A Post-Truth World

In 2016, the Oxford Dictionaries chose post-truth as its word of the year. Oxford defined post-truth as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Tsipursky, 2017, para. 2). One reason “post-truth” was selected as the word of the year was that Oxford noticed the use of the term had increased over 2,000% during the year, largely because of the nature of the presidential election that featured Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Steinmetz, 2016).

 

The use of this term has highlighted the distrust the public might have about the kinds of facts that are distributed to them by “the establishment,” which could include politicians, mainstream media, corporations, etc. As Anthony Gooch, director of public affairs and communications at the OECD stated, “We now face the uncomfortable reality that truth, fact, statistics, and ‘expert’ views are losing currency in decision-making . . . being replaced by assertions that ‘feel right’ . . . on the grounds that they challenge the elite and vested interests” (Gooch, 2017, para. 6). This distrust in truth and traditional media changes the way arguments happen. If arguments are no longer based in facts and supported claims, they cease to be argument at all.

Steve Tesich was probably the first person to use the term “post-truth” in its current meaning. Tesich wrote that Americans “as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world” (“‘Post-Truth,’” 2016, para. 3). His point was that the American public was letting politicians get away with horrible things in fighting the Gulf War by not questioning them enough about selling weapons to Iran. Though this phrase was initially used almost 20 years ago, its dramatic increase in usage shows how that mentality toward truth started to evolve.

Specifically, the term “post-truth” was popularized by both Ralph Keyes, who wrote the 2004 book “The Post-Truth Era,” and by Stephen Colbert who coined the term “truthiness” to refer to “something that ‘seeming or felt to be true’ even when it is not” (“‘Post-Truth,’” 2016, para. 4). Colbert elaborated on his meaning of the term “truthiness” as being when “what I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly true. It is not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There is not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality” (Think Progress, 2012, para. 7). While truthiness and a post-truth reality are distinct, the Colbert discussion highlights the declining value of objective truth over time. Additionally, it recognizes the reluctance audiences have to call something that is not true a falsity, instead its “truthiness.” This trend toward post-truth realities has led to people becoming more willing to accept appeals to emotion over fact. The equation of truth with truthiness has made it easier for arguers to reject objective truths. While the use of pathos in argument is nothing new, the way that it has increasingly been used to dismiss facts is a disturbing phenomenon.

Another example that has been tied to discussion of a new post-truth society is the Brexit vote of 2016. Many believe that the “Leavers” were ultimately successful in that campaign because of appeals to emotion and use of questionable data, while the “Remain” campaign was too reliant on objective facts (Tompsett, 2017). One example of a claim that “Leavers” have been criticized for post-referendum is when they claimed “that leaving the EU would save the U.K. £350 million ($435 million) per week, only to later drop the claim after the vote for Brexit” (Gaffey, 2016, para. 3). This claim was paired with appeals to emotion related to the quality of life increases that would come if that money were to be saved. Despite this data being questionable, at best, its pairing with appeals to emotion made their movement successful. Hopefully, this serves to highlight the potential dangers of believing information that has not been adequately tested.

The existence of the post-truth society has changed the nature of argumentation. The fact that so many people would be willing to make important decisions based on emotion or personal belief rather than objective fact makes it ever-more important that today’s students are aware of these trends and are equipped with the best skills to encourage decision making on the basis of rational, logical reasoning.

Scholars have started investigating what it is that leads people to want to make decisions on the basis of emotion rather than fact. Norbert Schwarz of the USC Mind and Society Center believes that “when people consider whether something is true or not, they engage in either analytic or intuitive evaluations” (Vavreck, 2017, para. 4). The difference between analytic and intuitive evaluations is largely based on how much effort goes into the process of making the decision. Analytic evaluations “are cognitively taxing and may involve searching for information like knowledge drawn from books or experts” (Vavreck, 2017, para. 4). Alternatively, intuitive evaluations are easier and largely based on emotion or what is already understood. The existence of new technology and the Internet has made it even easier for people to feel comfortable in making these intuitive evaluations. As Matthew D’acona wrote, “[T]he internet . . . represents a kind of dream vector for post-truth” (Tompsett, 2017, para. 13). This helps explain why the models learned in the study of argumentation are so critical, because they can change the starting point for how people process important decisions. It is possible to separate fact from fiction and we can work toward clearer understanding in an objective reality.

