Argumentation

Argumentation

(from lat. Argumentatio - bringing arguments) - bring the arguments with the intention to change the beliefs of others. Parties (audiences). Among such arguments can be references to, more general and seeming reliable principles on the adopted system of beliefs, on a tradition or intuition, for or taste, etc. Extremely diverse and heterogeneous techniques, with the help of which can be formed and change beliefs, the arguments of the theory are being studied. These techniques depend on the specific area of \u200b\u200bknowledge, from the audience, from social groups and societies as a whole, from the originality of the culture, or civilization, in which they add up and apply.
In A. differ - (or approvals), which the argumentary side considers it necessary to inspire the audience, and the argument, or, is one or more associated statements intended to support the thesis.
Theory A. is a complex discipline that exists at the junction of a number of sciences engaged in the study of human communications and knowledge. Among these sciences and logic, history, and, linguistics and, etc., more or less systematic study of A. began in antiquity, during the transition from the mythological interpretation of the world to its rational explanation. The study of A. Theory, a long called "rhetoric", has always been considered a necessary element of humanitarian education. All R. 20 V. In the theory of A. Began, in the radically changing style of its reasoning and its methods and attached to this discipline as if second breathing.
Theory A. Explore the diverse ways to persuade the audience using speech exposure. You can affect the beliefers belief not only with the help of speech and verbally pronounced arguments, but also by many other ways: gesture, facial expressions, visual images, etc. Even silence in certain cases is quite a good argument. These methods of exposure are studied by psychology, theory of art, but are not affected by A. Theory on beliefs can be, further, affect violence, suggestion, subconscious stimulation, drugs, drugs, etc. These methods of exposure are engaged in psychology, but they clearly go beyond even the widely interpreted theory of A. A. is a speech, including a system of statements intended for justifying some opinion. It is addressed primarily to the human mind that is capable of, judging, accepting or refuting it. For A. Characteristic, so on, the following features:
A. Always expressed in language, has the form of spoken or written allegations; A. Explores the relationship of these statements, and not those ideas and motives that are behind them;
A. is targeted activities: it has its task strengthening or weakening someone's beliefs;
A. - This is social, because it is directed to the other man or other people, suggests both the actual reaction of others. Parties to the arguments;
A. implies the reasonableness of those who perceive it, they are rational to weigh the arguments, take them or challenge them.
Purpose A. - Taking advanced provisions with an opponent or an audience. Truth and may be implied targets A., but its direct goal is always an audience in the justice of the proposed state, declining to the adoption of this provision and, possibly, to the action offered to them. This means that oppositions - and good - are not central to A., respectively, in its theory. Arguments can be given not only in support of theses presenting true, but also in support of false or indefinite theses. Not only good and, but also what seems to be evaluated can be argued.
Just as the ability to speak grammatically correctly, it still describes this grammar, and to convince the underlying of human cooperation and activity, there existed long before the emergence of the theory of A. The overwhelming majority of people and now with one or another success convince others, not referring to help Special science and not counting on this help. Although the spontaneously established conviction of others is sufficient in many areas of human activity, there are activities and professions that require a special study of A. Theory in democratic societies. This is the right, philosophy and psychology, history and etc.

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivin. 2004 .

Argumentation

(from Lat. Argumentatio)

bringing evidence.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

Argumentation

Argumentation is a way to summarize a reason for any or action (them) for the purpose of public protection, encourages a certain opinion about them, recognition or explanation; The way of believing anyone through significant arguments. In this sense, the argument is always dialogic and wider than logical evidence (which is essentially impersonal and monologically), since it assimilates not only the "technique of thinking" (actually logic), but also the "conviction technique" (the art of subordinate the thought, feeling and will of a person).

The main aspects of the argument: "Factual" (on the facts used as arguments), "rhetorical" (form and styles of speech and emotional impact), "axiological" (value selection of arguments), "ethical" (moral acceptability and permitting arguments) and Finally, the "logical" (sequence and mutual arguments, their deductive).

