ANALYZING
CONTROVERSY
Fourth Edition
GARY K. CLABAUGH
EDWARD G. ROZYCKI
2007 - 2008
NewFoundations Press
P.O. Box 94 Oreland, PA 19075
www.newfoundations.com
Analyzing Controversy
4th Edition
Gary K. Clabaugh
La Salle University
Edward G. Rozycki
Widener University
2007 - 2008
NewFoundations Press
P.O. Box 94
Oreland, PA 19075
www.newfoundations.com
Copyright ©2007 by Gary K. Clabaugh and Edward G. Rozycki
All rights reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the copyright owners.
ISBN 1-929463-13-8
Contents
Chapter 1: Analyzing Controversy -- an introduction ..................................................................................................7
Basic Approaches in Analyzing Disagreements..........................................................................................................7
Matters of Language......................................................................................................................................................8
Matters of Fact ...............................................................................................................................................................9
Matters of Value ............................................................................................................................................................9
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: Slogans ............................................................................................................................................................13
Defining Slogans..........................................................................................................................................................13
Slogans Mean Something But….................................................................................................................................14
Slogans in Motto Form................................................................................................................................................15
The Humpty Dumpty Principle -- power through slogans........................................................................................16
A Procedure..................................................................................................................................................................16
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................16
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 3: Reification ......................................................................................................................................................19
Reification and the Analysis of Disputes ...................................................................................................................20
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................22
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................22
Chapter 4: Definitions & Controversy ..........................................................................................................................25
Implicit Definitions......................................................................................................................................................25
Programmatic Definitions ...........................................................................................................................................26
A Procedure..................................................................................................................................................................27
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................28
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................28
Chapter 5: Pseudo-Solutions ...........................................................................................................................................31
Evaluating Solution Proposals ....................................................................................................................................32
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................33
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................34
Chapter 6: Name Calling .................................................................................................................................................35
Ad Hominem................................................................................................................................................................35
Delegitimization: presenting value judgments as facts .............................................................................................36
Is Linguistic Bullying and Domination Involved? ....................................................................................................37
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................38
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................39
Chapter 7: Reason and Logic in Disputes .....................................................................................................................41
An Informal Model ......................................................................................................................................................41
The Syllogism ..............................................................................................................................................................42
Validity and Soundness ...............................................................................................................................................42
Enthymemes.................................................................................................................................................................43
Common Errors in Argument .....................................................................................................................................44
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................46
Analyzing Controversy Contents 3
Other Related Chapters in This Text ..........................................................................................................................46
Keywords for Further Data Base Search....................................................................................................................46
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................47
Chapter 8: Presuppositions .............................................................................................................................................49
A Procedure..................................................................................................................................................................50
The Vulnerability Of Argument. ................................................................................................................................52
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................53
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................53
Chapter 9: The Nature of Consensus.............................................................................................................................57
Two Dimensions of Consensus...................................................................................................................................57
The Risks of Clarity.....................................................................................................................................................58
Span of Consensus.......................................................................................................................................................59
The Analytic Procedure...............................................................................................................................................60
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................61
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................62
Chapter 10: The Nature of "Society" ............................................................................................................................63
The Two Step Procedure .............................................................................................................................................67
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................67
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................68
Chapter 11: Feelings, Facts and Logic...........................................................................................................................73
More About Loaded Language ...................................................................................................................................76
The Analytic Procedure...............................................................................................................................................76
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................77
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................78
Chapter 12: Authority ......................................................................................................................................................81
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................84
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................85
Chapter 13: Operationalizing..........................................................................................................................................87
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................91
Other Related Chapters in This Text ..........................................................................................................................91
Keywords for Further Data Base Search....................................................................................................................91
Review Activity ...........................................................................................................................................................92
Chapter 14: Inquiry Blockers ........................................................................................................................................93
Simple Inquiry-blockers ..............................................................................................................................................93
Chapter Highlights.......................................................................................................................................................95
Test Yourself................................................................................................................................................................96
Chapter 15: Fact and Value.............................................................................................................................................97
Fact and authority ........................................................................................................................................................97
Is sense-experience the basic authority? ....................................................................................................................98
Procedure for Section I:...............................................................................................................................................98
Section II. Does Evaluation Imply a Commitment?..................................................................................................99
4 Contents Analyzing Controversy
Procedure for Section II ............................................................................................................................................100
When disputants gives an evaluation; consider whether:........................................................................................100
Chapter Highlights.....................................................................................................................................................100
For Further Consideration .........................................................................................................................................100
Chapter 16: Benefits and Costs.....................................................................................................................................103
Divisible and Indivisible Benefits ............................................................................................................................103
Absolute and Positional Benefits..............................................................................................................................104
Chapter Highlights.....................................................................................................................................................107
Test Yourself..............................................................................................................................................................109
Chapter 17: Responsibility ............................................................................................................................................111
Why Assumptions About Responsibility Are Important ........................................................................................111
Chapter Highlights.....................................................................................................................................................116
Test Yourself..............................................................................................................................................................116
Chapter 18: Why Disputes Continue ...........................................................................................................................119
Chapter Highlights.....................................................................................................................................................123
Test Yourself..............................................................................................................................................................123
Appendix A: Basic Library Research ..........................................................................................................................127
Basic Library Research .............................................................................................................................................128
Creating A Search Strategy .......................................................................................................................................129
Searching Databases ..................................................................................................................................................132
Appendix B: Visualizing Structures of Thought with Venn Diagrams ..................................................................135
The Relationship Between Venns and Syllogistic Arguments ...............................................................................138
Index ..................................................................................................................................................................................141
Analyzing Controversy Contents 5
Chapter 1: Analyzing Controversy -- an introduction
"Sorting Things Out"
He who establishes his argument by noise and confusion shows that his reason is weak.
— Michel de Montaigne
It is often hard to make sense of controversial issues. This book teaches you how. Chapter 1
introduces the basic process. It explains that we should examine three aspects of any controversy:
language, fact and value.
We live in a storm of disagreement. On TV, in the newspapers, at public meetings, in private bull sessions,
contrary opinions clash continuously.
• An expert declares that overpopulation is a myth; another replies that “the fuse is burning on the
population bomb.”
• A sociologist asserts that morality is relative to culture; a bishop responds that Church doctrine
defines morality for all humankind.
• A human rights advocate demands an end to capital punishment: a victim's rights advocate
counters that it should be swifter and more certain.
• A "Pro-Life" activist declares that abortion is wicked; a "Pro-Choice" partisan replies that a
woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.
• An expert recommends that drugs be decriminalized; a legislator warns that this will destroy
America.
What are we to make of all this? Does one side make more sense than the other? Of course, everyone has the
“right” to an opinion, so we say. But what about developing informed opinion worthy of an educated person? That is
what this book is about.
Basic Approaches in Analyzing Disagreements
Analyzing disagreements can seem complex. But there is a way of organizing the analysis that makes things
more manageable. Divide your considerations into:
• matters of language
• matters of fact
• matters of value
Let’s briefly preview each.
Analyzing Controversy Introduction 7
Matters of Language
Do not assume that because those arguing a controversial issues use the same words, they mean the same things.
Opponents might assign different meanings to key terms. Consider people arguing whether the law is soft on
criminals. Focusing on language suggests the following questions:
• What do they mean by “the law?” Is one referring to the criminal code while another means the
judiciary, the police, or something else?
• What do they mean by “soft?” Does one mean agreeing to provide prisoners with special diets
or weight lifting facilities? Is the other thinking that it is "soft" to give convicts early parole for
good behavior?
• What do they mean by “criminals”? Is one talking about convicted felons, while the other also
includes persons accused but not convicted?
When disputants do not specifically say what they
think terms mean, lack of common definitions can be The unity of freedom has never relied on
uniformity of opinion
difficult to detect — even by the disputants themselves. --- John F. Kennedy
But we sometimes can uncover this kind of
disagreement by looking carefully at how each antagonist uses the terms. In any case, though, unless there is mutual
agreement on the meaning of key terms, it is unlikely the dispute will be resolved. Why? Because the opponents are
not even debating the same things.
Here are some indicators that issues of language are crucial to a dispute:
• Different parties to the dispute offer conflicting ways of identifying the “same” thing. For
example, consider a dispute about the term Law. “The Law is too soft; police don’t even arrest
panhandlers!” “No, the Law is too harsh; there is a mandatory one-year sentence for
panhandling!”
• Disputants complain that their opponents don’t “really understand” what is at issue.
• Disputants use the term, “true” or “really” to characterize what they’re proposing. For
example, “The true Law is found in the law books.” Or, “Law is really enforcement practices.”
• The argument remains at the theoretical level; disputants avoid giving practical examples.
• A secondary dispute develops about “the real meaning” of terms.
• Questions of authority of the source of definitions arise. For example, “Do you think the
Oxford English Dictionary is appropriate here?”
8 Introduction Analyzing Controversy
Matters of Fact
We can easily imagine one person arguing that the law is too soft on criminals only to have another say, "Your
facts are all wrong. If you knew what I know, you wouldn't say that." Disputes often involve disagreements about
facts.
It is not necessary to know the facts in order to argue. It is only important to know them in order to argue
intelligently. To decide if the law is really "soft" on criminals, for instance, would require knowledge of facts such
as: the average length of sentence imposed upon those convicted of various crimes; living conditions in federal, state
and local prisons; the rights and privileges guaranteed to inmates in these various prisons, the proportion of
sentences actually served; punishment for similar crimes in other societies; and so forth.
Ascertaining fact takes time and effort. That is one reason some prefer to ignore them and others gather what
passes for fact from the National Enquirer, or other questionable sources.
Public opinion is a compound of folly, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling,
obstinacy and newspaper paragraphs.
–– Robert Peel
Here are some indicators that issues of fact are crucial to the dispute:
• Different parties to the dispute make conflicting statements about the same thing. For
example, “The getaway car was a blue Ford.” “No, it was a blue Buick.”
