premise:Climate change is in the domain of climate science. • Premise:Bruce says that it is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. • Conclusion:It is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions.

7. Objection to the GW Argument • Bruce’s research is funded by industries that have financial interests at stake. • Is Bruce biased? • If Bruce is biased, he may not be a trustworthy source. • The original argument anticipates and replies to this objection.

8. Linked or Convergent? • In a linked argument, the premises function together to support the conclusion. • EXAMPLE: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal. • In a convergent argument, each premise provides independent support for the conclusion. • EXAMPLE: Tipping is a bad practice. For one thing, it makes the party receiving the tip feel undignified. For another thing, it leads to an underground, black-market economy.

9. Bruce is an expert on climate change. Bruce says it is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. Bruce’s research is not funded by industries that have financial interests at stake. Argument from Expert Opinion It is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. The GW Argument as Linked

10. Bruce’s research is not funded by industries that have financial interests at stake. Bruce is an expert on climate change. Bruce says it is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. Argument from Expert Opinion It is doubtful that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. The GW Argument as Convergent

11. Another Way to See It • We could see the GW argument as proleptic because it anticipates a critical question, and provides an answer to it in advance. • If his research is funded by industries that have financial interests at stake, this raises questions about his reliability as an expert source who can be trusted to be obective.

12. Critical Questions (Walton, 1997, 223) • Expertise Question: How knowledgeable is E as an expert source? • Field Question: Is E an expert in the field D that A is in? • Opinion Question: What did E assert that implies A? • Trustworthiness Question: Is E personally reliable as a source? • Consistency Question: Is A consistent with what other experts assert? • Backup Evidence Question: Is E’s assertion based on evidence?

13. Trustworthiness Question Anticipated • It answers the trustworthiness question by rebutting the suspicion that Bruce might be biased. • His research might be funded by industries that have financial interests at stake. • If so, he would be biased. • If he is biased, he is not personally reliable as a source. the trustworthiness critical question is raised.

14. The Scientific Truth ExampleSharon Begley, ‘The Truth about Denial’,Newsweek, Aug. 13, 2007 • This argument cited was put forward by advocates of global warming, in response to arguments of their critics portraying scientific opinion as divided. The critics cited a petition signed by over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, who had said that they cannot subscribe to the view of global warming that claims it causes climate catastrophes. • Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations. • The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international body that periodically assesses climate research.

15. Argument from Expert Opinion • The IPCC report supports the hypothesis of global warming. • The IPCC report was written and vetted by scientists who are experts. • Therefore the hypothesis of global warming is plausible.

16. Objection • There was a petition signed by over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen who said they do not accept the hypothesis of global warming. • Therefore scientific opinion on global warming is divided [i.e. the experts disagree]. • If the experts disagree, that finding casts the hypothesis of global warming into doubt. • Therefore, there is reasonable doubt concerning the hypothesis of global warming.

17. Reply to Objection • The numbers are impressive. The IPCC report endorsing the hypothesis of global warming was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations. • Acceptance by a such an impressive number of scientists supports the hypothesis of global warming, even if some scientists do not accept it. • Therefore the hypothesis of global warming is plausible even though there may be some grounds for doubt about it.

18. Objection to Reply to Objection • Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote. • In the case of Galileo, the majority was against scientific truth. • If scientific truth is decided by majority vote, the argument becomes merely a numbers game of how many scientists are for or against. • If so, the argument would be merely an appeal to majority opinion (ad populum) rather than an appeal to expert opinion.

19. Reply to Objection • This is more than an ad populum argument from a majority of scientists. • The numbers suggest that the opinion that the world is warming is the accepted scientific opinion among scientists from many nations. • This convergence of acceptance casts doubt on the objection that scientific opinion on global warming is divided.

20. The Example as a Dialog • There are two sides, the global warming skeptics and the global warming advocates. • The argument was originally put forward by the advocates to attack the prior argument of the skeptics that scientific on the global warning issue is divided. • It cited large numbers of scientific experts on the side of the global warming hypothesis. • But it also rebutted the possible counter-argument that could be put forward next by the skeptics that their makes it into a popularity contest.

21. Poisoning the Well • Democratic capitalism is the best system of government, because anyone who is against it is a communist who has no regard for the truth of any matter being discussed. • This kind of argumentation in the fallacies literature is called “poisoning the well”. • It is proleptic because it anticipates objections and rebuts them in advance of any reply.

22. What is an Argument? • An argument is a move composed of premises and a conclusion used to fulfill a goal in a dialog with two sides (Walton and Krabbe, 1995). • A side wins if it puts forward arguments that prove the proposition that is its ultimate probandum. • Each single argument is put forward by one party to try to get the other party to accept a conclusion that can be used to move ahead, one step at a time, in a chain of argumentation that proves its ultimate probandum.

23. Simple Dialog Systems • Multiple-move dialogs are possible (Walton and Krabbe, 1995), but the following rule applies to what might be called single-move (simple) dialogs. • In a simple dialog, a party can make only make one move (speech act) at his/her turn (move). • For example, a party can put forward an argument, but only one, in a simple dialog. • Replying to an objection to one’s argument is a different move from putting forward the argument. • On these assumptions, it follows that proleptic argumentation is not allowed in simple dialogs.

24. The Primary Method • 1. Fill in any ordinary premises that might not be explicitly stated in the given argument. • 2. Scan over the standard critical questions matching that scheme, and judge which one is most powerful as a potential objection, from what is known of the context of the dialog. • 3. Build in an additional premise to the argument that anticipates this objection and rebuts it. • 4. Build in any other premises needed to help provide the new argument for the rebuttal.

25. The Secondary Method • 1. Go through the list of common counter-arguments used to attack this particular type of argument. • 2. Examine each of these counter-arguments in light of the context of the debate to see if one might fit. • 3. If you find one that fits, anticipate the objection by building in a premise stating that this particular type of counter-argument does not apply. • 4. Give an argument supporting the premise, for instance by citing an example that shows why this particular type of counter- argument does not apply.

26. References • Michael Leff, ‘Rhetorical Prolepsis and the Dialectical Tier of Argumentation’, Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren et al., Amsterdam, SIC SAT, 1999, 510-513. • Douglas Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park, Penn State Press, 1997. • Douglas Walton and Erik C. W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1995. • Douglas Walton, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.