Writing Workshop II Fall 2004

 

Requirements:

1)Weekly creative writing on any topic you want or an alter-ego journal. Leaders, Loners, True Believers, Team Players, Sparkling Personalities and Corporate Clones: Who is your Alter-Ego?Alter Ego Journal: Pick a leader or follower from any country in the war on terror, someone who is often in the news such as Bush, Osama, Sharon, Netanyahu, Crown Prince Abdullah, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, Powell, or even a newscaster such as Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings or Geraldo Rivera, or a true believer like Zacarias Moussaoui, John Walker Lindh etc. Look at present and past speeches and write a short entry in their voice every week, commenting on current events, the core books and particularly, your research. Perhaps your alter ego feels very differently than you do about things, which would strengthen your argumentation.
2) 8-10 page midterm with one page bibliography.
3) Oral Presentation
4) Final paper--15-20 pages with a 3 page bibliography

Content Theme for Fall 2004:War on Terror and its Aftermath. Consult Jihad vs McWorld: Whose Paradise is Lost?

Excellent Final Papers published in the Online Journal of Education's Issue on Terrorism 2001-ad infinitum

Sharpen Argumentation at: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/brain/argue.html and, /argue1.html and /argue2.html, and /basic.html and /claims.html

Objectives:

To complete a 15-20 page college research paper with a 3 page bibliography
To explore a personal methodology for creativity and research from brainstorming
To gather, organize and evaluate primary and secondary sources online, in the library, the community and through empirical research such as interviews and investigation
To engage in close and survey reading and to paraphrase, summarize, and integrate sources into personal research
To develop and refine a thesis
To structure the categories of an outline
To develop and refine critical and argumentative faculties
To establish credibility through research, audience analysis, (beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors), critical thinking, decision making and persuasive tactics
To learn the constructs of classical (Aristotle) and contemporary (Toulmin, Roger, Monroe, Boolean, Cyber) argumentation
To constructively question and defend a claim or syllogism, identifying logical fallacies
To practice debates in workshop (cooperative and adverarial) and improve oral communication skills
To understand advocacy through role playing and argumentative writing in the voice of alter ego
To analyse media, politics, law, current events, religion, philosophy, literature, science, history in terms of controversy, conflict and conversion
To improve writing skills through improvisational, poetic and personal writing and create a webfolio for website or OJEMH
To create a distinctive, original expository style, using MLA or APA parenthetical documentation
To increase knowledge and understanding of content theme
To publish excellent papers in the Online Journal of Education, Media and Health for the World Association for Online Education

Core Books: Critical Thinking and Communication, Anti-American Terrorism in the Middle East-- A Reader. Inside the Kingdom by Carmen bin Ladin. 9/11 Commission Report. Islam, Liberty and Development by Mohammad Khatami.
Optional: reading list. Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs McWorld. Imperial Hubris by Anonymous. The Hidden Face of Eve by Nawal el Saadawi.

Attendance/Participation Policy: You are only allowed one absence.When you are forced to be absent, for whatever reason, consult the syllabus and outline, email classmates from the listserv, and make up the work as soon as possible. Individual attention is for research projects, not to waste time discussing why you can't come to class. This is also true of late or missed assignments. The curriculum and grading contract are clear: it is your responsibility to hand in work every week and to clarify assignments when they are given.

Grading:

25% of grades of midterms and final papers are on argumentation. This
means having a clear claim or thesis, which will grow into a claim of
fact, which must state a problem, not a fact, and should be VERY
SPECIFIC as to demographics, time, and place, a claims of value, which
can open up into theoretical discussion and span time and space, and a
claim of policy, which must provide a concrete solution to the claim of
fact, and counterclaim(s of fact, value and policy.

The claims must develop and evolve throughout the paper so that after
every description or summary of a source, you go BACK TO your claim to
strengthen it. You must summarize opposite POVs and provide rebuttal to
them, thereby strengthening your claim.

Argumentation is also being aware of the logical fallacies of your
sources and your own arguments.

Therefore, the marriage thesis must be confined to a specific group of
people in a specific time and place. For example, should lower-caste
couples under 25 years of age in Northern India in 2007 submit to
marriages arranged by their parents, or choose their own partners, based
on love and compatibility?
That is the claim of fact.

Then the claim of value could span time and space to discuss all the
implications of  contractual versus romantic love, marriages decided by
self or family etc. Counterclaim here would be valuing romantic marriage
or pleasing self over contractual marriage or pleasing community.

Finally the claim of policy goes back to the problem to the original
dilemma question, and says that Lower-caste couples under 25 years of
age in Northern India in 2007 should make a compromise of obeying
parents and pleasing self through a new innovative system of dating.
Then the description of that system is the claim of policy, which could
be countered by another system.

25% of grade is on Depth and Diversity of Research Sources.
Sources should include books, professional articles, Internet htmls, audio/video if you want,
field work
observation, interviews, personal experience and imagination.
Sources should focus on the narrow time period in your claim of fact but will be original if
you also span time and include historical sources, and embrace other disciplines or cultures in your claims of value. Claims of policy should include original primary source research..
Sources should represent different POVS, counter-claims that disagree with your thesis.
Always read material you
disagree with thoroughly, as you would focus on your most lethal fighter in a martial arts
tournament.
Internet sources can be superficial, so make search you read academic books as well.
Original sources are the interviews and field work and case studies and questionnaires you do.