Pushback against the rise of “post-truth” society is important not just for the quality of our individual decisions but also for our democratic society. Operating in emotional vacuums paves the way for bad decisions, and leaders who lead through fear and emotion, not through facts. Inquiry, dissent, idea testing, trust in public institutions, and a commitment to civil discourse are all necessary for the continued success of our democratic form of government.

Benefits of Improved Critical Thinking Skills

Fundamentally, critical thinking is thinking about how we think. It was originally conceived from the ancient Greek ideal of “living an examined life.” As such, it is not possible to think about how we engage in thinking just one time and call it good. Dr. Richard Paul, former director of research and professional development at the Center for Critical Thinking argued that critical thinking was “the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it” (Paul & Elder, 2006, p. 4).

This means critical thinking is

• a process,
• continuous, and
• able to be constantly improved.

Paul believed critical thinking was an art because it would take time and practice to be “good” at it. It is also an art because the process of critical thinking requires imagination. This includes imagining new ways for ourselves to see the world and thinking more about how others might view the world as well. We analyze our thought processes when we take them apart and consider how we can rework them to be better. Analyzing our thinking also includes gathering information—whether that be facts, additional research, or just feedback from others. Evaluating thinking means questioning whether we should continue to rely on our previous conclusions. This would include developing standards of rationality and logical reasoning by which to judge our thinking (many of which will be discussed throughout this text). This chart might be a helpful way to visualize the differences between critical and non-critical thinking:

Critical Thinking	Non-Critical Thinking
Seek complete information to arrive at a decision	Make decision based on partial or wrong information
Have a clear focus	Drift and easily get distracted
Base judgement on evidence and facts	Base judgment on hearsay, preferences, or self-interests
Control feeling and emotions	Get emotional
Make decisions with the head	Make decisions with heart
Open-minded	Close-minded
Interested in hearing alternative views and opinions	Unwilling to entertain views and opinions of others
Realistic about their ability	Overestimate their ability
Validate assumptions	Make assumptions which may not necessarily be true
Sensitive to bias and distortions in decision making	Fall prey to bias and other distortions
Persevere	Easily give up

Figure 1.2 Critical Versus Non-Critical Thinking

Training in argumentation makes us better at critical thinking. A study by Sanders and Wiseman (1994) proved that argumentation is a vehicle for teaching critical thinking. Specifically, this study compared students who had completed a course in argumentation with those who had not completed such a course and “revealed that those students trained in argumentation were better able to identify logically weak arguments than those who had not received such instruction” (Sanders & Wiseman, 1994, p. 28). That argumentation is able to actually develop skills in critical thinking is significant because studies have shown that while many courses have claimed to deal with teaching critical thinking “only 9% of the respondents were clearly teaching for critical thinking on a typical day in class” (Paul, Elder, & Bartell, 1997, para. 16).

That training in argumentation increases critical thinking skills is good news for students, as research indicates that most college students could benefit from stronger critical thinking skills. One study found that “only a fraction of graduating high school seniors (6 percent of 12th graders) can make informed critical judgements about written texts” (Yanklowitz, 2013, para. 1). To reinforce this, a recent LinkedIn survey found that 58% of hiring managers said job candidates lacked the soft skills necessary to be quality employees and that is limiting their company’s ability to be productive and successful. Soft skills are “similar to emotions or insights that allow people to ‘read’ others” and include skills such as decision making, critical thinking, problem-solving, and conflict resolution (Doyle, 2018, para. 6). As the United States and global economies continue to shift and the demand for quality employees increases, this will likely continue to be a factor separating out candidates in competition for key positions.