• Parties to the dispute complain that their opponents are misinformed about the subject of
their dispute. For example, “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
• A secondary dispute develops about the reliability of the source of facts. For example, “You
can’t trust that almanac; use the Encyclopedia Britannica!”
• Disputants call their opponents “ignorant,” “stupid” or "uninformed."
Matters of Value
Let's briefly return to those persons disputing whether "the law is too soft on criminals." Suppose they agree on
what key terms like "soft" mean, and further suppose they also agree regarding: the average length of sentence for
felons convicted of violent crimes; what proportion of these sentences are actually served; conditions in federal,
state and local prisons; and so on. Despite all of these agreements they may still disagree on whether or not the law
is "too soft on criminals" if what they value is different.
Valuing revenge, punishment and an "eye for an eye," for example, some might regard the facts about American
crime and punishment as evidence of spineless permissiveness. Others, who value forgiveness, rehabilitation and the
Analyzing Controversy Introduction 9
advice, "let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone," may interpret the same facts as evidence of
misguided cruelty that will only produce more vicious criminals.
Here are some possible indicators that issues of value are crucial to a dispute:
• There does not seem to be a dispute about language or facts. (These possibilities should be
brought up in advance of inquiring into the possibility of value disputes.)
• Parties to the dispute complain that their opponents have the wrong attitude. For example, “I
don’t see why you think good behavior in prison should reduce time served!”
• Disputants tend to see their opponents as perverse rather than as just misinformed. “Of
course, the welfare queens and the tax-and-spenders are against my proposal!”
Chapter Highlights
To better understand any issue in dispute ask whether the opponents agree on common meanings for the critical
terms in their dispute. If not, then their dispute is, at least, a disagreement about language. Such disputes cannot be
settled without agreement on the meaning of terms.
Also ask whether the opponents agree on the facts. Factual disputes cannot be settled without recognizing a
common authority as a source of fact.
Finally, ask if the opponents agree on what is desirable? If not, we are dealing with a value dispute. Disputes in
value cannot be settled without one side to the dispute changing its values; or by both sides overlooking the values
clash for the sake of a higher common priority.
Rather than rushing to take sides in an argument, use this process to start to examine what is at issue and for
whom it is an issue. Recognize, too, that disputes often involve a combination of the kinds of disputes described
above.
Analyzing controversies requires an appreciation for the subtleties of language; and slogans are a crucially
important aspect of that subtlety. While there are characteristic forms for slogans, e.g., mottoes, it is the way they
function that is crucial. Sloganizing is what people do to encourage superficial agreement. But this superficial
agreement often covers over profound depths of controversy. (See Chapter 3: Reifications)
Other Related Chapters in This Text
3. Reification 12. Authority
5. Pseudo-solutions 14. Inquiry Blockers
8. Presuppositions
10 Introduction Analyzing Controversy
Chapter Review Sheet
1. Describe the chapter briefly in your own words.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the core ideas developed in this chapter? If more than one, list them in order of their importance to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Briefly explain the importance to you of your first choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Briefly describe a scenario in which you could apply one of the ideas from the chapter to improve your
professional practice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
5. Connect this chapter to at least one thing you already know.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Suggest one way to make this chapter more effective.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Analyzing Controversy Introduction 11
NOTES:
12 Introduction Analyzing Controversy
Chapter 2: Slogans
“Talking the Talk?”
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I chose it
to mean— nothing less, and nothing more.
'The question is,' said Alice, ' whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
— Lewis Carroll
This chapter explains how slogans promote apparent agreement while, in fact, undermining
practical cooperation. It also lays out specific techniques for using this knowledge to best
advantage in analyzing controversies.
Americans, when faced with choices, often disagree. But as successful politicians know well, slogans are a way
of temporarily avoiding these stubborn disagreements. Sufficiently vague to mean different things to different
people, slogans are easy to agree with — provided we don’t ask what the slogans mean in detail. That’s when we
often find that others interpret them in ways we find objectionable.
Defining Slogans
Slogans are vague statements whose ambiguity conceals potential conflict while promoting broad but shallow
consensus. Consider the traditional wedding vows. They are sloganistic. Both bride and groom promise to "love and
honor" one another, for instance. After the honeymoon, however, many couples find themselves struggling to reach
agreement about what "love" or "honor" means in specific cases. That is how it is with slogans; their characteristic
vagueness, encourages a shallow but vital initial unity of feeling and spirit. But the very vagueness that makes them
appealing also makes them potential points of conflict.
Here is another example, this one dealing with multicultural education. To find a slogan for analysis we entered
“multicultural education” into a World Wide Web search engine. It identified over 2,600,00 references and the
second-ranked New Horizons for Education reference, offered the following specimen, “Multicultural education
harbors a place for a multitude of voices in a multicultural society and a place for many dreams.”
This slogan’s appeal to easy tolerance initially may seem appealing. But to begin unraveling that attraction we
need to consider only the status and rights of females in different cultures around the world. Some cultures, for
example, tolerate wife beating if the husband thinks it is needed to preserve his "manhood." Does that mean we
should tolerate wife thrashing by “macho” culture males if the US is to “…harbor a place for a multitude of
voices?” Similarly, in some cultures pregnant women frequently have ultra-sound testing to determine the sex of
their unborn; female fetuses are then aborted because they are unwanted. Female infanticide is also widely practiced
Analyzing Controversy Introduction 13
for the same reason. In both cases the parent’s “dream” is to have a boy. But should the US accept these practices in
order to become more “multicultural?”
Continuing in this vein, how tolerant should we be of cultures that practice genital mutilation as an initiation
into womanhood? Does listening to other culture’s “voices” require Medicare officials to fund the surgical removal
of the clitoris of pubescent females if their parents desire it? Likewise, there are cultures where feminist authors are
imprisoned, even executed, for “offending the pious." Should America’s female writers be legitimate targets for
religiously motivated assassins in order to fulfill the “dream” of another culture’s spiritual leader?
To be sure, much can be learned from other cultures. Moreover, intolerance often fosters misery and injustice.
Nevertheless, many difficulties lurk in the slogan “Multicultural education harbors a place for a multitude of voices
in a multicultural society and a place for many dreams.” Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the slogan obscures them
all. That’s what, at the outset, makes it appealing.
Slogans Mean Something But…
Slogans are not so vague as to be meaningless. On the contrary, they are powerful persuaders precisely because
they do mean something to people. Crucially, however, what that "something" is differs dramatically from person to
person. Consider a school district that adopts the slogan, “Every school a good school!” Everybody agrees that
"good" schools are desirable; but we often do not agree on what "good" schools should be like. Do they emphasize
math and science, or languages and art? Should they be fun? Should everyone get a diploma, no matter what? Any
experienced principal will tell you that one person thinks is a “good” school another regards as “mediocre,” even
"awful." Why, then, is “Every school a good school!” initially persuasive? It’s convincing because the slogan’s
vagueness obscures these, and similar, disagreements.
Here are some possible indicators that a statement is a slogan.
• The statement is difficult to disagree with without sounding perverse. For example, “Take a
bite out of crime!” “Support our troops!” “Protect the environment!” “Just Say ‘No!’ to Drugs!”
• Multiple interpretations can be given for key terms. For example, the term law in “The Law is
too soft on criminals.” Also, peace in “Peace-keeping Force” or “Peace-loving Nations.”
• The statements are used at political or ceremonial get-togethers, e.g. “A thousand points of
light!” or “Contract with America!” or “with Liberty and Justice for All!”
• The statements are part of a media “sound bite,” e.g. “The Trial of the Century!” “Deficit
Reduction”, “Liberals” and “Conservatives!”
A Caution
We have to be careful not to identify every vague statement as a slogan. Some imprecise statements are simply
generalizations or summaries that do not mask important options. Imagine, for example, someone saying, “New cars
are expensive!” So far as “new cars” are concerned, there is a substantial difference between the price of a Hyundai
14 Introduction Analyzing Controversy
and a Ferrari. And what “expensive,” means is also vague. What is clear, however, is that the statement does not
obscure dissensus or preempt important options in the same important way a slogan like “Every school a good
school!” does.
Slogans in Motto Form
The most obvious slogans are those in motto form. “Every child can learn!” is an example. But can every child,
even the most profoundly handicapped, learn to read, for example? No, not really. In fact, there actually are very
few things that every child can learn. Why doesn’t this get discussed? The motto's vagueness obscures critical
details.
"It's time to put government on a diet!" works the same way. This motto generates broad enthusiasm. Few
object to trimming "fat" from "government." Enthusiasm diminishes, however, when we have to decide which is
"fat" and which "lean." Then we quickly discover that what one person sees as waste, another sees as compassion
for the homeless, prudent investment in military preparedness, minimal consideration for the elderly, and so forth.
…The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.
–– Shakespeare
“Try Harder” Mottoes
Try harder mottoes, such as “When the going gets tough, the tough get going!” often serve to pass the buck to
subordinates for problems created by the people in charge. Such mottoes are based on the assumption that people
could, if they only tried harder, do better. Politicians proclaim, for example, that “Every Child Can Learn!” The
implication is that if teachers tried harder, every child would learn. But because of political neglect or indifference,
those same teachers might toil with inadequate equipment in dilapidated, over-crowded schools destabilized by
violence. Try harder mottoes lend themselves to this sort of buck passing.
Here Are Possible Indicators that Statements are Mottoes:
• It is an emotionally stirring maxim. “Remember the Alamo!” Remember Pearl Harbor,” “Save
the Children,” “Be All You Can Be,” “Never have so many, owed so much to so few.”
• It is the statement of a guiding principle. “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny,” “Be
Prepared,” “In God We Trust,” “Caveat Emptor” (Let the Buyer Beware), “Carpe Diem”
(Seize the Day).
