Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement

by Scott F. Aikin, Robert B. Talisse

Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement presents an accessible and engaging introduction to the theory of argument, with special emphasis on the way argument works in public political debate. The authors develop a view according to which proper argument is necessary for one’s individual cognitive health; this insight is then expanded to the collective health of one’s society. Proper argumentation, then, is seen to play a central role in a well-functioning democracy. Written in a lively style and filled with examples drawn from the real world of contemporary politics, and questions following each chapter to encourage discussion, Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement reads like a guide for the participation in, and maintenance of, modern democracy. An excellent student resource for courses in critical thinking, political philosophy, and related fields, Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement is an important contribution to reasoned debate.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

168 pages, Hardcover

First published September 24, 2013

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aiken and Talisse do a fantastic job at not only diagnosing the problems we all seem to have with the way we form and present arguments, but also establishing strategies for combatting this problem.

Personally, I found it to be a reflective experience, as I have been guilty of the issues they focus on many times over. The only issue that I have is whether or not we can realistically change the way that we argue online. It seems so daunting a task that perhaps these suggestions from the authors are not enough.

[Shahenshah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book for logicians and students.

[Eric Bottorff · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful supplement to the standard fare one gets in a logic or critical thinking course. The authors to some extent are just making explicit (and thus opening up for further argument) the philosophical underpinning of a standard intro to logic/critical thinking course, for better or worse. The most glaring omission/problem is the relatively small discussion of the social and institutional underpinnings which would be sufficient for the kind of culture of democratic argument they are describing and defending and urging us to strive for. Not that this is totally ignored--they note in passing how the political economy of the media incentives poor argument, and briefly discuss argumentative/ideological consequences of group polarization (they noticeably don't mention group *inequality*)--but they tend to fall back on a kind of virtue ethics and thus individualistic admonition for better and more civil democratic argument. (Their treatment of "civil debate" is actually quite good, which is refreshing given how civility is more often employed as a way to silence marginalized voices.) And the chapters on framing/spin and online argument can probably be skimmed or just skipped over.

Nonetheless, by placing the topic of argument into a social and political context, this book should be of great pedagogical value. As the authors themselves note, they are trying to start (or continue, really) an argument about argument, an approach typically lacking in a standard logic text, which presents the materials as if students are basically learning rules of algebra and not seriously thinking about the messy world of actual argument.

[Augustin Erba · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basics of a decent discussion

I like that the authors believe in arguments. I agree that a good discussion can either fine-tune my arguments or change my opinion. I would have liked more examples - here's how X won the argument over Y, here's how Z forced W to change position on subject P. And, of course, too few examples of international political disagreement.