Ultimately, most people could do more to scrutinize their thinking and behaviors to make sure that they are rational. We have all likely taken action uncritically and have seen others do the same. For example, you have gone to the grocery store to buy milk and fruit, but also come home with a cake that was a “great deal” or “looked delicious” without stopping to think if it would fit into your grocery budget for the week or whether it would be good (health wise) for you to eat. You have probably been in group meetings and seen people agree with action that was popular with the majority of the members but not necessarily the most efficient or ethical reaction to the situation being discussed. Our reaction to these situations should be to strive to be better through utilization of our skills in critical thinking and good judgment.

There are several long-term and everyday benefits that you will experience by being better at critical thinking:

Understanding Core Course Content

As a student, you will no doubt see understanding and knowledge retention benefits from developing your argumentation and critical thinking skills. Andriessen (2006) argued that argumentation “facilities storage of and access to knowledge in memory, and the development of elaborate mental models, which helps inference generation, problem solving, and learning” (p. 6). What this means is that you could see improved results in all of the courses that you take based on development of argument and reasoning skills. As we will also discuss later in the text, argumentation is a collaborative, reflective process, which promotes deeper conceptual understanding, in and outside the argumentation setting. Critical thinking requires understanding and research about options, which also promotes knowledge retention. Studies have argued that “students who know how to analyze and critique ideas are able to make connections across disciplines, see knowledge as useful and applicable to daily life, and understand content on a deeper, more lasting level” (Rayhanul-Islam, 2015, para.11).

More Productive Disagreements With Less Verbal Aggression

Conflicts are more effectively resolved when participants/arguers can stay on topic without resulting in verbal aggression (or yelling, teasing, ridicule, etc.). Studies have shown that “learning argumentation enhances both the self-reported need for cognition and argumentativeness, but decreases verbal aggressiveness” (Sanders & Wiseman, 1994, p. 25). The implication of such studies is that knowing how to effectively argue causes someone to “perceive the benefits of arguing and complex thinking,” thus they would not be driven to verbal aggressiveness because they have an understanding about how that could complicate the ability to resolve a dispute (Sanders & Wiseman, 1994, p. 29).

Additionally, those skilled in critical thinking will be “more likely to recognize the value of intellectual and ideological diversity—they understand that truth comes in pieces and is unlikely to be found all in one place” (Gabennesch, 2006, para. 36). Ideally, this means that tolerance will increase. This reduces the need for aggression and violence because those involved in a dispute are more likely to understand how each party has important ideas to contribute and is likely “right” about something. This realization can do a lot to improve the productivity of our disagreements.

Informed Decision Making

The study of argument and reasoning helps you make better and more informed decisions. Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data is easier with more mechanisms available and is easier to assess the information presented to you. You are likely to understand the importance of research to confirm whether facts are true, rather than blindly accepting what you have been told. This research will be easier because you will understand what pieces of information you need in order to make an accurate decision. You should understand how making decisions on the basis of these facts is better than making decisions on the basis of emotional reactions to situations.

Problem-Solving Skills

Critical thinkers are able to test new ideas and experiences, which helps generate solutions to problems. Problems, some minor and some more serious, happen in workplaces and in life every day. Employers obviously need workers who are able to solve problems on a regular basis, especially those that they would consider promoting into upper management. Interestingly, a Harris Interactive survey of 2,001 U.S. college students and 1,000 hiring managers last fall found that 69% of students felt they were “very or completely prepared” for problem-solving tasks in the workplace, while fewer than half of the employers agreed” (Korn, 2014, para.16). What this illustrates is that students often think they are much better at problem-solving than they actually are, that workplaces are in need of employees who can rise to that challenge, and that additional training is necessary in education to guarantee preparedness for the future. This will likely become even more necessary as businesses and the economy become more reliant on technology. Reliance on personal bias or emotion, rather than rationality and logic often hinders problem-solving.

Ability to Innovate

Creative advances and development of inventions are easier when there are people around who are skilled at critical thinking. Significant advancement has been made throughout history by individuals who questioned the way things were currently operating or understood and used that knowledge to develop new ideas, understanding, or products.

