Some error occured while loading the Quick View. Please close the Quick View and try reloading the page.
A book about how individuals decide that arguments (or excuses) are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak, ethical or unethical, with many examples and applications.
This book brings together essays that demonstrate the art of argument evaluation. The essays apply a variety of theoretical approaches to specific, historically-situated arguments in order to render a specific normative judgment. By bringing to bear knowledge of argumentation theory along with expertise pertaining to the specific arguments under investigation, this book illustrates the utility of argument evaluation as a discrete mode of scholarly engagement.
"Once I started reading this book I could not put it down! It addresses how we justify the decisions we make in U.S. culture. Furthermore, this book represents an important contribution to the study of argumentation. People who study argumentation need this book. It pulls together a range of perspectives on argument evaluation and raises questions about traditional approaches to argument evaluation. Scholars of argumentation have been reticent to recognize in Palczewski's terms 'that the world is defined objectively, subjectively, and intersubjectively.' This collection encourages scholars to examine their own biases when they evaluate the ethicality of arguments. Questions that have been raised by feminist scholars in philosophy, English, psychology, sociology, and communication studies are addressed." — Patricia A. Sullivan, State University of New York, College at New Paltz
Acknowledgments
Introduction
PART 1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION
1. Evaluate Criteria for Conspiracy Arguments: The Case of KAL 007
Marilyn J. Young and Michael K. Launer
2. Narrative Reframing of Public Argument: George Bush's Handling of the Persian Gulf Conflict
Carol K. Winkler
3. The Failure of Argument in Decisions Leading to the "Challenger Disaster": A Two-Level Analysis
Dennis S. Gouran
PART 2. AXIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION
4. Aligning Ethicality and Effectiveness in Arguments: Advocating Inclusiveness Percentages for the New Lutheran Church
Kathryn M. Olson
5. An Ethical Appraisal of Ronald Reagan's Justification for the Invasion of Grenada
Ralph E. Dowling and Gabrielle A. Ginder
6. "I Respectfully Dissent": The Ethics of Dissent in Justice O'Connor's Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC Opinion
Jeffrey L. Courtright
PART 3. IDEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION
7. Ideology and Argument Evaluation: Competing Axiologies in the Sanctuary Trial
Kathryn M. Olson and Clark D. Olson
8. Arguing about Fetal "versus" Women's Rights: An Ideological Evaluation
Mary Keehner
9. Public Policy Argumentation and Colonialist Ideology in the Post-Cold War Era
Rebecca S. Bjork
PART 4. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY
10. Examining an Argument by Cause: The Weak Link Between Pornography and Violence in the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final Report
Ian Fielding
11. Survivor Testimony in the Pornography Controversy: Assessing Credibility in the Minneapolis Hearings and the Attorney General's Report
Catherine Helen Palczewski
12. Constituting Publics and Reconstructing Public Spheres: The Meese Commission's Report on Pornography
Gerard A. Hauser
About the Contributors
Notes
Name Index
Subject Index