25% of the grade is on originality. Originality can be developed through discovering a problem not yet described in your claim of fact, arguing values by crossing cultures, combining disciplines, and delving into history, and developing a claim of policy based on your original interviews and field work. Originality can also be developed through style, such as using Proust in a martial arts paper, combining poetry and memoir with argumentation, including photos as people have done in my journals, and writing with a strong, original voice.

25% of the grade is on style. This includes a correctly formatted 3-page MLA/APA bibliography, correct parenthetical documentation after each quote, error-free prose with no grammatical or proofreading errors, and a style that reflects the content.

COURSE THEME
Week 1: In class writing to assess interest and experience and to start brainstorming on course theme.
"Can it be that what Jihad and McWorld have in common is anarchy: the absence of common will and that conscious and collective human control under the guidance of law we call democracy? ...Jihad and McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. Yet Jihad and McWorld have this in common: they both make war on the nation-state and thus undermine the nation-state's democratic institutions. Each eschews civil society and belittles democratic citizenship, neither seeks alternative democratic institutions. Their common thread is indifference to civil liberty. Jihad forges communities of blood rooted in exclusion and hatred, communities that slight democracy in favor of tyrannical paternalism or consensual tribalism. McWorld forges global markets rooted in consumption and profit, leaving to an untrustworthy, if not altogether fictitious, invisible hand issues of public interest and common good that once might have been nurtured by democratic citizenries and their watchful governments. ...the new temples to liberty will be McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken. ...Impartial judiciaries and deliberative assemblies play no role in the roving killer bands that speak on behalf of newly liberated 'peoples,' and such democratic institutions have at best marginal influence on the roving multinational corporations that speak on behalf of newly liberated markets. Jihad pursues a bloody politics of identity, McWorld a bloodless economics of profit. Belonging by default to McWorld, everyone is a consumer; seeking a repository for identity, everyone belongs to some tribe. But no one is a citizen. Without citizens, how can there be democracy?"

The True Believer: "A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation....We join a mass movement to be free from freedom. Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority....Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority. Equality without freedom creates a more stable social pattern than freedom without equality."

The third is from The Hidden Face of Eve. "A wife who does not work may, in turn, take pride in the fact that her man is sufficiently well off to take care of her needs. All these distorted ideas and feelings are due to the fact that woman's work outside the home does not of itself lead to the true liberation of the woman as long as it continues to operate within the framework of a class society and under the patriarchal system."

The fourth is from The Prince: "And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upons them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you....Moreover men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared. For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punshiment which never relaxes its grasp. "

The Course Theme for 2003 is Cross Cultural Perspectives on the War on Terror. The core books relate to this theme as we compare the ethics and rhetoric of today's leaders with THE PRINCE, the psychology of jihadhis, McWorldians and other true believers in Hoffer's book, the dilemma of feminism and terrorism with Nawal el Saadawi and the plight of democracy in the clash between McWorld and indigenous culture in Barber's book. Read the primary source material in the Reader on Anti-American Terrorism. Look over the contents of the Journal on Terrorism and Education to get ideas for your own research. Literary classics such as Macbeth, Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost give timeless perspectives to the dialectic of terror and are opportunities for discussion, oral interpretation and the appreciation of beautiful language.

 

Breakdown: Media-Enhanced Migratory Writing Workshop IIAlthough Writing Workshop II is a research course with stringent academic requirements, it should also be a time to explore the way you think, to develop your writing style, and to discover a personal methodology that works for you. As you write and improve your research skills, think about the following questions: 1) Do you prefer to build your own house or to evaluate, analyse and synthesize the contruction of others'? (Creative vs. Critical Thinking) 2) Do you start with a view of the big picture or do you need to piece together the details before you can understand what you're talking about? (Deductive vs. Inductive Thinking) 3) Do you prefer to see, read, hear or feel things? (Sensory Preferences) 4) Do you like clear-cut goals and definitions or do you prefer to wrestle with ambiguity, surprising yourself with different shades of meaning and interpretation? 5) Are you trapped in a compulsive rigidity of formulas and protocol or are you lost in a chaotic wilderness of creativity? 6) Are you afraid to play and make a fool of yourself or are you so wild you can't conform to anything? 7)Do you need more structure or do you need to let go?

All projects, creative and critical, MUST relate to your final research paper in some way, no matter how indirect.

9/11:Week 1: Read, understand and analyse the main propositions in the core books. What do you look for in a thesis? For this course, theses must be argumentative in nature, addressing the focal point of controversy, and providing an umbrella for your work. One of the most difficult things students face in research is finding an appropriate thesis. Learn to recognize the main proposition in books, articles, speeches so that you can decide whether to use the evidence to support or refute and then rebut your work. Read this article to help you.

9/18:Week 2: Media: In class-writing on the six kinds of writing--narrative, descriptive, dramatic, expository, argumentative, poetic, and investigate their styles, objectives and relationship to audience. How can you use these styles in your paper, to develop and clarify your topic?

