COMS 126 Critical Thinking and Everyday Argument Ch 1-3, 9-10, 12, 14 Terms Cal Poly SLO
Language is imprecise
a characterisitc of language that means that people often use langauge that is not bvery specific when more specific language is available
Langauge is ambiguous
a characterisiti of language that means that there are often multiple possible interpretations of utterances
Langauge creates and separates communities
a characteristic of langague that means that the way langague is used helps people think of themselves as sharing membership in a group and helps them think of others as bieing outside of their group
Language frames experience
a characteristic of langague that means that the way we talk about thinkgs affects the way we think about them and what we expect
Language is figurative
a characteristic of language that means that the way people naturally use language is often not literal
Bypassing
a communication problem that happens when two people think that they are talking about the same think but really are not
Argumentation
a form of communication in whcih at least one person explicitly or implicitly puts forth a claim and provides support for that claim with evidence and reasoning; the process of making and engaging in arguments; the study of the process of making and engaging in arguments
Explanation
a form of communication in whcih statements are presented to clarify ideas and improe understanding rather than to support a claim
Examples
a form of evidence that consists of descriptions of individaul events, objects, persons, or places
Facts
a form of evidence that consists of empirically verifiable descriptions of events, objects, persons, or places
Quarrel
a form of interaction about a conflict, often involving anger, hurt feelings, and teh misuse of argumentation to achieve victory
Arguer as harasser
a less ethical approach to argumentation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as an inferior to be ridiculed, belittled, and annoyed into agreement or withdrawal
Arguer as seducer
a less ethical approach to argumentation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as someone to be mainpulated for the benefit of the seducer and tries to win the arguemnt be deceving, witholding information, misusing language, or gaining assent trhough means other than clear, sound argumentation
Opinion
a message that presents an individual's personal belief on a subject
Arguer as lover
a more ethical approach to arguemntation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as someone deserving of respect and attempts to argue in as honest and open a way as possible
Verbal aggressiveness
a negative personality facet exhibited by the inclination to attack the self-concepts of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their positions on particular issues
Statistics
a particular type of factual evidence that consists of quantified descriptions of events, objects, persons, places, or other phenomena
Argumentativeness
a positive personality facet exhibited by the willingness to engage in argumentation when appropriate and to argue in a manner that focuses on issues and reasoning and avoids attacking other people's self-concepts
Jargon
a questionable use fo language that uses language that can only be understood by experts in the field or members of a particular group to hide meaning or intimidate others
Weasel words
a questionable use of langauge htat uses language to make it appear as though more is being claimed than literally is
Asking questions to replace statements
a questionable use of language in whcih an arguer asks questions to get the audience to supply evidenc einstead of providing te evidence for a claim
Puffery
a questionable use of language in which a claim is made to sound more important than it really is
Sloganeering
a questionable use of language that happens when an arguer uses catchphrases to substityte for the content of an argument
Bipolar thinking
a questionable use of language that uses language in a way that leads people to think in either-or dichotomies instead of recognizing a continuum of choices or a range of options
Pathos
a rhetorical appeal that uses emotion to influence others
Logos
a rhetorical appeal that uses reasoning to influence others
Ethos
a rhetorical appeal that uses the personal characteristics of the communicator to inlufence others
Spontaneity
a supportive communication style in whcih communication appears to be a natural, unprepared response to the moment
Problem orientation
a supportive communication style in whcih the communicator focuses attention on mutually determining how to solve a problem rather than controlling anyone's behavior
Equality
a supportive communication style in whcih the communicator shows that he or she believes that others are important and worthy
Description
a supportive communication style in which the communicator describes situations or behaviors and how they affect him or her
Empathy
a supportive communication style in which the communicator exhibits a caring attitude toward the other person
Provisionalism
a supportive communication style in which the communicator operates from the assumption that he or she doesn't know everything, is not always rightm and can gain important information by listenig to others
Source credibility
a test of evidecne that examines whether the source of informaion is trustworthy and has the backgound, knowledge, expertise, and opportunity to be relied upon
Corroboration
a test of evidence that asks if other qualified sources agree with the source of evidence, sometimes referred to as "external consistency"
Source bias
a test of evidence that asks whether the source of evidence has any self-interests that could distort perceptions
Recency
a test of evidence that considers when the eidence was produced and if it was from an appropriate time period for the conclusion being drawn
Internal consistency
a test of evidence that looks for overt or subtle contradictions within the source from whcih the evidence comes
Completeness
a test of evidence that refers to whether the source of evidence, or the evidence as peresnted in an arguemnet, provides enoug information so a critically thnikning person can accpet it
Certainty
a threatening communication behavior that gives the impression that the communicator knows everything and is always right
Control
a threatening communication style in whcih te communicator tells others what to do
Evaluation
a threatening communication style in whcih teh communicator lets the other person know that he or she is being judfed in some way
Neutrality
a threatening communication style in whcih the communicator indicates that he or she doesn't care about the other person
Strategy
a threatening communication style in whcih what is said appears to be rehearsed and manipulative
Superiority
a threatening communication style in which the communicator indicates that he or she is somehow better than others
Empirical study
a well-designed observational researh study about a subject; the fifth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "consensus of expert opinion"
Critical thinking skills
abilities that can e learned to improve critical thinking, including verbal reasoning, arguemtna analysis, thinking as hypothesis testing, using likelihood and ncertainty, and decision-making and problem-solving skills
Judicial notice
accepting assertions as eidence without requiring proof; the second lowest level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "common knowledge"
Consensus of studies