What has been demonstrated through this section is that “there is hardly a time or a place where [critical thinking] would not seem to be of potential value. As long as people have purposes in mind and wish to judge how to accomplish them, as long as people wonder what is true and what is not, what to believe and what to reject, strong critical thinking is going to be necessary” (Sieck, 2017, para. 30).

The Importance and Function of Civil Discourse

The value of critical thinking and skill in argumentation is not just one that has personal benefits for each student exposed. Critical thinking skills are valuable to society as well. Most importantly, a focus on critical thinking is necessary to help promote a culture that values civil discourse. Civil discourse is “robust, honest, frank and constructive dialogue and deliberation that seeks to advance the public interest” (Rosseau, 2011, para. 5). Bill Maki (2016) has further suggested that civil discourse requires “respect of the other participants . . . it avoids hostility, direct antagonism, or excessive persuasion; it requires modesty and an appreciation for the other participants experience” (para.1). Strong emotional reactions versus logical reactions to social and political issues compromises civil discourse. Many commentators have argued that civil discourse is on “life support” in America (Petrille, 2017). Multiple studies substantiate the views of these commentators. Weber Shandwick’s annual “Civility in America” (2018) survey in 2018 found that “93% of Americans believe that the U.S. has a civility problem” and “more than 8 in 10 Americans have at one time or another experienced incivility” (Patterson, 2018, para. 3). A large percentage of Americans have said they quit paying attention to politics because of incivility (Plazas, 2017). An iCitizen (“Civility in American Politics,” 2017) poll went on to show that “90 percent of respondents said there was a great decline in civility and high numbers attributed that primarily to Congress, the news media and President Donald Trump” (Plazas, 2017, para. 10). The lack of perceived civility on both sides has also led to increase political polarization. Polarization is at an all-time high. There is a large gap between liberals and conservatives (or, in the United States, Democrats and Republicans). This gap is partially explained by policy differences, but mounting incivility (perceived and actual) has pushed the sides even farther apart. In Congress, we have seen more decisions made strictly along party lines—where once compromise and deliberative debate was a feature of this institution, now there is all-or-nothing dogmatism.

 

This chart shows how political polarization is higher now and is growing more than it has since the 1800s. Even if it is true that at other times in our history we have also been significantly polarized, it is not necessarily true that polarization is good for American’s perceptions of the political environment in the United States. Congressional approval ratings are extremely low, largely because of polarization and the inability of our primary legislative bodies to get anything done. Political polarization contributes to the lack of confidence and trust in our political system. The iCitizen (“Civility in American Politics,” 2017) poll previously referenced further shows that this behavior in Congress is likely to continue to spill down to the rest of society—meaning other people will mimic that behavior and feel less need for compromise in their everyday lives.

 

In addition to Congress or other political figures, the news media and the rising use of social media have been blamed for the current levels of incivility in the United States. One reason is that more people than ever are able to have a platform to broadcast their views to the general public. Dale Fleury (2017) explains that by arguing “we live in a climate ripe for noise: Media outlets and 24-hour news cycles mean that everyone with access to a computer has access to a megaphone to broadcast their views. Never before in human history has an opinion had the opportunity to reach so many so quickly regardless of its accuracy or appropriateness” (para. 7). Once these views are made public, social media can also function as a tool to create echo chambers that further drive polarization. An echo chamber is “a space that surrounds us with similar attitudes to our own” (Kramer, 2016, para. 3). Murali Balaji (2016) claims that “for all of its democratizing potential, how people use social media has helped to reify walls between and among groups, has turned Facebook threads, Twitter feeds, and Instagram posts into platforms for demonization. Social media has become the tool by which like-minded individuals can feed off each other” (para. 5). No dissent or argument testing is likely and vitriol is high in these situations. Figure 1.4 helps demonstrate how social media sources such as Facebook and Twitter are likely to help us see news and information that we are already likely to agree with.