• It expresses the spirit or purpose of an organization or other group, often inscribed on a badge,
banner, etc. “Semper Fidelis” (Always Faithful), “United We Stand,” “Support Your Local
Police,” “Don’t Tread On Me,” “The Mounties Always Get Their Man.”
Analyzing Controversy Introduction 15
The Humpty Dumpty Principle -- power through slogans
At the beginning of this chapter we quoted Lewis Carroll "When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty, "it means
just what I choose it to mean.”- Humpty’s assertion points to a specific difficulty with slogans. Those in charge
usually get to decide what a slogan means in specific cases. That gives those who use slogans a great deal of
arbitrary power.
Imagine a chain of restaurants owned by a very conservative, born-again Christian. (The term “conservative,
born-again Christian” is itself sloganistic, but at least it distinguishes this type of Protestant from main line
Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and so forth; as well as Catholics, Jews, Muslims and others.) Our "born-again"
owner insists that employment contracts include this statement, "I agree to always conduct myself in accordance
with Christian principles." This is a slogan. Why? Because of there is fundamental disagreement among Christians
regarding what, specifically, “Christians” principles amount to; although most people will assign their personal
meaning without taking into account that others understand "Christian principles" very differently.
Suppose, for example, that a religiously devout manager of one of this firm's restaurants is arrested for criminal
trespass. Motivated by Christian principles, she has broken into a defense plant and splashed blood on nuclear
missile warheads. (Such an incident actually happened in the Philadelphia area.) Will this devout manager get fired
if the restaurant chain's owner decides she violated his sense of "Christian" principles? It's a good bet.
The rule is: When it comes to slogans, sooner or later those in power get to be Humpty Dumpty and say, "... that
means just what I choose it to mean." So, with slogans, always ask, "Who gets to decide what things mean?"
A Procedure
When considering how slogans might be involved in a controversy the following steps may help.
Step 1) Identify slogans being used to support positions by looking carefully for vague key
terms.
Step 2) Also look for mottoes that might conceal disagreements and serve manipulation.
Step 3) List different meanings people might assign to the vague key terms in 1 and 2 above.
Step 4) Consider how those different meanings would change the nature of the dispute.
Chapter Highlights
Analyzing controversies requires an appreciation for the subtleties of language; and slogans are a crucially
important aspect of that subtlety. While there are characteristic forms for slogans, e.g., mottoes, it is the way they
function that is crucial. Sloganeering is what people do to encourage superficial agreement. But this superficial
agreement often covers over profound depths of controversy. (See Chapter 3: Reification)
Other Related Chapters in This Text
3, Reifications 12. Authority
5. Pseudo-solutions 14. Inquiry
16 Introduction Analyzing Controversy
Blockers
8. Presuppositions
Keywords for Further Data Base Search
programmatic definition stereotype prejudice
propaganda consensus motto
generalization dissensus catchword or catch phrase
Test Yourself
Although slogans mean something, what that something is differs significantly from one person to another. Still,
you may find it difficult to imagine more than one interpretation. That demonstrates why slogans are so convincing.
It is hard to imagine any other interpretation than our own. This is what causes consensus to dissolve when slogans
are interpreted. Different interpretations commit us to different expectations, different claims on resources, and so
forth.
As vague as they are, however, slogans cannot be interpreted in just any way. Certain possibilities are ruled out.
For example, if somebody says, "We have to get things moving around here," no one will take that to mean, "Let's
all go home and go to bed." Knowing what a slogan rules out is as important as knowing that a slogan says little
specifically.
Here is a list of sloganistic statements. Make them more specific by creating two different acceptable
interpretations. Also create two examples of non-acceptable interpretations. Follow the examples.
Slogan Acceptable vs. Unacceptable Interpretations
"Support quality education." Acceptable: 1. Pass the school tax increase.
Acceptable: 2. Require everyone to take two years of algebra and a
foreign language.
Unacceptable: 1. Slash school taxes so that taxpayers can use the
money for other things.
Unacceptable: 2. Allow more illiterates to graduate.
"Require excellence in all things." Acceptable: 1. Bench baseball players who bat less than .250.
Acceptable: 2.
Analyzing Controversy Introduction 17
Unacceptable: 1. Count basketball shots near the rim the same as
those that go through it.
Unacceptable: 2.
Just say "no" to drugs." Acceptable: 1.
Acceptable: 2.
Unacceptable: 1.
Unacceptable: 2.
"Reduce government interference in our Acceptable: 1.
lives."
Acceptable: 2.
Unacceptable: 1.
Unacceptable: 2.
18 Introduction Analyzing Controversy
Chapter 3: Reification
“Conjuring Up Spirits”
Cursed be the social lies that warp us from the living truth.
- Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Reifications are a particularly troublesome type of generalization because of the unobtrusive way
they obscure individual differences. This chapter explains how that works, provides examples, and
prescribes countermeasures.
To reify something means to treat an abstraction as if it were a concrete, even living, thing. If someone suggests
we need to "lift America's spirit," for instance, he or she is reifying "America." Why? Because they are speaking of
"America" as if it were a single person with a single spirit to be lifted, rather than a highly diverse union of nearly
302,404,765 million very different individuals as of 07/21/07.
We encounter reifications every day. For instance, we come across them routinely in newspapers, magazines
and on TV. Here are some headlines from just one page of a major metropolitan newspaper with the reifications
underlined. "Drug company did not act on AIDS virus warning;" "City and union extend strike deadline;" "Chinese
Police detain wife of political prisoner;" Clinton calls on U.N. to cut down on waste."
These aren’t particularly troublesome reifications because the details follow in the body of the story. We learn
who in the drug company failed to act, which city and union officials extended the strike deadline, and so forth. At
times however, particularly when controversies are boiling, such vital details never emerge. When that happens,
reifications become dehumanizing, misleading and singularly troublesome.
On the commentary page of this same newspaper, for example, there is a column with many undetailed
reifications. The headline is, "U.N. should clean up its act." The columnist charges that "...the U.N.'s bureaucracy
has long ago forsaken its commitment to Article 100 of the
[U.N.] Charter." (Article 100 forbids U.N. staffers from “When an idea is wanting a word can always be found
to takes its place.”
seeking or receiving instructions from any government.) " He — Johann W. von Goethe
denounces. "U.N. apparatchiks [who] have tried to cover
their trail ... ," and he charges that "The U.N. bureaucracy ... inhabits a culture of paranoia, fearful always that a
powerful member country or a powerful block of countries is looking over their shoulder."
What’s wrong with this argument? A great deal is. There are over 20,000 U.N. employees working worldwide
at hundreds of different jobs; but the author of the column never even hints at that. Instead the columnist uses
reifications to encourage us to lump all these very different people together as “the U. N. bureaucracy" and
"apparatchiks" — a scornful term for unprincipled, uncaring Soviet era bureaucrats. Some U.N. employees may, in
fact, act like apparatchiks. Others, however, surely do not. Consider, for example, those who gave their lives trying
to deliver food to starving, besieged Bosnians. Do they deserve to be referred to so contemptuously?
Analyzing Controversy Reification 19
(The columnist’s reifications also involve name-calling which is discussed in a later chapter. He decries "U.N.
apparatchiks," not "U. N. officials." He denounces the "U.N. bureaucracy," not "U.N. administrators.".)
Emotionally loaded reifications of this sort are extremely common in disputes. That’s because this sort of
rhetorical one-two punch is quite powerful and tends to seduce people into thoughtless commitments. We can see
this in the work of propagandists and advertising writers. Practitioners of both occupations use reifications
masterfully. Consider Hitler's murderously
effective ranting against "the Jew." He pounded “Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up
hatred than when it tries to stir up friendly feeling?”
home the notion that “the Jew” was a single — Bertrand Russell
monstrous organism infecting and threatening to
kill Germany. This systematic dehumanization smoothed the way for genocide. With the assistance of reifications, it
was not a matter of murdering blameless human beings, but of solving “the Jewish question.”
Most reifications do not have homicidal consequences. Nevertheless they still encourage bigotry or at least
simple-minded thinking. A candidate for the U.S. Presidency, for instance, declared in a national debate that there
was a pressing need to "lift America's spirit." His prescription might seem reasonable until we stop to consider the
hundreds of millions of different individuals in America, only some of whom might need their spirit lifted.. Isn't it
obvious that “lifting America's spirit" is so much hot air? But because the candidate obscured this diversity by
reifying "America" he made his prescription seem plausible.
Reification and the Analysis of Disputes
Now let’s learn how to apply knowledge of reifications to the analysis of disputes. Here is a step-by-step
approach.
Step 1) Distinguish reifications from group names.
Reifications refer us to groups in a way that obscures individual differences within them. This serves
persuasion, but it destroys critical judgment. It is one thing to refer to a group, say a baseball team, by their name —
the Trenton Thunder for example. It is quite another to reify that team and speak of it as if it were a single
individual. For example, "The Trenton Thunder lacks desire." In theory, everybody on the Thunder's roster could be
deficient in the will to win; but it’s far more likely that, if true, the charge applies only to particular team members.
On the other hand, you can accurately say, "The Trenton Thunder need a new bus for road trips.” Or, “The Trenton
Thunder finished second in their division.”
It also makes perfect sense to refer to the United States of America collectively in certain contexts. The U.S. is,
after all, a legally recognized member of the community of nations and can declare war, enter into solemn treaties,
have formal relations with other nations, and so forth. In the final analysis, however, the United States is NOT some
sort of mega-person. On the contrary, it is always specific individual Americans, not "America," who declare war,
enter into treaties, and so forth. But reifications obscure this all-important reality.
20 Reification Analyzing Controversy
Step 2) Be particularly watchful for reifications that play on prejudice
Prejudice and reifications work well together. Perhaps that’s because they both depend on ignoring individual
differences. Take, for example, the half-serious assertion that "white men can't jump." That reification is convincing
to many. But it refers to hundreds of millions of very different individuals as if they constituted a mega-person.
