Added on October 11, 2021  Fritz Swanson

Editorial: Arguments are for calming things down (part 3 of 3)

by Fritz Swanson

In order to know that we know things, we have to have justification for our beliefs. We justify our beliefs using arguments that we accept can be proven false. We build our arguments out of claims and support. And all the while our goal isn’t victory, it’s the truth, whatever the truth may be.

Argument for me is both a discipline and it is an ethic. It’s there to help me shape my thoughts, and to provide me with guidance for action.

Toward that end, I’d like to add another useful concept to this discussion so that we can really apply this discipline in our lives practically. In the ancient world, at the first stage of argument there was a process of investigation called Stasis Theory.

 

The idea of Stasis Theory is that every claim is, on some level, an answer to a question. And there are only a minimal set of questions possible. Defining these questions helps us in a few ways. It gives us clear guidance as to how we can structure our own arguments. It gives further guidance in assessing other people’s arguments. And when we are in conflict with someone that we didn’t plan for, it can help us discover the exact nature of our conflict.

In all ways, Stasis Theory is designed to calm a debate. When Stasis Theory provides a question, it gives the argument a clear endpoint. If we can answer the question, we can settle that part of the dispute. It is SO IMPORTANT that you understand this element. If you enter into a debate, you have to agree to the terms of the debate. Stasis Theory helps to set those terms clearly. If you agree to those terms, then when the question is answered you have to accept the results. If you don’t accept the answer to a question, the argument just ends there. If you DON’T agree to those terms, then you aren’t really arguing at all. You’re just fighting, and that doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

As they say, we must shed light, not heat.

So, what are the questions? Historically there were four, but today we recognize five. And they flow in a very natural order. They are questions of Fact, Definition, Evaluation, Cause and Policy.

1. Fact: Is this real? Did this happen?
2. Definition: Does this thing qualify? Does this fit our definition?
3. Evaluation: What is the quality of this thing? Is it good or bad? How do we judge it?
4. Cause: What has caused this thing? What will this thing cause?
5. Policy: Who should handle this thing? What should we or they do?

Basically every argument out there is either purely the answer to one of these questions or, more likely, an answer to some combination of these questions.

And just as these questions can define the kind of claim we might make, they also give us some structure to the reasoning we would use when presenting our evidence. As we look at each in turn, we can see both the kinds of claims it produces, as well as the form its reasoning will take.

 

ARGUMENTS OF FACT

An argument of fact is an argument about whether an event occurred or a thing exists. 

Murder cases, for example, must always start with this argument. Someone might be missing, for example, but unless we can find a body, we can’t even start a homicide investigation. So our first question here is: Did death occur? If we find a body, we can at least answer that first question and then proceed.

Science, similarly, starts with this kind of argument. Questions about the Loch Ness Monster always start with basic questions of fact. Did you see something? Do you have a photograph? A Video? But the same is true when investigating more mundane stuff.

Often we don’t know we need to make this argument, because we don’t know we are looking for anything until it appears. That’s why I sometimes think of this as the Argument of Discovery. While it can seem very basic, obviously it also includes big events in history.

This kind of argument relies most heavily on the presentation of evidence. Though, depending on the question, actually acquiring the evidence can be subtle and difficult. It’s easy to prove that it is raining. It is harder to prove there is moisture in the air. Still harder to demonstrate that germs are present on a surface, or that radiation exists.

Special tools are often the outcome of a debate about a fact. The microscope and the telescope are both good examples.

 

ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION

Arguments of fact almost immediately slip into this second argument. Arguments of definition look at the thing discovered and ask, “What KIND of thing is this?”

The reasoning of a Definitional Argument is criteria based. That means that we take the object we are investigating and compare it to a list of criteria to see if it matches the list or not.

For example, there has long been a debate in Michigan as to whether there are mountain lions in the state. This starts as a factual argument: Did you see a cat? And then it becomes a definitional argument when you wonder: What kind of cat is it? You’ll see this play out when a trail cam photo of a cat is shared in the news and people argue over how big the cat is. When they do that, they are comparing the cat in the picture to a definitional criteria, which is Size. 

The key to definitional arguments is where you get the criteria. You can either have Formal Criteria that you draw from expert sources, or you can develop your own criteria using what is called Operational Reasoning. 

So, in the mountain lion argument, you might go to a zoological textbook and just gather the descriptive elements and use those to study the evidence. Those elements would be Formal Criteria.

Alternatively, Operational Criteria are gathered by comparing your subject to things that are similar. You might, for example, observe that the cat in the photo is bigger than the log it is standing by, and you’ve seen the log on the trail. You might then compare it to some house cats you have seen, and determine that the house cats are smaller than the log. By that operational reasoning you would say that the cat in the trail cam picture is larger than several house cats you have examined, which would suggest that it is NOT a house cat.

Whichever way you go, you are testing your subject against the criteria that you have established. 

As you might imagine, you have three main tasks. First you need to observe your subject closely and collect all the facts that you can. Then you need to establish what criteria you will use. This is its own mini-argument, because you have to prove that your criteria are useful. Finally it is a simple test. It’s like testing a key in a lock. The key is the subject, the lock is the criteria, and your question is: “Does it fit?”

 

ARGUMENTS OF EVALUATION

Evaluative Arguments assess the quality of a thing. We are very familiar with these kinds of arguments. Product reviews, movie reviews, and even advertisements are evaluative in nature. And like definitional arguments, evaluations are built around criteria lists.

You might ask, which of these cars is the best? And of course the next problem you will have is, “What do I mean by ‘best car’?” 