These and other aspects of the argument are designed for that "in order to best affect this audience" (Lenin V. I. PSS, vol. 21, p. 21). Therefore, they mutually complement each other (the first defines the "matter" of the arguments, and the rest of its form, the "form of provision"). However, they can vary depending on the specific situation. For example, in everyday life, purely logical means of arguments are rarely used. In turn, the logical does not depend on the intuitive persuasiveness of parcels and axioms. His compulsiveness (obligation, generality) is in mutual communication of judgments, according to the rules of the output. If at the same time it has the conviction of the truth of parcels and axioms, the conclusion becomes a logical proof, that is, the strongest version of the argument.

T. about., Arguments, as well as the concept of evidence, can be considered from various points of view. It is naturally summarizes that (throughout history) people thought about intellectual communication processes, as they described and what rational means and systems were invented when they reflected on the language and acts of communication.

In antiquity, argumentation is a support of speculative thought as a conversation, dialogue, discussion. The argument was enrolled in the department and rhetoric. The first was understood as the art of the dispute, the second - as the art of eloquence, "corresponding to dialectics, since both of them relate to such objects, acquaintance with which can be considered the property of everyone and that are not related to the field of any individual science" (Aristotle. Rhetoric. -In: Antique rhetoric. M., 1978, p. 15).

But since both meaning the ability to find certain methods of conviction regarding each subject matter under discussion, the question naturally arose: what can be the ways of conviction and which of them are permissible, and which are unacceptable from the point of view of certain, eg. moral, criteria?

Already Plato celebrated the difference between the concept of "convincing" with the help of a reasonable (let's say today, the rightful) argument facing the mind, and the concept of "inspiring" with the help of arguments facing the heart, feeling, intuition.

To the latter, he referred testimony (in court), recognition made by torture, written agreements, etc. Technical Aristotle called such convictions that were created by science using a specific method, or those related exclusively with our speech practice, with discourse. These technical methods of belief are concluded, according to Aristotle, in the actual or apparent provision.

The separation of "proof" on the actual and apparent was a turning point in the history of the argument. In this regard, Aristotle can be considered the first theorist who carried out the transition from the vague idea of \u200b\u200barguments to the strict definition of concepts, to the "argument in general" separation from the exact concept of logical evidence. Even in the field of rhetoric, Aristotle spoke, only evidence is essential, since "we are then convinced anymore, when it seems to us that something has been proven" (Aristotle. Rhetoric. - ibid, p. 17).

Aristotle became the creator of the first scientific theory of argument, which is now called syllogistic and which (in a somewhat modified form) is an integral fragment of modern formal logic. At the same time, the main idea of \u200b\u200bAristotle was that the argument could be considered "good" and, so on., Acceptable if it is generally common.

Meanwhile, the general accuracy in a strict sense is permitted only where it is possible about logical proof (see evidence of the theory). Taken in a wider context, the argument does not always meet the conditions for "forced rigor" of this proof. The legality of the argument "There is a degree: it is more or less strong. That is why it is never closed: you can always achieve its strengthening, picking up suitable arguments "(Blanche R. Le Raisonnement. P., 1973, p. 223).

True, in this case, argumenting, it is necessary to follow the laws of logic, selecting the arguments that, so that they are consistent with each other, and avoiding such situations where each argument, more or less believable in itself, is contrary to others.

The appearance of formal logic greatly affected the fate of the argument. The eloquence reduced to the art, the argument (as the theory of the dispute or dispute) lost credibility of trust from the exact science, while maintaining only the household intelligent superstructure over the discourse. However, over the past two decades, the problems of argumentation changed noticeably. The argument becomes part of a common (information) communication theory. The new way of studying the psychological mechanisms of persuasion, which may naturally affect the means of argumentation. Ultimately, the argument itself, while he is somehow not interpreted, because it is posing a key to convincing the power of argumentation. Therefore, the question arises: maybe how to strengthen this power? Many defenders of the theory of arguments believe that logic (they are!) Should go in search of new "proving funds" in philosophy, in social scientists, in politics, in everyday discussions, in general in humanitarian spheres of human activity. And in part, this process is indeed by creating new (non-classical) logic: the logic of questions, epistemic logic, the logic of preferences and the choice, the logic of the alogic and deautic modalities and many others that can be chopped by the "logic of humanitarian knowledge".