The reason this matters is that “those who come in social media driven groups and exchanges are now part of a generation that is increasingly hostile to ideas that challenge their self-constructed narratives” (Balaji, 2016, para. 7). You have probably heard of situations where someone blocked another social media user for expressing a view counter to theirs. For example, if a friend shared a post on their Facebook wall about gun control and a debate ensued and then that friend “unfriended” or blocked someone who expressed views counter to the ones they originally shared, then they would be helping to create the kind of echo chamber being discussed. Politicians have been criticized for blocking users on Twitter accounts. Now, there is growing debate over whether this type of behavior not only violates the rights of constituents to redress their grievances with the government, but also is creating a situation where some politicians are creating their own echo chambers.

The anonymity that is allowed on the Internet has also contributed to the rise of incivility. One recent study showed “staggering differences in the quality of comments on news websites when readers could post anonymously. When comments were attached to a real username or person, they were classified as “uncivil” around 29% of the time. When comments were anonymous, that jumped to over 53%” (Golbeck, 2014, para. 1). “Anons” or Internet “trolls” are more likely to share their views since it can happen without them having to attach their name to it. Golbeck (2014) further argued that “this behavior is explained by the “online disinhibition effect.” The theory says that anonymity is one of the reasons that people say and do things online that they would never do in person. Since they do not have to face the consequences for their anonymous actions, they feel free to let out an uninhibited version of themselves. This results in uncivil commenting” (para. 3, internal citations omitted).

All these factors put together have created a situation where more and more people are becoming overly emotionally invested in their opinions and more prone to extremist or violent action. One reason for the manifestation of such violence is the lack of ability to engage in a rational, civil way with people who might hold opposing viewpoints to their own.

 

This often describes reactions to political arguments that occur on social media:

The study of argumentation and development of refined critical thinking skills is a way we have to fight back against the rising tide of incivility in our culture. One important function is to teach ways to respectfully disagree and challenge others without resorting to discrediting, disrespect, or even violence. Plato and Aristotle even originally argued that it is the foundation of deliberative democracy. Unfortunately, “the ability to listen to and attempt to understand other’s beliefs without resorting to short-sighted emotional outbursts rarely comes naturally . . . but as with many other skills, it can be learned and practiced, and it is invaluable due to its applicability to a myriad of real-life situations” (Anesi, 2017, para. 9). Labeling others beliefs as ridiculous or stupid or deciding someone is evil or unacceptable because they disagree with you contributes to incivility and divides the nation. Just consider the situation when Donald Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as a “nasty woman” in one of the 2016 presidential debates. Specifically the transcript reads:

DEBATE MODERATOR CHRIS WALLACE: Will you as president entertain—will you consider a grand bargain, a deal that includes both tax increases and benefit cuts to try to save both programs [Social Security and Medicare]?

CLINTON: Well, Chris, I am on record as saying that we need to put more money into the Social Security trust fund. That’s part of my commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy. My Social Security payroll contribution will go up, as will Donald’s, assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it. But what we want to do is to replenish the Social Security trust fund. . . .

TRUMP: Such a nasty woman. (Ross, 2016)

Multiple Twitter reactions to Trump’s comment and the influence that comment has had on the 2016 election and beyond helps prove how that type of rhetoric and response to another’s argument promotes division rather than civility.

 

Just because you know or believe that something is true does not invalidate another’s views on that subject. Furthermore, if you don’t acknowledge that other views exist, you will find yourself unequipped to properly defend your ideas. Effective arguers and critical thinkers even actually seek out contradictory points of view to guarantee that they have considered all sides and have a fully formed and accurate opinion on the issues. This means engaging in reasoned judgment and fact-collecting along with supporting respect and tolerance for other opinions. Too much value is currently placed on “being right [over] finding the truth or working through problems with others” (Baird, 2016, para. 16). Also, we do ourselves a disservice if we become convinced that direct disagreement with others should not occur. People hold opinions quietly, and rarely reveal them to people around them except in echo chambers of like-minded people. This can lead to radicalization of opinions and a belief that one cannot be wrong or hold incorrect opinions, and this, in itself, hampers civil discourse.