What happens when we trash the reification and consider
“All generalizations are false, including
individuals instead? It quickly becomes apparent that there are numerous this one.”
— Stuart Chase
"white" track and field world record holders in jumping events.
Prejudicial stereotypes depend heavily on reifications. "The Jews
are...;" . "Blacks never...;" "Whites always..." The reifications beginning such statements encourage total
depersonalization, sometimes with murderous consequences. Osama bin Laden, for instance, regularly reifies
"America," speaking of us as if we are of one mind, one purpose, one identity. That makes us much easier to hate
and kill individuals. Once he reifies us into sameness for his followers, it is no longer a question of murdering
thousands of distinctly different people by piloting planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; it is a
matter of "...punishing America."
Step 3) Reduce reifications: first by replacing them with smaller groups, then, if possible, with
individuals
Consider the statement "Canadians are having second thoughts about NAFTA." (That’s the North American
Free Trade Agreement.) When you spot a reification like this, see what happens to its accuracy when you reduce it
to smaller groups with more specific characteristics. For instance, if we replace "Canada" with native Canadian
Indians living in the wilds of northern Quebec, there’s a good chance they’ve never heard of NAFTA.
Of course it’s even more illuminating to further reduce things to individual Canadians. Since we may not know
anyone from there, we can make up people whose counterpart might easily exist. Imagine, for instance, a fifth
grader living in Montreal whose mother just abandoned him? Is he having second thoughts about NAFTA? Or
imagine an eighty-five year old nun who is an Alzheimer’s victim and lives in the Sisters of the Sacred Heart
Retirement Home in, say, Calgary, Alberta. Is she rethinking the North American Free Trade Agreement? Notice
how silly, "Canadians are having second thoughts about NAFTA" becomes when think in terms of individuals.
That’s what’s wrong with reifications. Most importantly, they completely obscure the importance of individual
differences.
Step 4) Apply personal attributes to suspected reifications
Try applying personal attributes, e.g. hates chocolate, needs fresh air, to suspected reifications and see if they
still make sense. For example, “America is slimming down” could be made more specific with “America now has a
32-inch waist.” Does that still make sense? If it doesn't, the suspect term, in this case "America," is a full-blown
reification. Does "America need its spirit lifted?" How about, "America needs three Prozac anti-depressant tablets
daily after meals?" We can readily see how little sense this makes.
Analyzing Controversy Reification 21
Chapter Highlights
This chapter defines reification and explains how it obscures key issues in disputes. Disputes involving
reifications can appear to be scholarly and “objective” but suffer from all the problems the most obvious slogans
have. Upon encountering reifications in controversies, reduce them to smaller groups, then to individuals and see
what happens. Typically, claims supported by reifications become much less persuasive.
In later chapters, we will give specifics on how to deal with the kinds of definitional problems reifications
generate. (See Chapter 4: Definitions)
Other Related Chapters in This Text
2, Slogans 10, What is Society?
4, Definitions
6, Name Calling
Keywords for Further Data Base Search
slogan inference
propaganda prejudice
generalization stereotype
Test Yourself
Consider the following statements and decide whether or not reifications are being used. If so, note in the last
column important differences being obscured. Follow the example.
Examine for Reification Y/N If "Yes," Difference Obscured?
1. Foreign trade helps America. Yes One difference obscured is which "America;" or
more specifically, which Americans? Also
obscured is what type of foreign trade.
2. The Yankees are in a losing streak.
3. Germany is threatening Central Europe.
4. The orchestra played Beethoven's Fifth
Symphony.
22 Reification Analyzing Controversy
5. Generation X lacks ambition.
Answers
The odd numbered statements contain reifications; the even ones do not.
In #1 both "foreign trade" and "America" are reifications. Trade in autos is not the same thing as trade in rice.
Different Americans are affected differently.
In #2 Yankees is a group concept because the team's being on a loosing streak does not tell us about individual
performance. A pitcher might have the most wins ever, and yet the team may still be on a loosing streak.
In #3, both Germany and Central Europe are reifications. We are probably talking about heads of government,
not arbitrary individuals in any given country.
In #4, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony can only be played by an orchestra. Individual players can only participate
by playing specific parts.
In #5, generation X is a reification. It at best indicates an average. Individual members of the generation can still
be quite ambitious.
Analyzing Controversy Reification 23
Chapter Review Sheet
1. Describe the chapter briefly in your own words.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the core ideas developed in this chapter? If more than one, list them in order of their importance to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Briefly explain the importance to you of your first choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Briefly describe a scenario in which you could apply one of the ideas from the chapter to improve your
professional practice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
5. Connect this chapter to at least one thing you already know.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Suggest one way to make this chapter more effective.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
24 Reification Analyzing Controversy
Chapter 4: Definitions & Controversy
“What Do You Mean?”
Every definition is dangerous --
Erasmus
Perhaps you have heard of “slipping someone a Mickey.” That means secretly putting knock-out
drops in their drink. Definitions can be used to “slip” values to people in the same way. When
someone offers a definition, they often are slipping in their own values as well.
Disputes about definitions are not often mere quibbles. They frequently involve subtle attempts to promote or
undermine particular values. When someone offers the definition of a term, what he or she typically has in mind is a
definition that supports his or her particular point of view.
Consider the pro-life, pro-choice controversy. Typically those who oppose abortion define it is murder. Yet
dictionaries tell us that “murder” is an “unlawful killing.” With certain restrictions, abortion is not unlawful.
Therefore, it is not murder. This is faultless logic; but that does not settle the matter. When someone defines
abortion as murder, they really don’t care if their definition agrees with the dictionary. The point of their defining it
that way is to indirectly convince others to share their belief that it should be unlawful.
There are two ways that values slip in via definitions. The first is by means of implicit definitions. The other
way is via programmatic definitions. We’ll examine both.
Implicit Definitions
Let’s begin by explaining implicit definitions, contrasting them with their explicit counterparts. Explicit
definition. are expressed overtly in speech or writing — as in a dictionary. Implicit definitions, in contrast, involve
the distinctions people actually make in practice but don’t mark in so many words.
Importantly, we do not learn the greatest part of our vocabulary by being taught explicitly. Typically we learn
the meanings of words implicitly through usage. (The details of this process are the subject of much debate and
research.) When we absorb meanings in this way, we frequently are blissfully unaware of the values that also slip in.
For example, no generally accepted explicit definition of the term “female” defines it to mean “second rate,
incompetent or unworthy of the same consideration as a man.” Yet if a society does not permit females to drive, own
property, go to school, vote, or to appear in public without a male relative as escort, then the implicit definition of
“female” may well include “second rate, incompetent and unworthy.” Ultimately, then, this is not about defining the
word, “female;” it‘s about how females should be regarded and treated.
There are many other examples to chose from. For instance, consider again
Words may be deeds.
the Pro-Life-Pro-Choice debate about abortion being murder? If we look up an -- Aesop’s Fables
explicit definition in Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, we find “abortion” is
Analyzing Controversy Definitions & Controversy 25
“the expulsion of a non-viable fetus.” It says absolutely nothing about murder. But pro-life advocates will argue that
what is at stake is not how the words are defined in any particular dictionary, but how they should be defined in
practice— particularly legal practice. The main point is, what looks like a debate about definitions is really a dispute
about social practice.
Now let’s move on to programmatic definitions.
Programmatic Definitions
Programmatic definitions are used to express serious moral choices, to subtly legislate and to short-circuit
debate. Pope Pius XI (1857-1939) did that when he declared, “There can be no true education which is not wholly
directed to man’s last end,...there can be no ideally perfect education which is not Christian education.” Accept
this definition and we embrace the exclusively conservative Christian program of action which underlies it. And
when we do that, even the likes of Plato or Albert Einstein becomes uneducated because their schooling was not
wholly directed to personal spiritual salvation in the Christian framework.
The practical force of programmatic definitions is that their acceptance has consequences far exceeding mere
linguistic preference. Accept the definition and there is no need for argument or evidence. The choice has already
been mindlessly made. In short, it is by means of the practical consequences of accepting them that programmatic
definitions can be identified.
Here is another, more recent, example of a programmatic definition in action. When a suburban
Philadelphia school district recently conducted in-service training on “multi-culturalism” for their teachers they
invited an expert in African-American studies. She advocated developing in students a consciousness of black
history via an Afrocentric approach. She reportedly told the assembled teachers: “The problem with Eurocentricity
is that it has set up hegemony (dominance) or hierarchy. Afrocentricity is to see all cultures as equal.”i
The consultant’s definition of Afrocentric violates descriptive usage.
Words are the great foes of reality.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language -- Joseph Conrad
defines “Afro” as “pertaining to black traditions, culture, etc. and “centric”
as “pertaining to or situated at the center.” So “Afrocentric” means “placing black traditions and culture at the
center of things.” How, then, can “Afrocentricity” possibly involve “seeing all cultures as equal?” But accept the
consultant’s definitions and, without either evidence or discussion, Eurocentrism becomes narrow-minded and
Afrocentrism open-minded. That is why her definitions are programmatic.
A handy, though by no means infallible, method of identifying programmatic definitions is the presence in
the definition of adjectives such as “true “ or “real.” For instance, Pius XI telegraphs his programmatic definition
when he speaks of “true education.”
iLinda
Finarelli, “Enfield Middle School faculty gets lesson in multiculturalism,” Springfield Sun, Springfield,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, May 20, 1993, p. 15.
26 Definitions & Controversy Analyzing Controversy
We should add that those who offer programmatic definitions do not necessarily intend to deceive or slip us
a linguistic Mickey. Individuals offering programmatic definitions often sincerely believe that the meanings they
propose are the only “true” or “right” ones. Sincerity and good intentions, however, are not enough.
A Procedure
When wrestling with questions of definition, the following steps may help.
Step 1) Look up suspect terms in a Standard English dictionary; or in a special technical dictionary.