9/25:Week 3: Media: Television and Journalism. C-Span, France 5, BBC, Arab channels, CNN, Fox, UN channel. Examine controversy and conflict. Identify claims and counterclaims. Look at all points of view. Survey your field. Read the course theme again, think deeply about your interests and career goals, what you want to learn this semester and how you can best make an original contribution to the field. Take out as many books as possible from the library on your subject, go online for pertinent websites, online journals, relevant chat rooms and discussion groups, and investigate the wonderful resources in Manhattan, which is the cultural and economic capital of the world. Decide who you could interview, what embassies or libraries to visit, where to "hang out" to do your work. Get an overview in the beginning of the semester. Collect as many sources and resources as possible without analyzing everything in depth yet. Bring at least 3 sources, a brainstorming sheet and a 2 page essay relating your research hypotheses to the entire field. Begin to organize and document your work, with MLA or APA data on index cards with the main proposition, a pertinent quote, and how it relates to your thesis.

10/2:Week 4: Media: Library. Meet at reference desk of Bobst Library. Browse, surf and study. Leave with as many books and professional articles as possible. Develop your hypothesis. You can work with 2 or 3 potential hypotheses. Feel free to change them at any time. Pick 3 most important sources, including those who refute your theses. Summarize, analyze and integrate them into your work. Play word or creativity games, cubes, questions, six hats, role-playing to develop your stance and lead you to the right questions. Write personal creative essay for next week.

10/9:Week 5: Media: Close Textual Analysis. Bring summaries of your most important sources to class as well as Terrorism Reader. Refine your bibliography into 3 pages, work on an outline and decide the best way for you to organize your work. Write a paper on your methods of analysis.

10/16:Week 6: Media: Editing. Bring 3 copies of your rough draft. Limit your research and refine your thesis so that you are very specific as to person, time, place, concept etc. This is the best way to avoid logical fallacies.

10/23:Week 7: Midterms due: Media: Speech. Bring in revised midterm, surveys, sources that identify the originality of your work. Oral presentations showing the relationship of outlining to public speech. Bring tape recorder and play with debates and interviews in class.

10/30:Week 8: Media: Great Fiction. Each student should give an analysis of the novel of their choice, chosen from Keefer's Major Twentieth Century Writers, and describe how this novel relates to their research topic. See film of Macbeth. Discussion of fiction and fact with review of argumentative fallacies. For next week write a rough draft of a midterm, around 8 pages. Pay special attention to the relationship of logic to syntax. Proofread carefully for grammatical, spelling, word choice and format (APA or MLA) errors. Make sure you are using MLA or APA parenthetical documentation.

11/6: Week 9: Media: Art objects as symbols or metaphors of thesis and exercises for descriptive writing. Meet at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Friday evening. Choose a work or art, or several, that symbolizes your thesis, then sit down and describe it in words. How does descriptive writing differ from argumentative, expository and personal writing? How can this description enhance the focus and argumentation of your research? Bring descriptive writing to class next week. Interviews. Bring a transcription of your interview(s). Discuss conditions, problems that relate to your thesis.

11/13:Week 10: Media: Library. Meet at Bobst with revised outline and proposals for further research. Individual conferences.

11/20:Week 11: Media: Oral Presentations. Bring Tape recorder for your speech and hostile and friendly audiences.

12/4: Week 12: Media: Oral Presentations.

12/11:Week 13: Media: Cross-editing. Complete a rough draft, at least 15 pages, of the final research paper. Cross-edit and comment in listserv.

12/18:Week 14: Media: Final Paper due. No incompletes or extensions.

 

Lectures:

Lecture and Learning Objectives: To understand the origin of claims.

First of all, we must be able to distinguish arguments/propositions/claims from other sentences such as questions (Are suicide bombers ever afraid to die?), proposals (Let's kill them.), suggestions (We recommend that you workout every day.), commands (Don't shop at Shoprite.), and exclamations (The Middle East is a bloodbath!) An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion.) So warnings, statements of belief or opinion, loosely associated statements, reports, expository passages, illustrations, conditional statements and explanations are not arguments by themselves although they may lead to arguments. For example, a conditional statement can form the major premise of a conditional or hypothetical syllogism, but it is not an argument on its own. "If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smokers assume the risk of smoking. Cigarette companies do publish warning labels. Therefore, smokers assume the risk of smoking. "

To find out if we really have an argument we should 1) rule out typical kinds of non-arguments, 2) examine indicators such as therefore, it follows that, because, since etc. and 3) most importantly, the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements. The purpose of logic is to allow us to develop methods and techniques to distinguish good arguments from bad. Here is an example: All crimes are violations of the law. Rape is a crime. Therefore rape is a violation of the law. Symbolically, it is stated as A equals B. C equals A. Therefore C equals B. But the following is bad: Some crimes are misdemeanors. Rape is a crime. Therefore rape is a misdemeanor. This is a valid form: All A are B. All B are C. Therefore, all A are C. This is invalid: All A are B. All C are B. Therefore all A are C. For example: All cats are animals. All dogs are animals. Therefore, all cats are dogs. Remember this again when we go into testing soundness of deductive arguments.

