National Public Health Institute, Finland Open risk assessment Lecture 5: Argumentation Mikko Pohjola KTL, Finland

National Public Health Institute, Finland Lecture contents Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory Argumentation as knowledge creation Argumentation in ORA

National Public Health Institute, Finland Pragma-dialectics A systematic theory of argumentation – Created by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, University of Amsterdam "Argumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of one or more propositions to justify this standpoint." (Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002, p. xii)

National Public Health Institute, Finland Basic building blocks of argumentation Protagonist –The party that expresses a standpoint and is ready to defend that standpoint with arguments Antagonist –The party that expresses doubts and/or counterarguments on the standpoint expressed by the protagonist

National Public Health Institute, Finland Basic building blocks of argumentation Standpoint –A statement expressed by the protagonist, representing his/her view on some matter –The focal point of an argumentative discussion Argument –A defensive or attacking expression in relation to the standpoint or another argument Premise –Assumption presumed true within the argumentative discourse –Explicit or implicit, but premises likely to be perceived differently by the protagonist and the antagonist should be agreed upon before starting an argumentation

National Public Health Institute, Finland Ideal model for a critical discussion Confrontation –where the parties agree on a difference of opinion Opening –where the parties agree on the roles (protagonist/antagonist), rules and starting points Argumentation –where the protagonist defends his/her standpoint by arguments and the antagonist either expresses doubts or attacks the standpoint/arguments Concluding –where the parties assess to which extent they have reached a resolution and in whose favor, implying that one of the parties must retract standpoint (the protagonist) or doubt (the antagonist)

National Public Health Institute, Finland Structure of argumentation Single argumentation –Single argument either defending or attacking a standpoint Multiple argumentation –More than one argument on the same level –All defending or attacking a standpoint –Each argument is an alternative to the others (each provides support on its own) Coordinative argumentation –Consisting of more than one argument on the same level –All defending or attacking a standpoint –Arguments constitute the defense together (constitutes support as a whole) Subordinative argumentation –consisting of several levels of arguments –each is linked and supports the argument/standpoint on the level above (constitutes support as a whole) Example

National Public Health Institute, Finland General guidelines for argumentation First of all, the parties must have the will to try to achieve the goal of the discourse The parties should also follow the communication principle –i.e. their communication should match as well as possible to the purpose of their communication The communication should be clear, sincere, efficient and to the point The parties should not use any dubious means in advancing their position in the discourse –in other words: not violate the ten rules for a critical discussion

National Public Health Institute, Finland Rules for a critical discussion Freedom rule –Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints Burden of proof rule –A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so Standpoint rule –A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party Relevance rule –A party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint Unexpressed premise rule –A party may not disown a premise that has been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party

National Public Health Institute, Finland Rules for a critical discussion Starting point rule –A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point Argument scheme rule –A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied Validity rule –A party may only use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises Closure rule –A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its doubt about the standpoint Usage rule –A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation as knowledge creation Critical scrutiny of statements Reformulation of statements according to critique Creation of shared understanding –Defending of statements –Agreeing upon premises –Explicating premises!

National Public Health Institute, Finland Collaborative learning-work Creating shared meaning, knowledge in a team –Identification – individuals can agree that a problem exists but yet disagree on how to define or represent it –Definition – how the problem is defined influences the types of solutions the group will generate, it involves assumptions and constraints –Exploration – the search for solutions that the group can agree will respond to the need as defined –Action – testing out hypothesis about the solutions to see what will work and what will not meet the defined need –Looking – observation of the effects

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA A means of dealing with disputes Based on pragma-dialectics Complemented or fine-tuned with: –Falsification of hypothesis –principle –ORA method provides a formal information structure for targeting argumentation –Computer-aid for virtual argumentation within unorganized groups and formal documentation of communication

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA In participatory knowledge-intensive work disputes will arise –Formal argumentation is a means for dealing with disputes –Disputes are possibilities for knowledge creation and creating shared understanding Disputes highlight the points of improvement in an assessment/variable

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA Falsification of a hypothesis –A variable (or assessment) is a hypothesis about a certain part of reality –Expressed standpoints (stated disputes) are attempts to falsify the hypothesis Arguments defend or attack the standpoint A variable (assessment), or its part, holds true until it is falsified The protagonist of a falsifying standpoint has the burden of proof for the standpoint –A falsified hypothesis is modified or a new hypothesis is created according to the needs explicated through argumentation

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA Argumentation is always targeted to a specific relevant point within the information structure –A particular assessment or variable –A particular attribute of an assessment or variable –A particular piece of content within a particular attribute A standpoint must be relevant within the scope of the object that it relates to –Arguments must be relevant in relation to the standpoint

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA Formal argumentation is a means for explicating communication in an ORA process –Documentation of informal discussions and comments –Formalization of informal discussions and comments Argumentation analysis (a posteriori) –Discussion directly as formal argumentation (a priori) –Communication initiated by a statement of a dispute (explicit or implicit)

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA Computer-aid for formal argumentation –Ready-made templates for formal discussions Discussion template –Dispute –Outcome –Argumentation »Attacking argument »Defending argument »Comment »signature Discussion/Resolution link for targeting the argumentation to a relevant point within the information structure Example

National Public Health Institute, Finland Argumentation in ORA Argumentation is always about a standpoint –The dispute statement should clearly formulated No vague comments, no questions An argument or standpoint is considered valid unless it has been successfully attacked –Defending arguments support statements they refer to –Attacking arguments invalidate statements they refer to If an attacking argument is attacked the original statement becomes re-validated Example