This is how evaluations are different from definitions. The criteria here are completely generated within the argument. With a definition you always have the fallback of going to an expert source. And even with Operational Criteria, you are constrained by the facts you can observe. But in Evaluations, it’s all basically operational.

The criteria here are Quantitative and Qualitative. A Quantitative Criteria for a car might include the speed of the car, or the horsepower. It could also include fuel economy and number of cup holders.

Qualitative Criteria are more difficult. Here you ask less certain questions like, “Which car is the most beautiful?” “Which car has the most interesting brand history?” “Which car owning community do I want to belong to?”

Picking your criteria is the key to an evaluative argument. If I recommended a car to you, and you asked WHY I liked the car, I am sure Color wouldn’t be enough to persuade you.

 

ARGUMENTS OF CAUSATION

Causal arguments are very tricky. They try to answer one of two questions: “What has caused this thing?” and/or “What will this thing cause?” 

A lot of science is dedicated to these kinds of questions, and the answers can often be pretty technical. But still, we run into these arguments occasionally in our day to day lives. Whenever we try to figure out why something has gone wrong, we use causal reasoning. Another name for this reasoning can be Troubleshooting. Bakers do it, and handymen as well. Why has the light in the living room stopped working? Why is the cake so dry?

The key to causal reasoning is recognizing that there are different kinds of causes.

First there are NECESSARY causes. These are all the things that are needed for an effect to occur. Like, if someone gets into a car accident, driving a car would be a necessary cause. The fact that cars were invented is another one. The fact that a specific tree grew along the road is a third. You can see that there are many many NECESSARY causes, but they aren’t very helpful.

Second, there are PROXIMATE causes. These are the immediate events which precede, and precipitate an effect. So, again, with a car accident, the man hit the tree because he swerved. Or, the porch roof fell in because a boy leaned against a pillar, and the pillar fell over, so the roof was no longer supported and the roof fell.

But the real secret to causal arguments is to find the SUFFICIENT cause. The SUFFICIENT cause is the thing which, if you removed it, the effect wouldn’t have happened. If the deer had not leapt in front of the car, the man would not have swerved and hit the tree. If the pillar hadn’t been eaten away by termites, the boy never could have pushed it over, and the roof would not have fallen.

But figuring out what is SUFFICIENT is tricky. 

 

ARGUMENTS OF POLICY OR PROPOSAL

Here we are asking “What should we do?” but we are also asking “Who should do it?” In the ancient world, this stage was a legal question. It was specifically focused on which official body should address the issues raised. And as you might have noticed, Stasis Theory today forms much of the basis of legal reasoning. But for our purposes, we can think about the Policy question as drawing on all the previous questions.

We might ask a definitional question here: “Which person or group best fits with the problem?”

Firemen put out fires for example. Or we might argue that parents are properly suited to teach their children about sex.

But if there are multiple things to be done, we might argue about which is best. Should we put this fire out with water or with sand? (And clearly, such a question might be framed by a question of fact: Which do we have on hand?) 

And of course causal arguments naturally flow into policy arguments. We noticed for a long time that when people got into car accidents, it was their head crashing against the steering wheel that was the sufficient cause of death. And since we couldn’t remove the steering wheel, or make it out of pillows, we proposed to install a seatbelt that would hold the body upright during a crash. And then we supplemented it with an airbag.

Policy arguments in the real world are a combination of all the stasis questions, and can often get quite jumbled up. Which is why arguments in real life can feel so confusing.

 

WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT

In fact, right here, I am making a causal argument. The fact that policy arguments contain so many different kinds of arguments as defined by stasis theory is the SUFFICIENT cause of the confusion those arguments can create when we are talking to one another. And confusion can make people angry. 

This is the SUFFICIENT cause of anger on Facebook, for example. It’s not because people are bad. People are arguing for complex policies on Facebook, and those policies rest on a whole series of often unstated and/or unexplored simpler arguments. 

The anger on Facebook is because people are not systematic in the way they argue. They aren’t patient with one another, because they don’t have the tools to structure that patience. And maybe they aren’t thinking through the proper goal of argument, which is to discover what is true rather than to “win”. And maybe some people are doing all these things because they don’t care. And maybe some people WANT to bully, and to just “win” through force. But I don’t think that’s true for most people. I think most people want to discover what is right, and to do the right thing. But that’s a hard thing to do.

And that’s WHY I chose to write these editorials. Because I feel like I am well-suited to help. I can’t tell you what the outcome of an argument should be. But I can tell you how arguments are structured, and what they are for. And I think that information can help good people find the truth.

I love argument. But I hate fighting. We should cherish the first, because it is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. We NEED to argue because we need to know what is true. We can’t govern ourselves without argument. But we cannot allow undisciplined argument slip into mere ‘fighting’. Because fighting obscures truth, and it seems that some people would prefer fighting over finding truth.

Notice that now I am making both a definitional and an evaluative argument here. I am distinguishing arguments from fighting by saying that the key difference is that arguments are a search for truth. Arguments don’t presume what the conclusion should be. But I am also saying that arguments are good because they help us to make good decisions, and to work together for a common good. Fighting is bad, because it reveals no truth and forces people into tribal factions. 

Fighting makes you ignore people who oppose you. Fighting prevents you from discovering the truth.

 

Ultimately, I am making a policy argument. I am arguing that in order to be a better citizen, or at least to be a kinder community member on Facebook, you should take the time to understand how to argue, and to understand WHY to argue.

Please read these editorials and think about them. And more importantly, use them as a starting point for your own investigation. I am an imperfect vessel. I can only explain these ideas in the ways I understand them. But these are ancient ideas, described by many thinkers, most of whom are much wiser and clearer than myself.

Learn how to argue. So we can stop fighting.