You must be able to distinguish premises or claimed evidence (Toulmin's data or grounds) from conclusion or what is claimed to follow from the evidence. An inference is the reasoning expressed in an argument. Some arguments have more than one conclusion or more than two premises and can be described syllogistically, horizontally, vertically, in clusters, symbolically as alphabetical letters or Venn diagrams. Once we have clearly recognized the argument, it is then important to categorize it into induction or deduction. While some people often generalize and say deduction moves from general to specific, and induction from specific to general, this is not always true.

A deductive argument is one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false, so that the conclusion follows by necessity. An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that if they are assumed true, it is improbable that the conclusion is false. Five examples of arguments that are typically deductive are arguments based on math, arguments from definition, and categorical, hypothetical or conditional, and disjunctive syllogisms. Pure math is deductive but statistics are inductive. Toulminıs method is largely inductive because his system is a rebellion against the rigors of formal logic and his 6 part chain includes a qualifier.

A categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words‹all, no, or some. "All cats are animals. Some cats are black and white. Therefore some animals are black and white." Or use the famous Socrates syllogism‹"All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." Socrates falls into the "some" category. A categorical syllogism relates two classes or categories, denoted respectively by the subject term and predicate term, and the proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term. We have four forms: All S are P. No S are P. Some S are P. Some S are not P. A hypothetical or conditional syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both premises. A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises: "Either you are with the terrorists or you are with the US and its allies. You are not with the US and its allies. Therefore you must be with the terrorists." Then try to construct a conditional syllogism to determine how such rogue states might be punished. In everyday conversation it is hard to always detect the purity of syllogistic argument. An enthymeme is an argument missing a premise or conclusion, but usually the missing element is implied. "The corporate income tax should be abolished; it encourages waste and high prices." The missing element is whatever encourages waste and high prices.

In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some way intended to "go beyond" the content of the premises. Inductive arguments include predictions about the future, arguments from analogy, inductive generalizations, (because some beans from the bag are chocolate, it is likely they are all chocolate,) arguments from authority (he could be stupid or misinformed in spite of his rep!), argument based on signs (or coexistential as the CT text says), and causal inference which isnıt exactly the same as a conditional statement or hypothetical or conditional syllogism. In science, the discovery of a law of nature is generally considered to be inductive, while its application is deductive, proceeding from a true, valid premise.

Once we categorize arguments, we must then analyze them. We need to look at two things: the claim that evidence exists, and what kind of evidence that is, and the claim that the alleged evidence actually supports that claim. Deductive arguments are analyzed as valid or invalid, sound, or unsound. To test the validity of an argument, we must examine whether the premises support the conclusion in such away that if they are assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Here is an example of an invalid argument having true premises and a true conclusion: "All banks are financial organizations. Wells Fargo is a financial organization. Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank." Any deductive argument having true premises and a false conclusion is obviously invalid. But you can have a valid argument that is unsound such as: "All wines are soft drinks. Ginger ale is a wine. Therefore ginger ale is a soft drink."

A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises.

Inductive arguments are evaluated as weak/strong or cogent/uncogent. Thus, a strong inductive argument is: "This barrel contains one hundred apples. 80 apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are ripe." A weaker version is as follows: "This barrel contains one hundred apples. Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are ripe." Hence, strength and weakness, unlike validity and soundness, relate to degrees. A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises, the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument. Classically it is without qualification, but Toulmin added a qualifier to his reasoning chain. However for classical cogency, the premises must not only be true but also not overlook some important factor that outweighs the given evidence and requires a different conclusion.

When you are debating in a rush, keep asking these two questions: Do the premises (data, grounds) support the conclusion (claim)? Are all the premises true? As you write research papers or debate you will develop extended arguments such as: "American Doctors who attend elderly people in nursing homes in NY State in 2002 often prescribe tranquilizers to keep these people immobile. This practice is often unwarranted, and it often impairs the health of the patients. These tranquilizers often have damaging side effects in that they accentuate the symptoms of senility, and they increase the likelihood of a dangerous fall because they produce unsteadiness in walking. Furthermore, since these medications produce immobility, they increase the risk of bedsores. Doctors at the Center for Aging and Health say that physicians who care for the elderly are simply prescribing too much medication."

Often we get snowed under in our evidence and we drown instead of resurfacing to test the premises or data and use it to back up our claim or proposition.

To review: The Toulmin model--data, warrant, backing, qualifier, reservation and claim--is more flexible and field dependent than formal logic but there are some similarities. The data function like evidence and premises on which the argument is based. The claim is the conclusion. The warrant states the reasoning used to move from the data to the claim, and it functions like an inference. The backing consists of facts or information used to support the inference made in the warrant. The qualifier modifies the claim and indicates the rational strength the arguer attributes to it. The reservation states circumstances or conditions in which the claim would not be true. The Toulmin model often presents difficulties such as misidentifying unstated warrants, confusing the data and the warrant, confusing data and backing, and applying incorrect standards to diagrams of complex and subtle arguments.

