1 of 78

Understanding Argumentation

…and the four points of argument failure

a different approach to misinformation by Mike Caulfield

2 of 78

The $78 meal

3 of 78

The $78 meal

Claim might be something like “Food prices are out of control”

4 of 78

Look at this expensive meal!

Reasons/Evidence

5 of 78

Look at this expensive meal!

Food prices are are rising at astronomical rates!

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

6 of 78

Baboom!

Look at this expensive meal!

Food prices are are rising at astronomical rates!

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

7 of 78

Except…

Look at this expensive meal!

Food prices are are rising at astronomical rates!

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

8 of 78

Is that the precise claim?

What if instead of a burger at the airport it was a picture of sauteed elk and calamari at a expensive restaurant and it said

“This meal just cost me $300 at Sundance. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible.”

Would that feel more or less compelling? Why?

9 of 78

An implication here right? That this meal is average

Look at this expensive meal!

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

10 of 78

Warrants – the “and since” of the argument

Look at this expensive meal!

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

Reasons/Evidence

11 of 78

Look at this expensive meal!

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

This is representative of an average meal.

Reasons/Evidence

12 of 78

Act II

Someone dug up the menu.

Cheeseburger and fries, $17.50

The whisky likely the rest.

Does this change the validity of the argument?

13 of 78

Twitter agrees with you!

14 of 78

Twitter agrees with you!

15 of 78

Twitter agrees with you!

16 of 78

Twitter agrees with you!

17 of 78

This seems pretty dumb, right?

18 of 78

But it’s surprisingly astute

Look at this expensive meal!

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

This is representative of an average meal.

Get context on this…

Reasons/Evidence

19 of 78

But it’s surprisingly astute

Look at this expensive meal!

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

This is representative of an average meal.

See if this connects…

Reasons/Evidence

20 of 78

Evidence doesn’t connect, the argument collapses

Look at this expensive meal!

Grounds

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

This is representative of an average meal.

See if this connects…

21 of 78

The evidence doesn’t connect to the claim

Look at this expensive meal!

Basic staples are beyond the reach of average Americans

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

This is representative of an average meal.

$50 whisky included

Reasons/Evidence

22 of 78

Starting with evidence

Past two years I’ve been tracking information flows on social media, how online arguments are constructed
We see the evidence first, infer the argument
When we get new information about the evidence – that’s when the argument comes more clearly into view

23 of 78

Boomer meme incoming

24 of 78

25 of 78

Stop

Do we know what we’re looking at here?

NOT “Is this true?”

26 of 78

Investigate the source

Can be as simple as clicking the button

27 of 78

28 of 78

Find better coverage

29 of 78

What did you find?

What’s the context?
“What am I looking at here?”

30 of 78

What did you find?

What’s the context?
“What am I looking at here?”

31 of 78

Some people think this is a claim (and it is, kind of)

1600 scientists dispute global warming

32 of 78

But it is functioning here as evidence

1600 scientists dispute global warming

33 of 78

And to evaluate it requires seeing it as part of an argument

1600 scientists dispute global warming

34 of 78

The argument

1600 scientists dispute global warming

????

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

35 of 78

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

As always, we try to create the argument charitably, even when we disagree with it. We try to find the best argument we can here that could reasonably attributed. No straw men. ��What does the evidence here suggest? It’s a lot of people, those people are scientists. This pulls from relevance theory (and going back, pulls from Grice) but we assume that noting that is meaningful here. The evidence is that many scientists disagree, which seems to indicate that the claim is there is no scientific consensus.

The students don’t need to know Grice here or implicature, but they can get to this point – what one highlights in the evidence implies the argument being made.

As always, you can use the “ghost of alternative choice” here – ask how the inferred argument would be different had this said “56% of Americans dispute global warming” – different evidence, different inferred claim.

36 of 78

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

37 of 78

In reality, the evidence supports the claim via a set of implied common knowledge, values, or assumptions

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

38 of 78

The evidence is the “new” thing that when integrated with common, “accepted” knowledge

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Reasons/Evidence

39 of 78

…will support the claim

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

Reasons/Evidence

40 of 78

Warrants are hard, because assumptions are assumed

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

Reasons/Evidence

41 of 78

Understanding why some evidence is better than other evidence surfaces warrants

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

When a substantial number of people with expertise disagree with a proposition… there is no consensus

Warrant (“and since”)

Reasons/Evidence

42 of 78

Why does it matter that they are not climate scientists?

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

When a substantial number of people with expertise disagree with a proposition… there is no consensus

Warrant (“and since”)

Reasons/Evidence

43 of 78

Substantial disagreement among experts

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

When a substantial number of people with expertise disagree there is – by definition – no consensus on an issue.

Reasons/Evidence

44 of 78

How does the additional context affect the argument?