Lit.: Philosophical Problems of Argumentation. Yerevan, 1986; Perelman CA. Traité de L "Argumentation. P., 1958;" Logique et Analyse "(La Théorie de L" Argumentation), n. 21-24, DEC., 1963; Fisher W. R. Technical Logic, Rhetorical Logic and Narrative Rationality.- "Argumentation", 1987, v. L, N. L; Finn V. K. On a variant of the logic of the argument .- "Scientific and Technical Information", 1996, Ser. 2, No. 5-6; Pankratov D. β. On some modifications of the logic of argument. - ibid, 1999, Ser. 2, No. 1-2.

M. M. Novoselov

In the verbal speech aspect, the argument appears as a complete or partial substantiation of any approval using other statements. The assertion that is justified (judgment, system of judgment, etc.) is called the thesis, and the statements used in justifying the thesis are called arguments, or grounds, or arguments. The method of logical substantiation of the thesis through arguments (its logical structure) is called the form of argument. According to the nature of the grounds (arguments), there is evidence and unacceptable argumentation. In evidence arguments are allegations that are established, and the form is a demonstrative argument (reasoning, which ensures true conclusion in true parcels; Demonstrates include, for example, deductive conclusions, some types of induction and analogy). In the unpainted argument, the arguments at least some are not reliable, but only believable or those in which led defensive arguments (are not excluded, of course, both of these opportunities). The thesis in such an argument is a plausible approval.

In the direction of reasoning, there is a straight and indirect form of argumentation. In the straight, they are satisfied with cash (data) arguments, as in the case of direct evidence (for more information, see the logical output). With indirect argumentation (one of its species), it is advanced in addition to this assertion, which is the denial of the thesis, i.e. (the assumption of indirect argumentation). Of the existing arguments and antithesis are derived (deductive or inductively) (the conjunction of some approval and denial of this approval). As a result, it is concluded about the reasonableness (full or partial) thesis. This indirect argument is called argumentation from the opposite, or apagogic. Another type of indirect argument is separation. It is carried out by eliminating all members of the separation judgment, except for one-thesis (more details. Proof is indirect).

Activities, opposite argument, is called criticism. If the arguments-to develop a belief in truth or, at least in the partial justification of any position, then critics are divisible to the validity of one or another position or in conviction in his falsity. Two ways of criticism are distinguished: criticism; The arguments and the establishment of falsities or the low degree of likelihood of approval. In the second case, it is called counterproofing, and the criticized by the possession. Private counterargument - osurement, i.e., the establishment of a position of any position using logical tools and proven provisions. Recent provisions are called refutation arguments. In counterproofing, which is not a refutation, also distinguishes arguments - reasonable (in whole or in part) of the allegations used in the establishment of falsity or the low degree of positiveness of the thesis, and the form. Counteroramentation can not be a refutation when the arguments are not fully informed judgments, as well as when the form is a deadlord reasoning.

In the direction of reasoning (as in the case of indirect argument), the test of the thesis is distinguished by the refinement of the antithesis and criticism, which is called the Absurdio Ad Absurdum, when the logical basis for criticism is the conclusion of contradictions from the arguments and the thesis, it is for imprisonment or small The degree of believing the thesis.

In the process of argumentation and criticism, errors of two types can be committed: intentional and unintentional. Intentional errors are called sophimons, and unintentional paralogism. Compliance with the rules of argumentation makes it possible to avoid errors. Here are some of the basic rules.

Rule 1. It is necessary to clearly formulate the thesis (in the form of judgment, system of judgment, problems, hypothesis, concepts, etc.). Compliance with this rule implies (1) to allocate the most simple components of the controversial thought, (2) find items of consent and points of the differences of the parties, and then (3) agree on the thesis or theses.

Rule 2. The thesis must be formulated clearly and clear. To implement this rule, it is recommended, firstly, to find out, all the illogical terms contained in the wording of the thesis, and everyone is quite understandable. If there are incomprehensible or ambiguous expressions, they should be clarified, for example, by determining. Secondly, you need to clarify the logical terms. If the thesis is a judgment in which it is approved or denied any objects, then it is necessary to find out whether all the subjects are wearing judgment or only about some (about many, on most, about the minority, etc.). It should be clarified, in what sense unions "and", "or", "if ... then ...", etc. For example, the union "or" can express both non-strict and strict disjunctive, "if ... then ... "- an implicative or conventional connection, etc. Thirdly, sometimes it is advisable to clarify the time on which it is in judgment, for example, to clarify whether it is argued that a certain belongs to the subject always or belongs to him Sometimes: to clarify such words as "today", "tomorrow", "through so much hours", etc. Fourth, it is necessary to find out if the thesis is true, or claim that he is only believable . If the second rule is violated, the error is "fuzzy formulating the thesis".