Lecture and Learning Objectives: To further your study of argumentation.
In an age when we are submerged with information twenty four hours a day, the study of logic is essential-- not only traditional informal logic, but also simplified formal logic, so that we can evaluate the information we receive and create.The specific nature of web design with complementary graphics, bullets, different colors and fonts emphasizes lists and facts as opposed to linear connected thinking through traditional linguistic syntax has its own persuasive power, but like informal fallacies, it can also mislead and deceive. The hypertext links open up a multidisciplinary world which needs to be defined, limited and organized for purposes of research and understanding. Inter-, cross- and trans-disciplinary approaches can be clarified through Boolean logic and Venn diagrams.

Traditional logic first began with Aristotle (born 384 B.C.) who taught and wrote his treatises to explain his system of thinking and to refute the sophistry of emotional rhetoricians like Isocrates. A student of Plato and the son of a physician, Aristotle had a lifelong interest in empirically-based knowledge. He was a great categorizer and divided knowledge into 4 categories:1) theoretical, physics, math and theology, 2) practical, politics and ethics, 3) productive, arts, crafts and medicine, and 4) organa, or tools of methodology, logic and dialectic. He used his methodology to write the Poetics, the Physic, the Logic, the Metaphysic so that the content was multidisciplinary but his method of inquiry was similar. He divided rhetoric into three species: deliberative (future), judicial (past), and epideictic (not time bound but incite the audience to praise or blame.) Rhetoric was an indispensable part of public life in Athens and remained a potentiality, a way of constantly evaluating knowledge through dialectic, not dogmatic means. Rhetoric deals with probabilities and uses evidence and logic to convince.

Traditional Rhetoric began in a confined place and time-- Classical Athens with a specific audience of free men. Cyber rhetoric exists in perpetual time and malleable space with an unpredictable global audience. The only sure thing is that everyone is trying to sell something-- either a product or themselves or their way of doing things. However rhetoric is still judged in terms of Aristotle's qualities of correctness, clarity, ornamentation and propriety in order to prove, to delight, and to move. (Click here for synopsis and excerpts of Aristotle's work.)

The Syllogism (Deductive): All men are mortal. (the general principle)
Socrates is a man. (the case)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (the conclusion)

Premises must follow by NECESSITY, while in Inductive Syllogisms, they follow by PROBABILITY:

These candies come from that bag.
All the candies in that bag are chocolate.
Therefore, these candies are chocolate.

There are often fallacies in inductive syllogisms because that second clause cannot always be proven. One jumps from a case study to a general principle too quickly, as in many clinical medical trials with pharmaceutical sponsorship. As the world becomes more complex and invisible, deductive syllogisms are harder to prove.

Today we use rhetoric to sell our products and ourselves; Aristotle tried to use rhetoric to express logic which sincerely searched for the truth. Since truth in the twentieth century has been relative, to say the least, most leaders are really persuading people to worship the god of consumerism. Logical fallacies are exploited ruthlessly, as in courts of law. (Cases of O.J.Simpson, the Menendez brothers etc.)

Over the years rhetoric has become more complex. Authorities such as the Church, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung et al have had supreme persuasive abilities because of their institutional and/or personal power. "Do what I say because I say it." Rhetoric is also more directly connected to the manipulation of language.

In 1958 the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin realized that this form of argumentation is not what one encounters when listening to a public speech, arguing with a roommate about what music to listen to, or talking politics at a bar. Consequently, Toulmin developed his theory in order to explain how argumentation occurs in the natural process of everyday argument. Consequently, Toulmin wanted to explain how real people (not philosophers) argue. Although Toulmin's position on formal logic -- that formal rules of logic do not fit well with common practices of argument -- may seem obvious, one must remember the time period in which Toulmin developed his theory. Students of public speaking, rhetoric, and logic were only taught formal logic. Using a contemporary example to illustrate: Students were taught how to program a computer before they were taught how to click a mouse. When one recognizes the traditions of the time period, Toulmin's theory of argument seems even more revolutionary.Toulmin developed his system of argumentation, in part to respond to twentieth century relativity, field specialization, and the need to attach data to every claim, especially in the areas of law and medicine. To understand the Toulmin model, think of the quck chain of reasoning you would need to make in an Emergency Room or a criminal trial, where you would move empirically from data to warrant to backing to qualifier to reservation to grounds to claim. An appropriate claim requires (a) initial grounds for the argument (b) a warrant that allows the speaker to move from grounds to claim (c) a qualifier that states the "strength" of the claim (d) reservations or rebuttals that state the exceptions to the claim. You can also reverse the order as follows:

The first element is the claim. The claim of the argument is the conclusion that someone is trying to justify in the argument.
The second element is the grounds. The grounds of an argument are the facts on which the argument is based.
The third element of the argument is the warrant. The warrant of the argument assesses whether or not the claim is legitimate based on the grounds.
The fourth element is the backing. The backing of the argument gives additional support for a warrant by answering different questions.
The modal qualifier is the fifth element of the argument. The modal qualifier indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant.
The sixth and final element of the argument is the rebuttal. The rebuttal occurs when the leap from grounds to claim does not appear to be legitimate.