Although dictionaries are not faultless, this procedure normally has the virtue of impartiality. The compilers of
the dictionary probably did not construct it with the controversy you are concerned with in mind. The meanings they
give are normally in the form of synonymous phrases gotten from traditions of usage in both spoken English and
English literature, in the case of a Standard English dictionary; or, the words and phrases, and over specified
conditions, come from the technical practices of the special science which the dictionary pertains to.
Finding a term in a dictionary of any kind will only settle a controversy if the parties to the dispute agree to
accept that dictionary as authoritative.
Step 2) Identify implicit definitions and make
them explicit. A definition is the enclosing a wilderness
of ideas within a wall of words.
This can be a difficult undertaking. What you are
looking for are definitions that are indirect, roundabout -- Samuel Butler
or disguised. Once you find them, make these implicit
definitions explicit by writing them down.
For example, how do you think the word, “cat,” is implicitly defined in each of the following situations:
a. Tabby and Felix are invited every evening up onto the dinner table to share their mistress’
meal; and when Tabby dies she is buried in a pet cemetery with her very own tombstone.
(Here cats are implicitly defined as almost human.)
b. Cats are raised in cages and fattened for preparation as a specialty food.
c. Cats are worshiped in life and mummified at death in preparation for their journey into the
Other World.
d. Cats are hunted down and killed as servants of the Devil.
Step 3) When comparing competing definitions, consider their broader import, i.e. imagine them as
proposing different ways of living.
Ask what kind of society would result from following through on the changes implicit in accepting one
definition over another. This will often lead to a broader consideration of who benefits and who loses under different
social configurations. By examining the broader issues, we may come to recognize that something as “trivial” as a
definition can have a major impact on how we live.
Analyzing Controversy Definitions & Controversy 27
Chapter Highlights
Opponents in controversies often define terms in ways that support their values. All such definitions are not
done explicitly. Some are implicitly presented. Implicit definitions are subtle. That’s because we absorb the meaning
of terms from the linguistic and social contexts of their use. Implicit definitions often do not coincide with the
explicit definitions characteristically found in dictionaries.
Another way of organizing definitional considerations is to use Scheffler’s typology of descriptive,”
“technical,” “stipulative,” and “programmatic, “definitions. This chapters emphasizes programmatic definitions
because if one accepts cleverly devised programmatic definitions, one agrees to the values that are imbedded in
them.
The big idea here is that a dispute over a definition may turn out to actually be a dispute over a way of life.
Other Related Chapters in This Text
3. Reification 6. Name Calling
2. Slogans 13. Operationalizing
Keywords for Further Data Base Search
necessary condition formula definiens
sufficient condition characterization definiendum
recursive definition description genus
Test Yourself
Contrast and compare an explicit definition of each of the following terms with a definition implicit in a social
practice.
TERM EXPLICIT DEFINITION IMPLICIT DEFINITION
female relating to the sex that bears young or incompetent in political judgment (in
produces eggs (Webster’s Ninth New societies prohibiting female suffrage)
Collegiate Dictionary)
criminal
murder
obscenity
28 Definitions & Controversy Analyzing Controversy
justice
violence
Analyzing Controversy Definitions & Controversy 29
Chapter 5: Pseudo-Solutions
“A Sure Thing”
"Everything has two handles, one by which it may be borne, another by which it cannot"
— Epictetus
Normally when disputants declare a situation to be a problem, they have a ready proposal to
change it. Some may or may not work. Others literally can’t fail. This chapter explains why.
Disputes often involve some sort of "problem;" and disputants ordinarily have an agenda they claim will deal
with it. Sometimes they offer consequential proposals. Other times, however, they propose “solutions” that sound
good, but mean nothing. These pseudo-solutions say nothing more than “Solve this problem by doing something that
will solve this problem!
Some find it hard to believe that persons of consequence would propose such counterfeit problem solutions.
Believe it. Offering such pseudo-solutions has numerous advantages. Besides sounding convincing and appearing to
address urgent problems, they allow those offering them to:
• avoid the possibility of failure,
• evade devisive details and
• dodge talking about who is going to pay
Real solution proposals, on the other hand, require:
• the risk of failure,
• saying exactly what is to be done; and, often as not,
• spending money.
"... one way of looking at speech is to say it is a constant stratagem to cover nakedness."
— Harold Pinter
Wily disputants know the risks of suggesting something that can fail. They understand that details might anger
significant constituencies. They realize that actual solutions usually cost real money. They also know that pseudo-
solutions sound quite convincing to the undiscerning or impetuous.
Perhaps you’ve noticed, for example, that politicians promise to fix problems; yet once they are elected, the
problems often persist. Often this is because they’ve offer the electorate pseudo-solutions for real problems. They
Analyzing Controversy Pseudo-Solutions 31
vow, for example, that they are going to make government more cost-effective by cutting waste. That can’t fail. If
waste is cut, government becomes more cost-effective.
Note!
Don’t confuse pseudo-solutions with solutions that are sloganistic. Because of the way they are
worded, pseudo-solutions literally can’t fail. Sloganistic solutions, on the other hand, encourage
various interpretations because of their haziness. Refer to the chapter on slogans for more details,
Evaluating Solution Proposals
Here is a two-step guide for evaluating any solution proposal.
Step 1) Decide if disputants are recommending pseudo solutions.
It’s easy to distinguish “pseudo-solutions” from potentially workable ones. Just use the “Can it Fail? rule. That
means, ask of the solution-proposal, Can it fail? No identifies pseudo-solutions. Yes identifies real possibilities.
Consider the following problems and paired "solutions” and see if you can identify the pseudo-solutions.
PROBLEM SOLUTION
1. That party is too noisy. a. Quiet it down.
b. Call the cops.
2. Kids aren't doing homework. a. Motivate them to do it.
b. Assign lunch detentions.
3. Trains are seldom on time. a. Improve on-time performance
b. Purchase more locomotives.
7. Govt. is wasting money. a. Eliminate government waste.
b. Decentralize purchasing.
9. Too many are using illegal drugs. a. Teach them to say "No!" to drugs.
b. Spend 10% more on drug education.
All the "a" solutions cannot fail. Their success is dead certain. Logically, none of these problems could continue
if the proposed pseudo-solutions were achieved. As we said before, they say nothing more than “Solve this problem
by doing something that will solve this problem!" Consider, won’t trains be more on time if their on-time
performance is improved? Won’t government money wasting be curtailed if government eliminates waste?
The “b” proposals, on the other hand, can fail. We might purchase more locomotives only to find that trains run
more erratically. We might decentralize purchasing and find government waste is unaffected. In short, the proposed
solutions could fail. So at least they are possible solutions, not word games.
32 Pseudo-Solutions Analyzing Controversy
Step 2) Consider if either, or both, disputants are using pseudo-solutions for purposes of
domination.
Pseudo solutions sometimes help keep people under control. Consider corporate officials who advocate pseudo-
solutions for very real problems. This burdens employees with missions of unquestionable concern but allows
corporate authorities to evade real commitment. “Reduce accidents by improving safety!”, “Increase efficiency by
decreasing waste!", employees are instructed. But these can't fail directives may obscure management failures like
the role of unsafe machinery as a cause of accidents or the absence of equipment necessary to increase efficiency. In
short, pseudo-solutions are a prime way for people in positions of responsibility to pass the buck.
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Pseudo-solutions also are particularly effective if offered to people more interested in appearance than
substance. The following is a true story:
An educational psychologist from the state’s largest school district was summoned to a state senate
hearing as a witness. State legislators were concerned that special education funds were being wasted
because her district had been placing youngsters in special education classes when they didn’t belong there.
The psychologist was asked to describe what the district was doing to solve this problem. She began by
describing the district's new intake process, the tests used and the assignment procedure. Right in the
middle of her testimony, a senator interrupted and said, “Look, cut the technical jargon and tell us what is
being done!” The clever psychologist thought for a moment and then said, “Appropriate screening tests are
being used in an efficient placement process to remedy the problem!” The senators were satisfied.
Placing non-handicapped youngsters in special education classes couldn’t happen if, as the psychologist
claimed, appropriate screening was being efficiently used. That is what made her response so reassuring. It couldn’t
fail. Of course, in real life the tests might be inappropriate and inefficiently administered.
Chapter Highlights
Pseudo-solutions simply restate a problem positively. They can't fail, but don't tell us what to do either. Pseudo-
solutions are predictably popular in disputes. After all, those who use them offer fail-safe advise, and evade the
details, like who is going to pay
To determine if a solution proposal is a pseudo-solution simply ask: "Can it fail?"
"Yes" indicates a legitimate proposal that may, or may not, work. "No" indicates a pseudo-solution.
Other Related Chapters in This Text
2, Slogans
11, Facts and Feelings
Analyzing Controversy Pseudo-Solutions 33
14, Inquiry Blockers
Keywords for Further Data Base Search
slogans propaganda
consensus analytic statements
rhetoric conceptual relation
Test Yourself
Here is a table similar to the one in this chapter. Test your understanding of pseudo-solutions by placing a check
mark on each solution proposal you think flunks the Can it fail? Test. Unmarked proposals should, then, be real
potential solutions. There is no regular pattern here. Remember, too, that situations one person understands to be
"problematic" another might regard as perfectly acceptable.
PROBLEM SOLUTION
1. The college's core curriculum is insufficiently Make the curriculum more demanding.
rigorous.
2. Unmarried teens are having too many babies. Provide free condoms and diaphragms.
3. Drug money is corrupting the police. Legalize recreational drugs.
4. The poor don't have enough to eat Insure adequate nutrition regardless of income.
5. Rich nations are not financially helping poorer Increase the foreign aid budgets of the ten most
nations. developed countries by 20%.
6. The news media has a liberal bias. Assure more balanced coverage.
7. American government is dominated by big Increase representation for ordinary Americans.
business
8. The new minorities are rejecting assimilation. Make English the official language of the United
States.