Rule 3. The thesis should not be changed in the process of argument and criticism without special reservations. A violation of this rule is associated with an error called the replacement of the thesis. It is committed in the case when some statement is put forward as a thesis, and another one is argued or criticized, similar to the extended; In the end, it is concluded that initial statement is substantiated or criticized. The varieties of the imagination of the thesis are errors: (1) the substitution of the arguised thesis is a stronger approval (in relation to the proof, this error has "who proves a lot, he does not prove anything," (2) substitution of a criticized thesis with a weaker statement (as applied to refutation it is called Who refutes a lot, he does not refute anything ").

Rule 4 The arguments must be formulated clearly and clear. To perform this rule, it is necessary: \u200b\u200b(1) List all the arguments; If in the process of argument from some arguments refuse, arguments change, new, it should be negotiated; (2) clarify illogical terms; (3) identify logical arguments; clarify quantify words, modal terms; (4) clarify the estimated characteristics of the arguments (whether they are true or believable allegations).

Rule 5. Arguments must be judgments, fully or partially reasonable. In relation to the proof and refutation, this is formulated so; Arguments must be fully reasonable (logically or actually). In case of violation of the fifth rule, an error "unreasonable argument" occurs. In evidence and refutations, the corresponding error is called "unproved argument". There are several varieties of the error "Unreasonable argument".

1. "False argument" is an option for paralogism. Making this error, as an argument leads an unreasonable statement, besides, false, although it does not suspect the argument out of the argument.

2. "false argument" is a version of sofism. Such (doubtful from the point of view of semantics) the name was given by the logic of the past by bringing as arguments of statements whose falsity is known to those who use them. The variants of false argument are, for example: (1) "Comic false argument" in various kinds of entertainment mathematical tasks; (2) The "tactical false argument" used in the dispute process with an opponent, which seeks to refute all your arguments. In this case, the argument is protected, which is the denial of the implied (true) argument. And if the felt of this judgment will be proved by the opponent, then you declare that I agree with this, and offer an earlier argument that you did not express. The opponent remains nothing, how to recognize the last argument is true; (3) "Uncomplicated false argument", when there are clearly false statements as arguments, assuming that the opponent due to the lack of courage or for some reason will be silent. Sometimes they do when speaking on radio, television, in print; (4) "false argument in the form of a question background"; In this case, the argument does not express, but express through the issue that is false.

3. The third type of error in the argument is "unreasonable reference to authority." You can refer to authorities (persons, communities, etc.), but it is necessary to carry out the following conditions: each - in a specific area, on the statements of authority concerning such an area, can be referenced. But, generally speaking, references to authorities are only likely arguments, they should only be used to confirm direct arguments; It is necessary to give a word, "external" from the context, but thoughts extracted as a result of context analysis. If these are not executed, then any thesis can be confirmed by quotes. The error described turns into a "false argument" if words that authority did not pronounce, or if the authorities are invented.

Rule 6. The argument should not enter into a circle. If this rule is violated, an error occurs, called "circle in argument". It arises when the thesis is justified with the help of arguments, and some of the arguments in turn justify with the help of the thesis.

Rule 7. Arguments must be relevant to the thesis. The argument is relevant in relation to the thesis of the argument (counterargumentation), if its adoption, possibly in conjunction with some other arguments, increases (reduces) the plausibility of the thesis. The corresponding error is the "irrelevant argument".

Rule 8. The ratio between the arguments and the thesis must be at least a confirmation ratio, if this rule is violated, the error does not confirm. With regard to the proof, it has the name "not follow."

Argumenting or examining the finished argument, it is important to know what a logical connection between the thesis and arguments: if the thesis follows from the arguments with necessity, or the necessary thesis only confirm the thesis, although there is no logical connection between the thesis and arguments. To solve this problem, it is necessary to apply the teaching of logic on deductive and inductive conclusions.

Lit.: Alekseev A. P. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. M., 1991; Ivin A., a. Fundamentals of the theory of argumentation. M., 1997; Ivlev Yu. V. Logic. M., 1997; Povarchs S. Spore. On the theory and practice of the dispute. St. Petersburg, 1996; Kurbatov V.I. Socio-political argument: logical and methodological. Rostov N / D, 1991; Ruzaquin f. I. Logic and argumentation. M., 1997.