By creating this model for argument, Toulmin contradicted what philosophers have believed for centuries. For centuries, philosophers have believed that arguments can either be explained by relative means or by absolute means. Using either of these methods according to Toulmin is irrational to the modern argument. First of all, Toulmin claims that by using a relative method, no standards for the claims are made because the analyis of the argument is only relative to that particular argument. On the other hand, absolutism or foundationalism is irrelevant in the modern era according to Toulmin also. He claims absolutism is irrelevant for several reasons. First of if all is the fact that this absolute logic is based in mathematics and geometry. Therefore the concepts which are contained in them are field dependent. Because of this fact, Toulmin argues that there is no room for these viewpoints in other areas of logic.

Another problem that Toulmin has with absolutism has to do with the fact that answers are either correct or incorrect. Toulmin believes that there is a definite gray area in some arguments that doesn't allow for this absolutism. This gray area has also been developed quantitatively in fuzzy logic. The overall problem that Toulmin has with absolutism is that its rules are so strict that it just doesn't apply to modern reasoning.

Another important belief of Toulmin is his evolutionary theory of rationality. Toulmin believes that ideas are constantly being created. He believes that these ideas are also constantly being argued over and the person who wins the argument persuades others of his beliefs. In this way, new ideas are constantly being evolved. This concept is the most directly applicable theory to rhetoric that Toulmin has. After understanding this theory, it is no wonder why rhetoricians cherish the work of Stephen Toulmin. It is Toulmin's interpretive nature of his concepts coupled with his strong emphasis on persuasion that lend itself so well to rhetoric.. While this chain is still useful in many respects, the vast, unpredictable data of cyberspace, and its nonlinear spatial configuration and diverse global audience make the Toulmin method somewhat limited in the twenty first century. For more extensive study of Toulmin, click here.

Ideally you want to be familiar with Aristotle's more formal reasoning, Toulmin's chain of reasoning from data to claim, and contemporary theories and applications of cyberargumentation.

In cyberspace we can't rely on the pitch and resonance of our voices, the warmth of our facial expression, the impressives stature of our bodies and the expense of our wardrobe to convince people to believe us. We have to convince with the speed, frequency and prevalence of our messages and the hypnotic, timely and informative nature of our web sites.

PROFESSOR KEEFER (COPYWRIGHT 1996)

A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL VERSUS CYBER RHETORIC:

Keefer's Cyber-Logic Boot Camp

1)Inductive/deductive accordion
2) Pirouettes:Keeping your spot in a nonlinear world, developing speed and focus
3)Weaving: propositional logic through all evidence, refining and developing thesis
4)Searching for the Big 3 fallacies of ambiguity, presumption and relevance
5)Using Boolean logic and Venn diagrams to limit, expand and organize specific areas of research, especially online
6)Analysing the Persuasive Power of Images, including the homospatial imagery of collages
7)Using hypertext to make the surfer follow Your waves

The following is based on the book With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation: An ambiguity caused by a shift between two legitimate meanings of a term. "If you believe in the miracles of science, you should also believe in the miracles of the Bible."

Amphiboly: An ambiguity caused by faulty sentence structure. "SLOW CHILDREN CROSSING!"

Accent: A statement that is ambiguous because 1)its intended tone of voice is uncertain; 2) its stress is unclear; or 3) it is quoted out of context "President Clinton really knows how to wag his dog."

Hypostatization: The treatment of abstract terms like concrete ones, sometimes even the ascription of humanlike properties to them (similar to personification) "Even when he was home, the job would call to him seductively, asserting its dominance, luring him back to itembrace."

Division: The assumption that what is true of 1) the whole or 2) the group must be true of the parts or members. "This is the snobbiest eating club on campus; John, who is a member of it, must therefore be a terrible snob."

Composition: The assumption that what is true of 1) a part of a whole or 2) a member of a group must be true of the whole or the group. "By the year 3500 the human race will be extinct because we know that all of us now living will be dead."

Fallacies of Presumption

Sweeping Generalization: Applying a generalization to an exceptional case by ignoring the particularities of the case. "Since step aerobics is good for the heart, they should make it mandatory in nursing homes."

Hasty Generalization: Using insufficient evidence or an isolated example as the basis for a widely general conclusion. "I was raped by a black man, therefore all black men are potential rapists." (This fallacy is often the basis for racism.)

Bifurcation: Considering a distinction or classification exclusive or exhaustive when other alternatives exist. "You're either for me or against me!"

Begging the Question: 1) Offering, as a premise, a simple restatement of the desired conclusion. "Immortality is impossible because when we die that's it." 2) A circular argument. "I'm always right." Why/" "Because I'm your mother and I say so." "How do we know that mothers are always right?" "Because I'm your mother and..." 3) (Wider generalization) "He must be depressed: he's an existentialist!"

Question-Begging Epithets: Using strongly emotional language to force an otherwise unsupported conclusion. "Democrats are amoral, lustful, greedy politicians who don't care about foetuses and family values."

Special Pleading: Applying a double standard that is exemplified in the choice of words "Horses sweat, men perspire, women glow."