agreement among several well-designed observational research studies; the sixth and highest level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence
Kant's Moral Imperative
an ethical principle taht can be summarized as "act in a way that would be best if everyone acted taht way"
Arguer as abuser
an unethical approach to argumentation in whcih the arguer sees the co-arguer as an enemy to be conquered and tries to win the argument through force, intimidation, favrication, monopoly of communication channels, or other unfair advantages
Assertion
an unsupported claim; the lowest (first) level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence
Psychographic analysis
analysis of the audience's thoughts and feelings to try to determine which appeals are likely to influence them
Argument (2)
arguing in the sense of having an argument; an interactino with another person in whcih each person presents, responds to, and defends ideas
Argument (1)
arguing in the sense of making an argument; putting forth a claim, evidence, and reasoning
Testimony
authoritative opionion evidence that interprets or judges events, objects, persons, or places
General critical thinking
critical thinking about subjects with which you are not very familiar, applying the general principles of reasoning and arguemtntation to recognize weak or strong reasoning
Logical critical thinking
critical thinking about subjects with which you are very familiar so that you can recognize inaccuracies and common faulty thinking about that subject
Denotative meanings
dictionary-like meanings that people have for words and phrases
Casual evidence
evidence taht naturally occurs without anyone trying to create it as evidence
Secondary evidence
evidence that comes from a source that is at least one step removed from the actual happening; one who has only secondhand information
Primary evidence
evidence that comes from a source that is closest to the actual happening; the source has firsthand information
Expert evidence
evidence that comes from a source who is experienced and knowledgeable in the subject of the evidence
Lay evidence
evidence that comes from a source who is neither expereinced nor knowledgeable in the area of discussion
Lay opinion
evidence that consists of a reasoned opinion by one outside of his or her area of expertise; the third level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence
Created evidence
evidence that was purposely recored for future use as evidence
Literal examples
examples that are based in reality and are acceptable as evidence in arguments
Hypothetical examples
examples that are made up and should not be used as evidence in arguemnts by are useful to illustreate ideas
Hyperbole
figurative language that uses gross exaggeration to make a point
Idioms
langauge that uses phrases that refer to one thing or event in terms of something unrelated, with no implied comparison between the two
Metaphor
language that characterizes one subject with terms that literally apply to another subject, making an implicit comparison between the two
Concrete language
language that is more specific in what it refers to, so it is easier to tell what is meant
Abstract language
language that is more vague or broad in its meaning, so it is harder to tell what is meant
Canons of rhetoric
lesser arts that make up the greater art of rhetoric, including invetnion, disposition, style, memory, and delivery
Persuasive public speaking
oral communication designed to influence the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of others in a setting where one person talks to many others at once
Symbol
something that a group of language users agrees stands for something else
Reports
statements of fact that are capable of being verified
Inferences
statements tat are conculsions about something based on information that the perosn making the statement knows
Judgments
statements that express a personal opinion, usually explicityly or implicitly evaluating something
I statements
statements that identify ideas as personal opinions or perceptions rather than as undisupted facts or claims needing support
Evidence
supporting material known or discovered but not created by the advocate
Conclusionary evidence
testimony in whcih only a conclusion is stated and does not provide an indication of how the conlusion was arrived at
Expert opinion
the 4reasoened opinion of one within his or her field of expertise; the fourth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence
Critical thinking
the actice application of principles of reasoning to your own ideas and those of others to make judgments about communication and reasoning, to analyze arguements, to expose underlying assumptions, to achieve better understanding, and to approach the truth
Consensus of lay opinion
the agreement of the reasoned opinoin of many people outside of their fields of expertise; the fourth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "expert opinion"
Consensus of expert opinion
the argreement of several people who are experts in a field; the fifth level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "emperical study"
Trustworthiness
the audience's perception that the speaker is honest and unbiased, giing the speaker more credibility
Expertise
the audience's perception that the speaker is knowledgable about a subject, giving the speaker more credibility
Style
the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker decide how to use langague to express ideas in a speech
Disposition
the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker decide the order to present ideas in a speech
Invention
the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker discover the ideas that might be included in a speech and choose those that he or she will actually use
Memory
the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker remember the ideas, order, and language choices planned for the speech
Delivery
the classical canon of rhetoric that helps the speaker use his or her voice and body to effectively deliver a persuasive message
Critical thinking disposition
the inclination to use critical thinking skills when the situation calls for it
Credibility
the perception of the audience that the speaker is someone to be believed
Connotative meanings
the personal, emotional reactions that individauls associate with words and phrases
Symbols are arbitrary
the sounds and shapesthat groups of people agree stand for meanings have no inherent connection to the thinkgs and concepts for which they stand
Rhetoric
the study of means of persuasion; the act of using communication to influence others
Informal logic
the study of reasoning from evidence to conclusions, focusing on eleents of reasoning other than the form of the arguments
Formal logic
the study of the logical form arguments should take, including how preemises should lead to conclusions, assuming the premises are correct
Demographic analysis
the use of categories into which people with similar characteristics can be grouped to try to determine which appeals are likely to influecne an audience
Dyadic argumentation
two people arguing together
Dyad
two people enaged in an activity together
Irony
using language taht says somehting that is literally the opposite of what is meant
Common knowledge
using widely held beliefs as evidence for a claim; the second lowest level on Perella's hierarchy of evidence, along with "judicial notice"
Threatening communication
verbal and nonverbal messages presented in ways that are likely to be perceived as an ego threat
Supportive communication
verbal and nonverbal messages presented in ways that are unlikely to be perceived as an ego threat