Yu. V. Ivlev

New philosophical encyclopedia: 4 tt. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stupina. 2001 .

The rinication of the necessary solutions is not always done by us, very often important solutions for us are accepted by other people. Even if these are subordinates, they can also "make business", which is already talking about business partners. Conclusion is simple - we need to transmit our beliefs, the method of arguments and arguments is the most correct and open way to influence the decision of another person.

Management solutions, tactics of argumentation.

Argumentation

the most difficult phase of belief. It requires knowledge, concentration of attention, excerpts, the presence of spirit, the assertiveness and correctness of statements, the need to possession of the material and a clear definition of the task. Do not forget that we are dependent on the interlocutor, because it is in the end he will eventually decide whether he accepts our arguments or not.

A convincing effect on business communication partners is achieved through argumentation. The argument is a logical-communicative process aimed at justifying the position of one person in order to subsequently understand it and accept another person.

The structure of the argument is the thesis, arguments and demonstration.

Thesis - This is the wording of your position (your opinion, your offer to the other side, etc.).

Arguments - These are arguments, provisions, evidence that you give to justify your point of view. The arguments answer the question why we must believe in something or do something.

Demonstration - This is the connection of the thesis and argument (i.e. the process of evidence, beliefs).

With the help of arguments, you can fully or partially change the position and opinion of your interlocutor. To achieve success in a business conversation, you must adhere to some of the most important rules:

Business Success Rules

• it should be operated as simple, clear, accurate and convincing terms;
• speak the truth; If you are not sure that the truth information, do not use it until you check;
• the pace and methods of argumentation should be selected taking into account the characteristics of the character and habits of the interlocutor;
• the argument should be correct in relation to the interlocutor. Refrain from personal attacks on those who disagree with you;
• we should avoid weekly expressions and the wording, which makes the perception of the said, however, it should be a figurative, and arguments - visual; If you give negative information, be sure to call the source from which you take your information and arguments.

Bizkiev

If you are familiar with your subject, then you most likely have at your disposal some arguments. However, in most cases, if you are going to convince your partners to you will be useful in advance by convincing arguments. For this, you can, for example, make their list, weigh and choose the strongest.

But how to appreciate which of the arguments are strong, and what should be discarded? There are several criteria for assessing arguments:

Criteria for assessing arguments

1. Good arguments should be based on the facts. Therefore, from the list of your arguments, you can immediately exclude those that you cannot back up the actual data.

2. Your arguments should have the most direct attitude to the case. If it is not, throw them away.

3. Your arguments must be relevant for opponents, so you need to find out in advance how interesting they can be and timely for them.

In modern scientific and educational literature, many argument methods are covered. Consider the most important, in our opinion, for situations of business communication.

1. Fundamental argument method. The essence of him is in direct contact with the interlocutor, which you introduce the facts that are the basis of your evidence.

An essential role is played by digital examples and statistical data. They are a wonderful background to confirm your abstracts. After all, in contrast to the information set forth with the words - often controversial! - The numbers look more convincing: this source is usually more objective and therefore attractive.

Using statistical data, it is necessary to know the measure: the numbness is tired of the listeners, and the arguments do not produce the necessary impression on them. We also note that negligently processed statistical materials can introduce listeners to delusion, and sometimes even deceive.

For example, the rector of the institute leads statistical data on first-year students. It follows that during the year 50% of the female students married. Such a figure is impressive, but then it turns out that there were only two female students on the course, and one of them got married.

In order for statistical data to be illustrative, they should cover a large number of people, events, phenomena, etc.

2. The contradiction method during argumentation. By its essence, it is defensive. It is based on the identification of contradictions in reasoning, as well as the arguments of the interlocutor and the pointing of attention to them.

Example. I.S. Turgenev described the dispute between Rudin and Pigasov about the fact that there are or do not exist beliefs:

"- Perfectly! - said Rudin. - It became, in your opinion, there is no belief?

No and does not exist.

Is this your belief?

How do you say that they are not. Here is one, for the first time. "All in the room smiled and overwhelmed."

3. Comparison Method for argument. Very effective and has exceptional importance (especially when comparisons are wicked successfully).

