Refutation

I) Introduction

The refutation of opposing positions is not just an afterthought in constructing an 
argument--it is an indispensable part of all arguments:

Audience considerations:

*refutation affects your first consideration of audience; you have nothing more than an 
easy demonstration argument (i.e., Young and Sullivan:  writing is valuable) unless you 
see at least the possibility of an opposing view point which could counter your claim.  

*Even if your argument is not actually challenged by a real opponent, you should still 
construct such an argument for yourself.

Content considerations:

*Refutation influences the content and structure of almost any argument.  For example, 
if you are arguing to characterize something (literacy) in a certain way and your 
opponent defines certain key terms differently than you would you will need to spend 
more time on presenting your counter definition than you would have if your 
argument was unchallenged.  Similarly, if your opponent emphasizes one cause and 
you emphasize another (consider the different causes presented in the Ogbu article), 
you must refute that other cause and show why yours is the more appropriate 
explanation.

II) Building arguments with refutation in mind

Ideal situation: 
 *Imagining and articulating all the possible opposing arguments.

Realistic and practical situation: 

*Imagining as many opposing arguments as possible;
 
*Prioritizing the possible opposing arguments  and select the ones which you judge to 
be necessary for your argument.


Heuristic:

*List the pro and con arguments which are relevant to your issue.

*Quality versus Quantity:   Just because one side of your list has more reasons than the 
other does not necessarily mean that it is the stronger argument.  A strongly weighted 
reason can be more compelling  and convincing to an audience than several lesser ones.

III) Parts of a refutation

Because each type of argument  (i.e., definition, causal, value) has its own inherent 
weaknesses, every refutation can begin by identifying the type of argument being 
refuted.  A full refutation can also consist of the following elements:

1) What is the issue?  Summarize the controversy, the events, whatever "reality" the 
argument responds to. 

Example from Habermas:  "It becomes clear at this point that the communications 
concept of power also has a normative content." (p.7) 

2) What does the other argument have to say about the issue?  Summarize the argument 
you are going to refute or state the positions you are calling into question.

Example from Habermas:   "Is such a concept scientifically useful?  Is it at all suited to 
descriptive purposes?" (p.7) 

3) Does this argument have all the relevant and accurate information?  Test the 
argument against reality; ask for verification of the facts given.

Example from Habermas:  "Hannah Arendt does not test her hypothesis against 
examples of the decline of great empires.  Her historical investigations resolve instead 
around two extreme cases:..." (p.9) 

4) Does this argument violate a standard of good reasoning your audience should hold?  
Consider the type of argument and question whether the arguer uses inapplicable or 
insufficient support.  This judgment is audience specific as what is seen as logical and 
coherent reasoning to one audience may be judged illogical and incoherent to another.  

Example from Habermas: "...the communications concept of power discloses important 
though extreme phenomena of the modern world to which political science has become 
more and more insensitive; on the other hand, it is linked with a conception of politics 
which, when applied to modern societies, leads to absurdities." (p. 15)

5) Are there any flaws or weaknesses in the way the argument is presented?  Look for 
imprecision in word choice, problems with definitions of key terms, appeals to 
emotions, mistakes in emphasis or ordering, and offensive audience manipulation.

Example from Habermas: "This narrowing of the political to the practical permits 
illuminating contrasts to the presently palpable elimination of essentially practical 
contents from the political process.  But for this Arendt pays a certain price: a) she 
screens all strategic elements, as force, out of politics; b) she removes politics from it 
relations to the economical social environment in which it is embedded through the 
administrative system; and c) she is unable to grasp structural violence." (p. 16)
		Refutation

 

Refutation