False Analogy: Reaching a conclusion by likening or comparing two significantly incomparable cases. "How can you tell your children no to take money from others when the government they live under does it all the time?"

False Cause: Inferring a causal link between two events when no such causal connection has been established. "The only reason crime went down was because Agosto became mayor." (Crime also went down in every other city.)

Slippery Slope: Assuming, unjustifiably, that a proposed step will set off an undesirable and uncontrollable chain of events. "Today it's Kevorkian, tomorrow everyone over 65 will be euthanized, and by 2001 we'll have a BRAVE NEW WORLD!"

Irrelevant Thesis: Seeking, perhaps succeeding, to prove a conclusion not at issue. "Hunting isn't cruel because it makes so many people happy and well-employed.

Fallacies of Relevance

Genetic Fallacy: Attacking a thesis, institution, or idea by condemning its background or origin. "Classical Greek philosophy is anachronistic because it was created by Dead White Males."

Abusive ad Hominem: Attacking the character of the opposing speaker rather his or her thesis. "We shouldn't elect her because she's a lesbian."

Circumstantial ad Hominem: Attacking the opposing speaker by implying vested interests.

Tu Quoque: Attempting to show that an opponent does not act in accord with his or her thesis. "How can my father tell me to stop drinking when I know he's an alcoholic?"

Poisoning the Well: Attempting to preclude discussion by attacking the credibility of an opponent. "President Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky therefore he must be lying about social security, education and the environment as well."

Mob Appeal: Using emotion-laden terminology to sway people en masse. "Stand up for Afro-american civil rights! Acquit O.J.Simpson of murder!"

Appeal to Pity: Seeking to persuade not by presenting evidence but by arousing pity. "Don't send the Menendez brothers to the gas chamber because their father abused them."

Appeal to Authority: Seeking to persuade not by giving evidence but merely by citing an authority, in the form of an: 1) appeal to the one, 2) appeal to the many, 3) appeal to the select few, 4)appeal to tradition. "Use this mouthwash because Madonna uses it." "Everybody owns a car so buy one soon." "If you use this perfume, you will be set apart from the crowd." Marriage is sacred because it's been around for ages.

Appeal to Ignorance: Emphasizing not the evidence for a thesis, but the lack of evidence against it. "There must be an afterlife because no one has proven for sure that there isn't."

Appeal to Fear: Seeking to persuade through fear. "Fuzzy, if you don't stop meowing, Mommy won't give you any yum yum."

Mother's Logical Fallacies by Lori Manning

Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was first established as an art by Aristotle. He believed that his predecessors "limited themselves to working up ideas on how to arouse in the hearers emotions (pity, indignation, angerŠ) that would influence their judgement in a favorable way to the oratorıs case." (194) Aristotle categorized rhetoric into three categories or pisteis. These categories are ethos, logos and pathos, the speakerıs reputation, the argument itself, and the play on emotions. I often use these three categories along with a few logical fallacies to get my niece to obey me. My niece, Lavel is a curious child who responds to most of my statements with "why" so I always make sure that I have a good argument. I gather facts about the situation and mentally prepare for a battle. For example, I was walking down the hall when I heard Lavel jumping on the bed so I yelled to her to stop jumping on the bed. She quickly dismounted and assured me that she had not been engaged in that act. I instructed her not to lie because I had seen her. She continued to deny my allegations because I often proclaimed that I had seen her doing a wrong act so that she would confess. Unfortunately she had caught on so I was forced to describe her action at length, which included raising her hands in an attempt to touch the ceiling and then falling onto her knees. Finally she admitted to the wrong doing and asked in a whiny voice why she couldnıt jump on the bed. I just ignored her.

After she had asked me over five times, I implemented a fallacy of presumption, begging of the question in particular. I told her that she could not jump on the bed because I, her aunt, said so. She continued to ask why so I responded "Iım the adult and youıre the child so you have to do whatever I say!" Lavel asked me why again so I decided to try another tactic. I attempted to establish my reputation with her by asking her a series of questions which were guaranteed to produce the responses that I needed to build my argument. I asked her who I was to her and she responded that I was her aunt. Next, I asked her if I was older and she answered yes in a mistrustful way. Then I asked her if she thought that I knew more than her and she responded yes but then quickly changed her response to sometimes. I stared at her intently and she said "I guess so."

Satisfied, I asked her if she thought that I cared about her and she said yes. Having gathered the responses that I was looking for, I stated, "Even you said that I care about you and know more than you so trust me when I tell you not to jump on the bed." "No, you just donıt want me to have any fun! You never want me to have fun," she yelled as she stormed to her room. Well that tactic alone did not work so I decided to appeal to her emotions. I followed her to her room, sat on the edge of her bed and said, "You know Lavel, I try really hard to be patient and understanding with you but youıre never willing to do the same for me. Why is that? When you failed your math exam, I was the one who dried your tears and helped you explain the grade to your parents. When Junior said you couldnıt play with his PlayStation, I talked him into letting both of us play. When Tevy didnıt let you go to the mall with her and her friends, you and I did something cool." In a solemn voice, I told her that she could have broken the bed, as my older nephews as well as her father had done, or injured herself and that I as her aunt would have felt very bad and would have been responsible.