9. There is systematic racism in the Hire more minority police, judges and probation
administration of criminal justice. officers
10. "Lower class" culture perpetuates poverty Use federal funds to build and staff free 24 hour
among urban minorities. care centers (orphanages) that are carefully
designed to inculcate middle class values
Answers:
The proposed solutions to items 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 all could fail. Items 1, 4, 6 and 7 are pseudo-solutions.
34 Pseudo-Solutions Analyzing Controversy
Chapter 6: Name Calling
“Domination”
Wounds cannot be cured without searching.
––Francis Bacon
This chapter examines how subtle verbal attacks on people can be used to discredit the substance
of their arguments. It discusses both the ad hominem argument and the use of delegitimating
descriptions.
Many people would not directly insult those who disagree with them. Such people often pride themselves on
their “civility,” or “objectivity.” Nonetheless, they often subtly insult their opponents by focussing not on the quality
of the debate, but by attacking their opponents’ character. The first such stratagem we examine will be the ad
hominem (against the person) argument, recognized as logically irrelevant since ancient times.
Ad Hominem
There are two common mistakes in examining a controversy. The first is to accept a bad argument because it
comes from a person we like. The second is to reject a good argument because it comes from a person we despise.
Often, people confuse the value of an argument with the reputation of the person making it. This may be done
deliberately as a way of attacking a good argument because its presenter has some qualities that are less than
esteemed. We can find examples similar to the following in almost any news medium:
1) “It is a typical Liberal ploy to argue that …”
2) “Conservative ill-wishers will no doubt say that …”
3) “Mr. Smith, a long-time defender of Mafia clientele, insisted that…”
In each of the examples above, it is important that the source of the argument be identified for a presumably
hostile audience so that the argument itself might be brought under suspicion. What is implied by each of these
introductory phrases is
a. Arguments from Liberals cannot be trusted.
b. What Conservatives have to say is wrong and mean-spirited.
c. Lawyers who defend suspected Mafia members cannot be trusted to know what is true.
But the arguments of Liberals, Conservatives and Mafia lawyers can be evaluated independently of their
sources. In a dispute, the source of an argument is important not in determining the argument’s validity or
soundness, but in understanding the strategy of a party to the dispute. It is wisdom, not logic, that requires us look to
Analyzing Controversy Name Calling 35
the source to understand a bigger picture than just a single argument. But this is, at best, a second step. The
argument comes first.
Delegitimization: presenting value judgments as facts
In any dispute it is useful to distinguish if it is an argument about fact or an argument about value. We should
not suppose that the distinction between fact and value is set in stone (see Chapter 15, Fact versus Value). In the
very process of “describing” something, we may evaluate it. For example, if we technically evaluate a side of beef to
be “prime,” rather than “choice” we communicate to those skilled at such evaluation a certain fat content and
marbling. What might be for the layman a value dispute, “Is this the best beef?” can be a question of fact for those
who share certain skills of judgment.
But sometimes such “description” dismisses important concerns. For example, if we describe someone as lazy,
we negatively evaluate his or her industriousness. Perhaps the characterization “not motivated” is equally
appropriate. “Lazy,” in effect, blocks inquiry into the reasons that a person might have for not working. It robs those
concerns of their legitimacy, “delegitimates” them, we will say.
-What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
--- Shakespeare
It is critical to realize how easily we can describe the “facts” in such a way as to delegitimate or obscure
interests we disagree with. Consider a situation where someone, let us call him Sam, has not done any work after we
have offered to pay him ten dollars per hour to cut grass. We might say of him,
1) Sam is lazy.
Alternatively, we could say
2) Sam isn’t motivated to work.
What is the difference? It is that 2) explains whereas 1) explains and evaluates. We may well recognize that
Sam doesn't yet want to work, nonetheless, insist that he should.
What we are doing in asserting that Sam is lazy is delegitimating those competing interests that enter into his
decision not to work. Of course, we may be right in doing so. He may have promised us to cut the grass for ten
dollars per hour, for instance; but then decides he would rather drink beer and nap. We recall his promise and
express our unhappiness with him by calling him lazy, rejecting whatever explanation he might offer. After all, he
did promise.
On the other hand, if we failed in advance to mention to Sam certain special conditions he later discovers, such
as poison ivy, or several wasp nests hidden in the turf, our characterization of him as lazy is, on our part, not quite
honest.
36 Name Calling Analyzing Controversy
In effect, to call people lazy, is to describe them as not motivated to work when they should be. But whether they
really should be, given their concerns and values, is something we may not want to discuss. So we foreclose on such
considerations by using the delegitimating term, lazy.
Consider the following chart:
Recognizing Interest Delegitimating Interest
X (overly) X, when he shouldn’t (be)
insistent, committed pig-headed
cautious gutless
single-minded fanatic
insufficiently motivated lazy
spontaneous infantile
assertive insolent
having reasons different from mine irrational
considerate, deferent submissive
Notice for any term, X, in the left column used to describe Sam, we can understand each term in the right column as
meaning (overly) X, when he shouldn’t (be).For instance, we describe Sam as submissive, when we think he is
overly considerate of someone, when he shouldn’t be,. Again, we may be right; our judgment may be better than
Sam’s. Whether it is or not, however, we foreclose on discussion of the matter by using a delegitimating term.
Is Linguistic Bullying and Domination Involved?
Delegitimating interests can be a form of bullying and domination. If I offer you a pittance for laboring under
the hot sun and call you “lazy” if you refuse, you may well challenge my insinuation that you should be grateful for
the opportunity.
Delegitimating interests is a common maneuver of intimidation. For instance, we see it all the time in racial or
gender based domination. Consider how women have been described by often influential men as excessively vain,
emotional, docile, delicate, sentimental, cunning, weak or shallow. None of these designations considers the
interests of women so characterized.
In evaluating competing sides of a controversial issue look for terms that delegitimate interest. Whose interests
they invalidate can be quite revealing. Let us consider a procedure for dealing with name-calling in both its forms,
ad hominem and delegitimization.
Step 1) Determine whether ad hominem is the stratagem at hand. If not, go to step 2.
a. If ad hominem is the stratagem, distinguish the argument from its proponent. Evaluate the argument for
validity and soundness.
Analyzing Controversy Name Calling 37
b. Specify the moral qualities (positive and negative values) attributed to the proponent of the argument.
c. Consider how these moral qualities may or may not affect the broader import of the argument.
Step 2) If delegitimization of interest is at issue, do the following:
a. Replace the delegitimating term with a more value neutral one, e.g. change Sam is uncooperative to
Sam is unwilling to follow Jack’s instructions.
b. Consider what reasons a person might have for acting in this (more dispassionately characterized)
manner; e.g. why might Sam be unwilling to follow Jack’s instructions?
c. Determine what reasons a person using the delegitimizing characterization might have for trying to
obscure Jack’s concerns.
Step 3) Determine if domination is at issue.
a. A delegitimating term says, in effect, that a person is not some way that they should be. Determine, if
you can, whether the person so judged would agree that they should be that way.
b. Determine to what extent the people judged are participants in the judging process. Is that process open
and above board?
Step 4) If domination is the issue, consider whether it is justifiable.
Domination is not necessarily bad. Criminality, for example, is not merely another kind of lifestyle, but one which
we have a general interest in dominating and identifying as illegitimate. Determine to what extent the issues of the
dispute touch on fundamental concerns about legitimate ways of living.
Chapter Highlights
The are two widely used stratagems for bringing a person’s arguments and intentions into disrepute. One is the
ad hominem; the other, the use of delegitimating terms.
• Ad hominems confuse an argument with the source of the argument. These should be
independently evaluated.
• Delegitimating terms condemn in such a way as to obscure the grounds for the condemnation.
• Delegitimating terms are commonly used as a support to domination. Yet, domination may be
desirable, as with criminality or other socially dangerous behavior.
38 Name Calling Analyzing Controversy
Other Related Chapters in This Text
Chapter 11, Facts and Feelings
Chapter 14, Inquiry Blockers
Chapter 15, Facts and Values
Keywords for Further Data Base Search
rhetoric soundness hegemony
verbal abuse validity ascription
transactional analysis domination character
Test Yourself
A. Sort out the following terms into 1) a list which rejects interest and 2) a list which recognizes interest.
immature, spontaneous, playful, ingenuous, naive, cold-blooded, focussed, calm, bored, self-controlled,
aggressive, assertive, ambitious, over-striving, persistent, pesky, tactful, reticent, sneaky, clever,
circumspect, incoherent, unstructured, free-spirited, wild, unmannered.
For example, from the above set of words we would put “immature” in list 1 because it rejects interest.
Spontaneous would go into list 2.
B. See if you can match them as focussing on similar qualities in the person but from a rejecting versus an
accepting attitude. Relate them by the pattern:
Sam is (List 1 term). He is (List 2 term) when he shouldn’t be.
For example, we can match “immature” in list 1 with “spontaneous” in list 2 because they fit reasonably
into the above formula yielding “Sam is immature. He is spontaneous when he shouldn’t be.”
Analyzing Controversy Name Calling 39
Chapter Review Sheet
1. Describe the chapter briefly in your own words.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the core ideas developed in this chapter? If more than one, list them in order of their importance to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Briefly explain the importance to you of your first choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Briefly describe a scenario in which you could apply one of the ideas from the chapter to improve your
professional practice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
5. Connect this chapter to at least one thing you already know.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Suggest one way to make this chapter more effective.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
40 Name Calling Analyzing Controversy
Chapter 7: Reason and Logic in Disputes
“What’s the Connection?”
"Logic commands us far more tyrannically than any master; in disobeying
the latter we are made unhappy, in disobeying the former, fools."
— Pascal
Controversy may rest not so much on bad logic as on incompletely expressed arguments. This
chapter presents a rough ‘n’ ready method of uncovering the premises which support arguments..