 

The consequences of a continued decline in levels of civil discourse are real and frightening. As discussed earlier, civil discourse is essential to the proper functioning of our deliberative democracy. The ability to express all opinions, even those of the minority, the willingness of individuals to participate in the democratic process, and to adequately test ideas all require civil discourse. Harri Raisio (2010) explains that “deliberation enhances moral perception and facilitates empathy, which make possible decisions that are not only sounder but also morally better . . . empirical proofs which support the notion that public deliberation leads citizens to focus more on the public good” (para. 34).

Not only is civil discourse the foundation of a proper democracy, but the lack of civil discourse is contributing to rising levels of violence. Teresa Bejan (2017) is fearful that “our wars of words threaten to give way to swords, the historically minded may detect an uncanny echo of another earlier modern crisis of civility” (para. 3). Martin Luther posted his “95 Theses” to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany 500 years ago. Arguably, this launched the Protestant Reformation which, for centuries, not only caused violence, but also persecution and oppression based on religious beliefs. Unfortunately, we don’t really even need to look that far back in history to find violence caused by a lack of civility. Results from the report “Civility in America” find that “most Americans report they have been victims of incivility (86%). Their most common encounters with rude or disrespectful behavior come while driving (72%) or shopping (65%). Americans also admit to perpetrating incivility—approximately six in 10 (59%) Americans acknowledge that they themselves have been uncivil” (Williams, 2016, para. 6). Cyberbullying, mass shootings, and riots are further examples of this incivility.

Also, as former President Obama urged, “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation” (2011, para. 63). The United States has several pressing issues to act on—health care, the economy, immigration, etc., and little action is possible in a world of continued polarization. In a very real way, civil discourse is needed for society to function. As Jim Taylor (2009) concluded, “[C]ivility is an expression of a fundamental understanding and respect for the laws, rules, and norms (written and implicit) that guide its citizens in understanding what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For a society to function, people must be willing to accept those strictures” (para. 5).

Strategies for Reviving Civil Discourse

Each of us has a role to play in reviving civil discourse in America. This can happen if we all focus our efforts in three important areas: seeking new and alterative perspectives, encouraging constructive dialogue, and increasing information quality.

Seek New and Alternative Perspectives

Echo chambers and political polarization are not the answer to the problems society is facing. The best way to investigate solutions is to discuss all the information available. Each of us should expand interaction with those who might disagree with us. At worst, we learn the opposite side of our position so we can be better advocates in favor of it. At best, we learn that portions of these alternative perspectives make sense and could add to and improve the quality of our position. It is important that we reframe ideas to avoid them being conceived of as either-or choices. There are rarely only two options, and the more we dig into those limited options, the more we constrain ourselves. Similarly, individuals should avoid extremism. It is in these situations where polarization thrives.

Encourage Constructive Dialogue

Compromise and collaboration are better options than violence and vitriol. It is possible for us to unite over issues we all face if we can understand that we are all facing those issues together. The quality of our interactions would improve if we focused on discussion of issues, rather than people. Each person should do their part to avoid name-calling, disrespect, labeling, or anger in all our interactions; this only adds fuel to the fire. Studies have found this to be especially the case in our Internet interactions where it is so easy for people to interpret tone the wrong way or exaggerate their responses based on initial impression.

Increase Information Quality

Accurate and reliable information is essential. We can improve our civil discourse if we increase our standards and utilize proper techniques for determining source quality, helping to make sure the information on which we base our opinions is worthy of our consideration. It is important that we push back against the spread of disinformation and misinformation. If you know something is inaccurate, do not share it. False stories reach 1,500 people six times quicker, on average, than a true story does, and are 70% more likely to be re-tweeted (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018). Furthermore, 23% of Americans admit they have shared a fake news story, with over half of them admitting they knew it was untrue, or at least partially untrue (Vosoughi, et.al., 2018). These statistics are frightening and should be unacceptable. If others are sharing inaccurate or misleading information, make sure they know by using constructive dialogue. Finally, we can support reforms such as pushing search engines like Google to de-prioritize websites that are known to use or spread false information. Content providers could be more hands-on in removing what is obviously bad information. An example is Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, Apple, and Vimeo, who removed content from Alex Jones on the grounds that it was fictitious, hate speech, or violated their community standards. This was a positive step, and could continue in the interest of placing higher standards on the quality of information we find to be acceptable on the Internet.