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

When a substantial number of people with expertise disagree there is – by definition – no consensus on an issue.

||

With additional context the evidence no longer connects – this isn’t the “expertise” necessary to the warrant – these aren’t climate scientists.

Reasons/Evidence

45 of 78

How does the additional context affect the argument?

1600 scientists dispute global warming

The media is misrepresenting the scientific consensus

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

When a substantial number of people with expertise disagree there is – by definition – no consensus on an issue.

||

When the connection breaks, the argument collapses. The larger point might be right (although in this case, no), and the evidence might exist (in this case, yes) but the evidence is not appropriate to the argument

Reasons/Evidence

46 of 78

How do arguments fail (and succeed)?

47 of 78

Another example

“Tell me again how ‘wildfires’ caused aluminum rims to melt”

48 of 78

In practice, the argument is often hidden

“Tell me again how ‘wildfires’ caused aluminum rims to melt”

This is partially effective because it doesn’t make the claim or the warrant explicit.

49 of 78

What’s really going on…

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

50 of 78

What’s really going on…

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �this is not possible in a wildfire

51 of 78

Four ways this can fail

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �this is not possible in a wildfire

52 of 78

Failure 1: Evidence false/fabricated

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �this is not possible in a wildfire

Reality

53 of 78

You could find out that

The photo is fake
It’s been altered
Most people understand this type of failure

54 of 78

Failure 2: Evidence doesn’t match warrant

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �this is not possible in a wildfire

Reality

55 of 78

Failure 2: Evidence doesn’t match warrant/claim

Maybe the picture isn’t from the fires, or the liquid here isn’t aluminum
Maybe this is a picture of an aluminum alloy with a lower melting temperature
In these cases the evidence is represented as connected to the warrant but investigation reveals it doesn’t fit

56 of 78

Failure 3: Bad warrant

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �this is not possible in a wildfire

Reality

57 of 78

Failure 3:

Maybe wildfires can melt aluminum rims?

58 of 78

2016

59 of 78

2018

60 of 78

2018

61 of 78

Australia 2020

62 of 78

2021

63 of 78

64 of 78

65 of 78

This is why we reason together

66 of 78

We don’t know what we don’t know

And we don’t know a lot!

67 of 78

Failure 3: Bad warrant

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �It is not possible for a wildfire to get hot enough to melt aluminium

Reality

68 of 78

Failure 4: Overwhelming counter-evidence

Claim:

This fire was not natural

Evidence:

Aluminum rims melted

And since: �this is not possible in a wildfire

Reality

69 of 78

Failure 4:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
In the end, we might not know what happened, but we know the weight of the counter-evidence is substantial enough that a case can’t be made on small details

70 of 78

A valid argument

…is not necessarily one you agree with,

but one that plays by the rules

71 of 78

“How is this not the most pressing campaign topic right now?”

72 of 78

Forming a warrant: why these features?

Chart showing deaths from opioid overdose at historical highs, and an issue that emerged recently.

Grounds

This issue should be much more central to the political debate

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

Reality

Larger argument

73 of 78

Compellingness

To figure out the warrant, ask yourself: “What would make this less compelling evidence?”
Ex. if the number was low – say 500 – it would be less compelling. Why?
Ex. if it was flat all the way back to 2000 it would be less compelling. Why?

74 of 78

Constructing the warrant

Chart showing deaths from opioid overdose at historical highs, and an issue that emerged recently.

This issue should be much more central to the political debate

Claim

Warrant (“and since”)

A high number of deaths deserves political attention if those deaths might be preventable (and not a ‘fact of life’)

The problem will not get better on its own.�

Political solutions here might have an impact

Reality

Larger argument

Note: be charitable, and represent the most coherent case they might be making.

Reasons/Evidence

75 of 78

Reasonable

Evidence from CDC, not altered�
Chart not manipulated to fit the warrant, no hidden context that invalidates�
Warrant uses things that are common values or demonstrable facts�
Low bar to clear – meets demands of counter evidence – the impact of fentanyl is not highly disputed.

1

2

3

4

76 of 78

A valid argument is not necessarily one you agree with

It’s one that is reasonable: e.g. “That’s a fair point”�

Uses credible evidence (known source, not fabricated)�
Uses appropriate evidence (and doesn’t hide inappropriateness)�
Chooses valid warrants (either broadly accepted values or well-supported facts)�
Brings substantial amount evidence relative to existing counter-evidence

77 of 78

Fundamental principle of argumentation: reciprocity

I’m willing to be bound by warrants I advance�
E.g. if I say “large amounts of preventable deaths deserve political attention” you can come back and say “then you’d agree that the focus on COVID was right?”�
E.g. if I say the CDC is a good source of information here, you point out I have been critical of their stats when they were inconvenient.�
Golden rule of argumentation is we are bound by similar rules – even if we bob and weave and rationalize, we must preserve that appearance

78 of 78

Thank you!