Sometimes people imagine that those who disagree with them are “unreasonable” or “illogical.” But there are
many ways to be reasonable, very often depending on the context of the dispute. In fact, it is harder to spell out what
makes a particular argument reasonable than to show, if one can, what makes an argument illogical. Sometimes
people do make errors in logic. More often, however, a controversy arises because their reasoning is based on
different assumptions.
Most reasoning is done using what scholars call “informal logic.” Informal logic is a broad and deep topic we
cannot begin to cover is a short chapter like this one. Basically, being reasonable means avoiding recognized
fallacies of the sort mentioned in Chapter 11 and errors in formal logic.
An Informal Model
Based on a model developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin we can characterize reasoning in many areas of
endeavor as having the following structure: a claim is supported by evidence connected to the claim by a warrant, a
general belief in light of which we judge what is offered as evidence to be relevant. The claim is either clearly or
implicitly quantified, that is restricted in scope, by, for example such terms as, no, some, all, a few, 70%, highly
probable, and so on. If the warrant seems weak, additional assumptions, or bases may be brought up to support it.
Since argument normally occurs in the context of dialog, rebuttal and the answers to it is an important feature of
reasoning. We might diagram these relationships as follows:
EVIDENCE (Quantifier) CLAIM (REBUTTAL)
WARRANT
(BASIS)
The Toulmin Model
Informal argument cannot violate rules of the simpler formal logic contained within its arguments. For this
reason we will look more closely at the syllogism, the simplest formal argument form.
Analyzing Controversy Reason & Logic in Disputes 41
Formal logic makes two important distinctions: an argument may be valid, or invalid. This depends on how its
parts relate to one another. More importantly, valid arguments may be either sound or unsound, depending upon the
truth of their contents.
The Syllogism
The most common experience most people have with any formalized reasoning process is when they study high
school geometry. There they learn to begin with definitions, prove intermediate conclusions, called lemmas, and
reach final conclusions, called theorems. The general pattern is a sequence of statements where all but the last one
are called premises, and the last statement is called a conclusion. We do not have the space to investigate all of the
possible kinds of arguments that can be constructed. To begin identifying the missing components of arguments, it
will do to examine one of the shortest forms, the syllogism. It has but two premises and a conclusion. Despite its
brevity, it is useful because any broader arguments that contain an ill-formed syllogism, are ill-reasoned.
The Structure of a Syllogism (compared to Toulmin’s Model)
The Warrant is the General Premise, e.g. All men are mortal.
The Evidence is the Minor Premise, e.g. Sam is a man.
The Claim is the Conclusion, e.g. Sam is mortal.
Validity and Soundness
A syllogistic argument may be a bad one for two reasons: 1), it is invalid. 2), it is unsound. An invalid
argument has a structure which permits false conclusions to be drawn from true premises. An unsound argument,
may be valid, but has false premises. Consider the following examples.
EXAMPLES COMMENTS
1: An invalid argument form - undistributed middle -- 1: Note that the premisses and conclusion are true. This
with true premisses. form is invalid however, because we can substitute
All dogs are mammals. other terms in parallel fashion and get clearly false
All canines are mammals. conclusions: e.g.
All dogs are canines. All oranges are fruit
All apples are fruit.
All oranges are apples.
2: A valid argument form: (modus ponens) with true 2. A valid argument form guarantees us the truth of the
premisses. conclusion if the premises are true. Since the premisses
All dogs are canines are true and the argument form a valid one, this
All canines are mammals argument is also sound.
All dogs are mammals.
42 Reason & Logic in Disputes Analyzing Controversy
3. The form of a valid argument is independent of the 3. False premises do not guarantee the truth of the
truth of the premises. conclusion. Using false premises it is possible to
Guernseys are snakes. construct all sorts of logical nonsense, e.g.
Snakes give milk. All flood waters play the guitar.
Guernseys give milk. All guitar players eat hubcaps
All flood waters eat hubcaps.
The practical upshot is this. You may object to an argument on the grounds that it is invalid. This means it
doesn’t really connect its premises to its conclusion, no matter that premises or conclusion are individually
recognized to be true. Or you may object to an argument on the grounds that it is unsound. That is, despite its being
in good form -- connecting its premises to its conclusion -- one or more of its premisses are false.
It may be a matter of dispute whether the premisses of an argument are true. The truth of the premisses of an
argument -- unlike its form -- is not apparent from the argument itself. The truth of premisses must be ascertained by
methods external to the argument in question, e.g. further argument, research, recourse to authority, etc.
Consequently, a controversy may result either from invalid argument (with or without undisputedly true premisses)
or from unsound argument, i.e. valid argument with disputedly true premisses.
We may take Fancy for a companion, but we must follow Reason for our Guide.."
—Samuel Johnson
Enthymemes
Incompletely expressed arguments are traditionally called enthymemes, (en-thuh-meems). Consider the
following list of enthymemes. Their premises are generally indicated with words like, if, because, and since. Their
conclusions take the form of recommendations, or directions or include the word must.
1) Because we’re in a recession, business taxes should be lowered.
This enthymeme requires a premise that makes some kind of connection between a recessions and business tax
levels. Indeed, if would could imagine no such connection, it could hardly be used as an argument.
2) If you don’t want to destroy the family, don’t promote sex education.
This makes sense only if we can make out a connection between “destroying” the family and sex education.
3) Sam must be in school, because I just called him at home and he wasn’t there.
This requires a premise that Sam can only be in one of two places: at school or at home.
4) How can you expect a woman to stand up to a six-foot-six ex-con who’s been lifting weights for the
last ten years? She wouldn’t cut it as a police officer!
Analyzing Controversy Reason & Logic in Disputes 43
This enthymeme appears to obscure the assumption that being a woman connects somehow to being unable to
assert oneself in a potentially physically dangerous situation and such assertion is necessary for police work. The
question “How can you expect…?” in effect says “Because you can’t expect…”
Even when people study something as formal as geometry in school, the exact connection between premises
and conclusion is often left to their intuition. Theorems are “demonstrated” by small but “obvious” steps. These
small steps themselves are seldom explained. This teaching method -- called mathematical demonstration -- works
because humans are naturally very logical. We learn to do geometry and other reasoning without studying formal
logic first. In order for us to avoid lengthy technical discussion, the procedures given in this chapter will leave much
to our natural ability to intuit the needed connections.
Outside of a math or logic class, people don’t appear to argue formally, that is, from premisses to a conclusion.
Conclusions are often stated first with only an occasional premise mentioned to support them, e.g., “You can’t get to
Johnstown because Route 40 is impassibly flooded.”
Or, even if a premise is stated first, it’s the only one we get before a conclusion is drawn, e.g. “Since Harry’s
not coming, we’ll have to play pinochle.” As a result, thought processes appear random or insufficient to reach the
conclusion asserted. But arguments rest on beliefs taken for granted, that is, on assumptions. It is when these
assumptions are not shared that controversies may arise.
In natural contexts, arguments appear in many forms, most generally as a conclusion (often given as a
recommendation) with a supporting reason, signaled by the word “because.” What has to be done in examining such
arguments is to reconstruct the connection between such a conclusion and what is given as a reason. This
reconstructed assumption then can be examined to see if it fits together with the conclusion and the reason given in
the proper way. The extent to which such a procedure is possible with reasoning in many different contexts is a
matter of controversy among scholars.
We conclude with the following suggestion. If you are criticized for being illogical, ask your critic show just how
you are being so. If you avoid the most common errors listed below, you will probably pass muster.
Common Errors in Argument
1. Undistributed Middle:
a. Apples are fruits. Oranges are fruits. So apples are oranges.
b. Sam reads Karl Marx, so he must be a communist because communists read Marx.
2. Asserting the Consequent:
a. All dogs are warm-blooded. Your pet is warm-blooded. So it must be a dog.
b. John must be a businessman, since businessmen support immigration and so does John.
44 Reason & Logic in Disputes Analyzing Controversy
3. Some to All
a. Some animals are meat-eaters. Your pet is an animal. So it must be a meat-eater.
b. Some businessmen support unrestricted immigration. John is a businessman, so he must support unrestricted
immigration.
4. Negating the Antecedent
a. All oranges are fruit. Since this is not an orange, it is not a fruit.
b. Since union members oppose unrestricted immigration and John is not a union member, he does not oppose
unrestricted immigration.
5. Ad Hominem
a. “You have to be crazy or perverted to think kids should be given sex education in first grade.!
b. John supports unrestricted immigration but he’s a jerk!
6. Irrelevant Authority
a. You can be confident Ajax beer is best because Michael Jordan drinks it. (Is Michael Jordan a beer expert?)
b. “Liberals are destroying morality !” says my uncle Rush, the well-known talk-show host. (What does Uncle Rush
really know about either of these topics?)
Analyzing Controversy Reason & Logic in Disputes 45
Chapter Highlights
This chapter has sketched an introduction to the problems involved in evaluating arguments presented in a
dispute. It is important to understand:
A. the distinction between the validity and the soundness of an argument.
B. the “logical thinking” is more practically understood as avoiding certain errors than as meeting clear
logical criteria.
Further reading, particularly in the area of informal logic, is strongly suggested.
Other Related Chapters in This Text
4. Definitions
8. Presuppositions
13. Operationalizing
Keywords for Further Data Base Search
hypothetical syllogism modal logic casuistry
propositional calculus induction conceptual analysis
quantifiers implicatures speech act
46 Reason & Logic in Disputes Analyzing Controversy
Test Yourself
A, Analyzing Reasoning
Using Toulmin’s terminology, identify the elements of an argument in the following conversation:
John: We have to go help Harry. His car isn’t moving and the hood is up.
Sam: Are you sure he wants help? Besides, he often works on his car and leaves it opened up.
B. Reconstructing a Syllogism
Reconstruct each of the statements below as a syllogistic argument, supplying a premise that makes that
argument valid, if not sound.