How to Argue Ethically

Complex topics that are relevant and socially engaging clearly can be heated, controversial, and polarizing. Advocates should be cognizant about the ethical nature of the arguments that they make and can be asked to refute. Ethics is the “general and systematic study of what ought to be the grounds and principles for right and wrong human behavior” (Johannesen, Valde, & Whedbee, 2008, p. 1). Ethics becomes an issue as our behavior and communication, specifically our arguments, have the potential to impact other people. Philosopher S. Jack Odell believed “ethical principles are necessary preconditions for the existence of a social community. Without ethical principles it would be impossible for human beings to live in harmony and without fear, despair, hopelessness, anxiety, apprehension, and uncertainty” (Odell, 1983, p. 95).

The most ideal arguments are viewed as collaborative dialogues. A dialogue is an orientation toward communication and “involves a genuine concern [for] the welfare and fulfillment of the other and a conscious choice making in response to the demands of specified situations” (Johannesen, Valde, & Whedbee, 2008, p. 54). Too often, argument is viewed as something that must be overly competitive, based on certain power dynamics, or an exercise in domination. Rather, argument should be viewed as an opportunity to engage in a discussion to resolve a dispute, share information, and build relationships. It is often not productive to remain in an argument situation with someone who believes that aggression, ridicule, guilt, or other expressions of anger are a necessary component of the disagreement. A dialogue should preserve the participants’ right to free decision making. Argument should not be coercive. The best rationale or evidence should help an arguer “win,” not express power or mechanisms of domination. This is not to say that there are not forms of argument (structured debates, etc.) where a winner is decided, just that even this type of competition to test ideas does not require that the nature of the discussion to be one where someone feels abused, manipulated, dominated, or coerced.

The goal of a course in argumentation, and of this text, is to help explain the best ways to succeed using argument in a rational, logical way. Arguers that rely on manipulation—both emotional manipulation and/or manipulation of data—are not ethical. A recent controversy has centered on the emotional manipulation present in advertisements for cancer centers in the United States. A study financed by the National Institutes of Health looked at 409 ads from 102 cancer centers and found that 85% of them were designed to heighten emotion and generate fear. While “41 percent referred to cancer treatment as a ‘fight’ or a ‘battle’ and 30 percent of them induced fear . . . just 2 percent of the ads mentioned risk and just 5 percent discussed costs or health care coverage” (Santa, 2014, para. 3). The arguments for and against different types of cancer treatments and where they can be offered are plentiful if you stick to facts, statistics, and other evidence. Avoiding discussion of risk and cost in favor of appeals to the hopes and fears of those with cancer and their families is a questionably ethical argumentative strategy.

Additionally, arguers are responsible for the quality of the evidence or data they use to support their claims. They have a responsibility to make sure that the data they have generated is credible and are accountable for how they use and present data. Arguers should not distort or conceal data from others. Sometimes, this type of distortion can present not only ethical dilemmas, but legal ones as well. Take, for example, the litigation against tobacco companies. The tobacco companies were accused of concealing data about the prevalence and chance of addiction to their products and of failing to properly warn of other dangers. The best arguers will even offer alternative perspectives or give out new information on all sides of the topic being discussed to generate the best discussion and solutions.

