Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Analogies and refutation
Similar to Analogies and refutation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Analogies and refutation
- 1. Analogies and Refutation Presented by : MOHAMMAD FAISAL AYAZ
- 4. Some sample analogies Plato compared the world we perceive to shadows on a cave wall. Comparing human consciousness to a flame on a candle Comparing scientists involved in cloning research to Dr. Frankenstein.
- 6. Cont.. Creativity Invention Prediction Emotion Explanation Conceptualization Communication
- 11. Scope of analogies In politics:In politics: comparing the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal to Watergate In law:In law: case precedent or “stare decisis,” statutory rape laws as exist. In economics:In economics: viewing economic competition as the “survival of the fittest,” Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” Comparing the target of a scandal to Humpty Dumpty
- 12. Cont.. In history:In history: likening France’ refusal to vote for an invasion of Iraq as analogous to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler leading up to World War II. In science and medicine:In science and medicine: likening the human brain to a computer, HIV to an invading army, the human heart to an electric pump, DNA molecule is like a ladder In religion:In religion: the body as a temple of the holy spirit, the tree of knowledge, Jesus as a shepherd
- 15. figurative analogy A computer is analogous to a toilet?
- 16. Tests of analogies Are the two things being compared similar in their essential, relevant respects? – example: Iran and North Korea – Both want to be nuclear powers, but – Iran is an oil rich nation, while N. Korea is poor “Surface” features: superficial resemblances between two things, such as size, color, appearance “Structural” features: similarities in underlying characteristics but dissimilarities in structure. – example: comparing “spam” with “junk mail.” surface similarly: both may be annoying, unwanted structural difference: mass postal mailings still have to pay postage. Spam costs nothing to send.
- 17. Criteria for evaluating analogical arguments The more similarities (between two objects), the stronger the analogy. The more differences, the weaker the analogy The greater the extent of our ignorance about the two objects, the weaker the analogy.
- 18. Cont… Structural analogies are stronger than those based on superficial similarities. The relevance of the similarities and differences to the conclusion must be taken into account. Multiple analogies supporting the same conclusion make the argument stronger.
- 19. What is Refutation? Refutation is the part of an argument in which a speaker or writer counters opposing points of view. Also called confutation. Refutation is "the key element in debate," say the authors of The Debater's Guide (2011). Refutation "makes the whole process exciting by relating ideas and arguments from one team to those of the other" In speeches, refutation and confirmation are often presented "conjointly with one another" .Support for a claim(confirmation) can be enhanced by a challenge
- 20. "An effective refutation must speak directly to an opposing argument. Often writers or speakers will claim to be refuting the opposition, but rather than doing so directly, will simply make another argument supporting their own side. This is a form of the fallacy of irrelevance through evading the issue."
- 21. Points To Keep In Mind Skilled debaters not only have a command of language and content, but are able to present their arguments in an organized fashion that facilitates the audience following along in the debate. Refutation is designed to introduce arguments, undermine opponents' arguments, rebuild arguments, and clarify own arguments.
- 22. Cont… One way to do this is through a process called “four step refutation.” This process is used regularly by individuals in day-to-day interactions. This is often referred to as the “Four S’s” of signposting, stating, supporting, and summarizing.
- 23. FOUR STEPS REFUTATION Step One: Signal Identify the claim you are answering. In a single debate, there will be multiple arguments, pieces of evidence, and sometimes tangents that a debater must address. Clearly identifying which of your opponent’s arguments you are responding to will keep the flow of the debate progressing in a coherent manner.
- 24. Step Two: State Make your (counter) claim. After articulating your opponent’s position, you should make your response in a concise, articulate manner.
- 25. Step Three: Support Reference evidence or explain the justification. Many arguments will be supported by evidence that provides some justification for the claim being advanced. Reading or referring to evidence already read in the debate will buttress claims advanced by the debater. Oftentimes, evidence is not needed, and the debater’s own brilliant analysis can provide the justification for the claim.
- 26. Step Four: Summarize Explain the importance of your argument. For an audience to reach a judgment on an issue, they must recognize the comparative importance of different arguments. Detailing the way in which your argument implicates your opponent's position is a crucial way to leave an impression on audience members.
- 27. Example: (Signaling) My opponent argued that the death penalty deters crime. (State) In fact, the death penalty increases crime. (Support) According to a nationwide study conducted by Professor Wiggins in 2002, violent crime has actually increased in states with the death penalty while crime has decreased in states without the death penalty. (Summarize) If this study is true, and the methodology is certainly sound, then the central justification for the death penalty has no merit.