As I walked out of the room, I said, "I love you, you are my favorite niece but yet you donıt feel the same way. Fine! Iıll just leave you alone. If thatıs the way you want it, then thatıs the way you got it." She yelled, "Wait, Aunt Lori!," as she ran in front of me and hugged me around the waist. I ignored her and but she held on. She began to cry and promised that she would not be so difficult in the future. None of the three components of pisteis worked for me individually but only as a unit. By gathering the facts, witnessing her actions, building my reputation, as an adult, her aunt and someone who cares, and playing on her emotions, I was able to persuade her to behave in the way that I wanted. I never realized that these tactics they worked as a unit until I came across Aristotleıs theory. As a result, I will use the unit as a rule of thumb in every situation, as it can only benefit me.

Thinking Critically about World Wide Web Resources
by Esther Grassian, UCLA College Library
The World Wide Web has a lot to offer, but not all sources are equally valuable or reliable. Here are some points to consider. For
additional points regarding Web sites for subject disciplines, see Thinking Critically about Discipline-Based World Wide Web
Resources.
Content & Evaluation
Who is the audience?
What is the purpose of the Web Page & what does it contain?
How complete and accurate are the information and the links provided?
What is the relative value of the Web site in comparison to the range of information resources available on this topic? (Note:
Be sure to check with a librarian.)
What other resources (print & non-print) are available in this area?
What are the date(s) of coverage of the site and site-specific documents?
How comprehensive is this site?
What are the link selection criteria if any?
Are the links relevant and appropriate for the site?
Is the site inward-focused, pointing outward, or both?
Is there an appropriate balance between inward-pointing links ("inlinks" i.e., within the same site)&
outward-pointing links ("outlinks" i.e., to other sites)?
Are the links comprehensive or do they just provide a sampler?
What do the links offer that is not easily available in other sources?
Are the links evaluated in any way?
Is there an appropriate range of Internet resources -- e.g., links to gophers?
Is multimedia appropriately incorporated?
How valuable is the information provided in the Web Page (intrinsic value)?
Source & Date
Who is the author or producer?
What is the authority or expertise of the individual or group that created this site?
How knowledgeable is the individual or group on the subject matter of the site?
Is the site sponsored or co-sponsored by an individual or group that has created other Web sites?
Is any sort of bias evident?
When was the Web item produced?
When was the Web item mounted?
When was the Web item last revised?
How up to date are the links?
How reliable are the links; are there blind links, or references to sites which have moved?
Is contact information for the author or producer included in the document?
Structure
Does the document follow good graphic design principles?
Do the graphics and art serve a function or are they decorative?
Do the icons clearly represent what is intended?
Does the text follow basic rules of grammar, spelling and literary composition?
Is there an element of creativity, and does it add to or detract from the document itself?
Can the text stand alone for use in line-mode (text only) Web browsers as well as multimedia browsers, or is there an option
for line-mode browsers?
Is attention paid to the needs of the disabled -- e.g., large print and graphics options; audio; alternative text for graphics?
Are links provided to Web "subject trees" or directories -- lists of subject-arranged Web sources?
How usable is the site? Can visitors get the information they need within a reasonable number of links (preferably 3 or fewer
clicks)?
Other
Is appropriate interactivity available?
When it is necessary to send confidential information out over the Internet, is encryption (i.e., a secure coding system)
available? How secure is it?
Are there links to search engines or is a search engine attached to (embedded in) the Web site?
Created by Esther Grassian, UCLA College Library, 6/95.
Permission is granted for unlimited non-commercial use of this guide.© Regents of the University of California
Comments to: College Library Web Administrator
Updated September 6, 2000

MLA Documentation: Use parenthetical documentation (23) after the quotes: Descartes wrote "I think therefore I am." (23) Then in the bibliography, (make sure it is alphabetized) put in full publication or production details.

Books:

Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random, 1998.

Articles:

Kaplan, Robert D. "History Moving North." Atlantic Monthly Feb. 1997: 21+.

Cheuse, Alan. "Narrative Painting and Pictorial Fiction." Antioch Review 55 (1997): 277-91.

France, Peter. "His Own Biggest Hero." Rev of Victor Hugo, by Graham Robb. New York Times Book Review 15 Jan. 1998:7.

Online:

Spanoudis, Steve, Bob Blair, and Nelson Miller. Poets' Corner. 7 June 1999. 13 June 1999 <http:www.geocities.com/~spanoudi/poems>.

Blue Note Records. 9 June 1999. Blue Note Records. 9 June 1999 <http:www.bluenote.com>.

Coontz, Stephanie. "Family Myths, Family Realities." Salon 12 Dec. 1997. 3 Feb.2000 <http://www.salonmagazine.com/mwt/teature/1997/12/23coontz.html>.

Email:

Schubert, Josephine. "Re: Culture Shock." E-mail to the author. 14 Mar. 2000.

Film:

The English Patient. dir. Anthony Minghella. Perf. Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Miramax, 1996.

TV:

Primates. Wild Discovery. Discovery Channel. 23 Mar. 1998.