Executive Summary

Now that you have finished reading this chapter you can do the following:

• Define post-truth and explain how objective facts have become less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief:
  • In 2016, the Oxford Dictionaries chose “post-truth” as its word of the year. Oxford defined post-truth as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Tsipursky, 2017, para. 2).
  • The existence of the post-truth society has changed the nature of argumentation. The fact that so many people would be willing to make important decisions based on emotion or personal belief rather than objective fact makes it ever-more important that today’s students are aware of these trends and are equipped with the best skills to encourage decision making on the basis of rational, logical reasoning instead.
• Define critical thinking and understand how argumentation can improve your critical thinking skills:
  • Many scholars have offered opinions on the question “What is critical thinking?” over the years, and thus you might have seen it defined in a variety of ways. Paul & Elder (2006) argued that critical thinking was “the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it” (p.4).
  • Fundamentally, critical thinking is thinking about how we think. It was originally conceived from the ancient Greek ideal of “living an examined life.” As such, it is not possible to think about how we engage in thinking just one time and call it good. The process of thinking is something that must be continually examined and improved on to make sure we are achieving the best results.
  • Training in argumentation makes us better at critical thinking. Studies prove that argumentation is a vehicle for teaching critical thinking. Specifically, students who had completed a course in argumentation were better able to identify logically weak arguments than those who had not received such instruction.
• Identify practical benefits of improving your skills in critical thinking and explain how those benefits could be significant to your everyday life:
  • There are several long-term and everyday benefits that you will experience by being better at critical thinking: understanding core course content, more productive disagreements with less verbal aggression, informed decision making, better problem-solving skills, and the ability to innovate and challenge the status quo.
• Discuss the significance of civil discourse to the future of our representative democracy and develop strategies for reviving civil discourse in America:
  • Civil discourse is on life support in the United States. Increased polarization in political culture, access to forms of social media, online disinhibition effects, and the anonymity of the Internet are all part of the reason why.
  • The consequences of a continued decline in levels of civil discourse are real and frightening. Civil discourse is essential to the proper functioning of our deliberative democracy. The ability to express all opinions, even those of the minority, the willingness of individuals to participate in the democratic process, and to adequately test ideas all require civil discourse.
  • The lack of civil discourse is contributing to rising levels of violence. Cyberbullying, mass shootings, and riots are further examples of this incivility.
• Utilize ethical standards to achieve success in future arguments based on rational appeal and logic:
  • The most ideal arguments are viewed as dialogues. Too often, argument is viewed as something that must be overly competitive, based on certain power dynamics, or be an exercise in domination. Rather, argument should be viewed as an opportunity to engage in a discussion to resolve a dispute, share information, and build relationships.
  • Arguers are responsible for the quality of the evidence or data they use to support their claims. They have a responsibility to make sure that the data they have generated is credible and are accountable for how they use and present data. Arguers should not distort or conceal data from others. The best arguers will even offer alternative perspectives or give out new information on all sides of the topic being discussed to generate the best discussion and solutions.

Discussion Questions

1. In a world of post-truth, is argumentation possible? What can you do to combat the effects of the post-truth society that we live in? Have you ever found yourself driven more by emotion than facts or evidence? What caused that to happen? How did you respond?
2. How do you think the rise in use of social media platforms has influenced civil discourse in the United States? What role do you think social media can play in reducing incivility? Will politicians be able to change behavior enough to reduce the rising tide of violence in America that appears to be related to rising levels of incivility?
3. Discuss the benefits of increased critical thinking skills. Beyond possible employment benefits, what do you think are the important practical benefits of these skills? How do you think a course in argumentation will specifically be able to improve your critical thinking skills? Why do you think previous studies have proven that those with training in argumentation are better critical thinkers than those who have not had such a course?
4. What strategies and mechanisms do you think are best for assisting students at becoming ethical arguers? What things would you include if you were writing a “code” or standards for ethical argument? Do you believe arguers have an ethical obligation to disclose information that could be damaging to their arguments or position?
5. Do you believe that civil discourse is on “life support” in the United States? Can you think of any examples of violence that have occurred in the United States that could be related to rising levels of incivility? How could appeals to rationality or logic have better resolved any of those disputes?

Terms to Remember

anonymity

civil discourse

critical thinking

deliberative democracy

dialogue

echo chamber

ethics

ethnocentrism

manipulation

online disinhibition effect

polarization

post-truth

truthiness