Example:
• Since Mary owns a farm, she must be in favor of unrestricted immigration.
A premise that yields a valid, but possibly unsound argument, is:
• All owners of farms favor unrestricted immigration.
If not all owners of farms are in favor of unrestricted immigration, then Mary might be one of those who doesn’t. To
get the conclusion that she is in favor of unrestricted immigration, we must assume that all owners favor unrestricted
immigration. But whether this is true is a matter of fact to be determined by research. It may be false.
Problems:
1. Sam must be highly intelligent; he reads the New York Times.
2. War is inevitable, since Man is instinctually aggressive.
3. Mary must be one of those bleeding-heart liberals. She favors open immigration
4. John, like other Republicans, must admire Rush Limbaugh.
5. Sam is for welfare cuts; he must be a conservative.
Analyzing Controversy Reason & Logic in Disputes 47
Chapter Review Sheet
1. Describe the chapter briefly in your own words.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the core ideas developed in this chapter? If more than one, list them in order of their importance to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Briefly explain the importance to you of your first choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Briefly describe a scenario in which you could apply one of the ideas from the chapter to improve your
professional practice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
5. Connect this chapter to at least one thing you already know.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Suggest one way to make this chapter more effective.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
48 Reason & Logic in Disputes Analyzing Controversy
Chapter 8: Presuppositions
“Reading People’s Minds”
A dream is always simmering below the conventional surface of speech and reflection.
--- George Santayana
In this chapter we briefly look at some of the deep assumptions, called “presuppositions”, upon
which controversy often rests. Too much attention paid directly to a controversial statement tends
to miss presuppositions which, in themselves, may be vulnerable to criticism.
By focusing to narrowly on specific things, we can be distracted from the deeper presuppositions they rest on.
For example, in the United States, George Washington is generally regarded with admiration. But what
presuppositions underlie this admiration? There are many, and they include:
a. That killing others for political reasons is sometimes necessary, and that
b. those who efficiently organize and administrate this type of killing are praiseworthy, and that
c. the American Revolution, itself, was a good idea, and that
d. we wouldn’t be “free” today had it not occurred.
Each of these presuppositions is open to question. Pacifists, for instance, heartily disagree with the first
proposition. With regard to the second, some folks regard generals, admirals, and so forth, as necessary evils. And
what about the presupposition that the American Revolution was a good idea and that we wouldn’t be “free” today
without it?. Just ask yourself what the present situation would be had the American Revolution never occurred.
Would we still be a colony of Great Britain, without rights or freedom? That seems unlikely. More probably the
American colonies would have peacefully evolved into an independent nation, probably in the mid 1800’s, in
much the same way that Canada, Australia and New Zealand did.
Without the revolution the US and Canada might even be united, forming a much larger, more powerful and
more resource rich nation. And since Great Britain outlawed slavery in 1807, America’s racial difficulties might
have been significantly lessened. Indeed, the Civil War may never have happened. So you see, it’s possible the
American Revolution might not have been such a good thing after all. And from this point of view George
Washington becomes less a hero than an impatient hothead.
The point here is not to attack George Washington, per se, but to emphasize that truly powerful questions often
arise as soon as we start to consider presuppositions.
Analyzing Controversy Presuppositions 49
A School Based Example: No Child Left Behind
Paying attention to presuppositions can really clarify school-related issues. As this writing, for example, we
have just observed the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Few would question that it is one of the
most influential pieces of federal school-related legislation in US history. But what presuppositions underlie it?
Here are a few of them:
a. That all students are sufficiently capable not to be left behind, and that
b. all students are, or can be, sufficiently motivated,, or that
c. motivation doesn’t matter, teachers should be able to get them to learn anyway.
Beneath these presuppositions lies a still more basic one. That whatever occurs at home, in the neighborhood,
and so forth, can be overcome at school. But that presupposition, which is the foundation upon which the No
Child Left Behind Act rests, is sheer nonsense that is unsupported by scientific research.
The failing learner, particularly if they are poor, is often “left behind” as a result of external forces that are far
more powerful than they are. And it doesn’t have to be something psychological like an abusive father, a crack-
addicted mother, or sexual molestation. It can be physical as well. For instance, he or she might have ingested the
lead that is in old paint that flakes off the walls of deteriorating housing, permanently damaging their brain. The
extent of the damage determines how far they will be left behind.
Experienced teachers know full well that non-school problems cause poor school performance. Here is a real
life example that illustrates how untenable the presupposition underlying No Child Left Behind really is. One
student—we’ll call him Denny—regularly fell sound asleep in his seventh-grade geography class. Obviously, he
was learning very little. The teacher worried that his lessons were the sedative, but no one else in class was dozing.
In time the teacher discovered the problem. Denny’s father was a mean drunk who often came home “loaded”
and then abused Denny’s mother. When 14 year-old Denny tried to defend her, he took a licking himself. Enraged
and frightened, Denny eventually took refuge in a nearby pool hall. In return for cleaning up after closing, the owner
permitted him to sleep, as best he could, on one of the pool tables. Denny’s classroom failures had nothing to do
with the lessons or with school. But he still learned nothing.
Yes, frontline teachers know from bitter experience that what goes on outside school either limits or enhances
school success. But they often are loath to say so for fear they will be accused of incompetence or indifference by
public officials or their school administrator collaborators, who presuppose, or pretend to presuppose, that caring,
competent teachers who maintain high expectations can overcome all external difficulties. Yet an abundance of
scientific research indicates that such a view is bogus.
A Procedure
Remember, in dealing with a controversial issue, we should attempt to uncover the presuppositions that may be
hidden within a dispute. Here is a procedure to follow:
50 Presuppositions Analyzing Controversy
Step 1: In a dispute, identify evaluative statements; they presuppose facts.
A. Treat statements as being evaluative or non-evaluative.
Evaluative statements begin (or end) with such phrases as
1. It is important to remember that…
2. It is good that …
3. That … is not worth considering.
Examples:
a. It is important to remember that Sam is a felon.
b. It is good that taxes have been lowered.
c. That John has been accused of dishonesty is not worth considering.
Presuppositions: Evaluative statements presuppose the truth of that which they evaluate:
Example a. presupposes that it is true that Sam is a felon.
Example b. presupposes that taxes have been lowered.
Example c. presupposes that John has been accused of dishonesty.
For the purposes of analyzing a dispute, disregard, for the moment, the evaluative frameworks in which
presuppositions are embedded.
Other Important Points:
1. The presupposed “facts” may be wrong. They have to be judged on their own merits.
2. Even if we agree on the facts, evaluating them may require additional argument.
Step 2. Go back through the arguments of the disputants. Sort out non-evaluative statements into three kinds:
perceptions, reports or deductions. These three kinds of statement rest on different presuppositions. And any
of them might be in error.
Most statements used as premises in arguments are reports. They may be reports of perceptions, reports of
reports, or reports of deductions.
Perception Statements are generally given in the present tense, i.e. statements like
A. I hear a loud sound. (“I heard a loud sound” relies on memory, so we will not classify it as a perception
statement.)
B. John is saying nothing.
Presuppositions of Perception Statements: Perception statements presuppose
1. that the sense-faculties, sight, hearing, etc. of the perceiver are functioning “normally”.
Analyzing Controversy Presuppositions 51
2. that the deeply acculturated habits of interpretation of the perceiver are relevant to the situation; i.e.
that, as a North American, the perceiver is not trying to describe the religious behavior of a Mexican
Nahuatl curandero (medicine man) thinking him to be just an “ordinary peasant.”
3. that the situation in which the perception is made is not too “unusual.”
If, for example, we know that John is drunk, or that the lighting is bad, we might reject John’s claim, “I see an
old Mexican man, dressed in red, mumbling to himself” as indicating the presence of an old Mexican man, or of red
clothes, or of mere mumbling.
“Pure” perception statements are rarely found in argument. Rather reports of them are given as premises.
Report Statements can be of perceptions, other reports, or deductions.
A. I heard a loud sound.
B. John said Sam was sick
C. I concluded that Sam must have been sick..
Reports can be citations from books, or quotations as well, e.g.
1. “The Oxford English Dictionary defines “crime” as…”
2. The New York Times reported that Stevenson died yesterday.
3. John told me he was on his way home.
The Presuppositions of Reports: Reports statements presuppose accuracy of quotation or citation, i.e. that the
reporters haven’t misheard, misread or misstated, or forgotten what they report on.
They also presuppose that the medium of transmittal has been stable and not subverted, that the personal
memory, the word processor, telephone line, computer memory, etc. has not malfunctioned or been tampered with.
"..Our experience is composed rather of illusions lost than of wisdom acquired.”
—Joseph Roux
The Vulnerability Of Argument.
There is no reason to assume that if a person is sincerely offering testimony, we are hearing “the truth.”
Someone may report -- with full intention of telling the truth -- what he or she has seen or heard. This does not, in
itself, guarantee fact.. On the other hand, people who claim to have seen ghosts, talked with the Goddess Athena,
52 Presuppositions Analyzing Controversy
been visited by extra-terrestrials, or to have cast spells need not be rejected as liars, or insulted by being labeled
“irrational.”. What we have to look at are the presuppositions they bring to the claims they make.
This is not to say that truth is “relative” or that we should indulge any old claim to the truth as “true for
someone.” It is to say that establishing something as “fact” is a difficult and often tentative endeavor. It is to say that
our firmest, most established beliefs might, some day, be convincingly argued to have be based on a false
presupposition. Critical investigation cannot bestow absolute certainty. But to forego critical investigation for this
reason is cowardice.
Chapter Highlights
Presuppositions are assumptions about the very sources of knowledge. These sources yield us the claims which
we structure into arguments. Questionable statements of fact can be embedded in broader evaluative statements that
distract us from focussed critical appraisal.
Our normal “sources of knowledge” , e.g. our senses, our memory, the reports of trustworthy