Provides the speech of the initiator of communication exceptional brightness and great power of suggestion. The extent actually represents a special form of the "Recovery Recovery" method. This is another way to make a statement more "visible" and weighing. Especially if you learned how to use analogies, comparisons with objects and phenomena, well-known listeners.

Example: "Life in Africa can only be compared with staying in the furnace, where they also forgot to turn off the light."

4. The argumentation method "Yes, .. but ...". It is best used when the interlocutor refers to the topic of conversation with some prejudice. Since any process, phenomenon or item have in its manifestation both positive and negative moments, the method "Yes, .. But ..." allows you to consider other options for solving the issue.

Example: "I also imagine everything that you have listed as advantages. But you forgot to mention about a number of flaws ... ". And begin to consistently complement the one-sided painting offered by the interlocutor from a new point of view.

5. The method of argument "pieces". It is often used - especially now, when the dialogue, conversation, discussion are actively introduced into our life instead of the monologists. The essence of the method is to dismember the monologue of your interlocutor on clearly distinguishable parts: "This is exactly", "it is doubtful", "there are the most different points of view," "is clearly mistaken."

In fact, the method is based on a well-known thesis: because in any position, and even moreover, you can always find something inaccurate, the erroneous or exaggerated, then a confident "offensive" makes it possible to "unload" the situation to a certain extent, including the most Sophisticated.

Example: "What you reported on the model of the work of modern warehousing is theoretically quite right, but in practice there are sometimes very significant deviations from the proposed model: long-term delays from suppliers, difficulties in obtaining raw materials, the slowness of the administration ...".

6. The method of argumentation "Boomerang". It makes it possible to use the "weapon" of the interlocutor against him. It does not have the force of evidence, but has an exceptional impact on the audience, especially if it is applied with a fair fraction of wit.

Example: V.V. Mayakovsky appears to residents of one of the areas of Moscow on the issue of solving international problems in the country of Soviets. Suddenly someone from the hall asks: "Mayakovsky, what nationality? You were born in Bagdati, then you are Georgians, yes? ". Mayakovsky sees that in front of him an old worker, sincerely wanting to understand the problem and as sincerely asked the question. Therefore, it is in kind: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgians, among the Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American among the Germans - I am German."

At this time, two young people sitting in the first row, silently shout: "And among the fools?". Mayakovsky is calmly replied: "And among the fools I am for the first time!".

7. The method of argument "ignoring". As a rule, it is most often used in conversations, disputes, disputes. Its essence: the fact set forth by the interlocutor cannot be refuted by you, but its value and value can be ignored with success. It seems to you that the interlocutor attaches significance to something that, in your opinion, is not so important. You state it and analyze.

8. The argument method "Conclusions". Based on a gradual subjective change in the creature of the case.

Example: "Wealth has no boundaries, when in large sizes go abroad"; "The small tower knows best of all who will get profit. But who will listen to a small tower? ".

9. The argument method "visible support". It requires highly thorough preparation. It is most advisable to use them when you act as an opponent (for example, in the discussion). What is he? Let's say the interlocutor outlined his arguments, facts, evidence on the problem of discussion, and now the word is provided to you. But at the beginning of his speech, you do not contradict him at all and do not mind. Moreover, to the surprise of those present, come to the rescue, leading new provisions in his favor. But all this is just visibility! And then follows Conitary. Approximate scheme: "However ... You forgot to confirm your thesis to bring such facts ... (List them), and this is not all, since ...". Now there is a turn of your counterproofs, facts and evidence.

Rules for argumentation of management decisions

1. Operate simple, clear, accurate and convincing concepts, since persuasiveness can be easily "sinking" in a sea of \u200b\u200bwords and arguments, especially if they are unclear and inaccurate; The interlocutor "hears" or understands much less than he wants to show.

2. The method and pace of arguments must comply with the features of the temperature of the artist:

• arguments and evidence explained separately, much more efficiently achieved goals than if they are presented to all at once;
• three-four bright arguments achieve a greater effect than a lot of medium arguments;
• argumentation should not be declarative or look like a monologue of the "main character";
• exactly arranged pauses often have a greater impact than the flow of words;
• at the interlocutor, it is better to actively build a phrase than passive when it comes to evidence (for example, it is better to say "we will implement it" than "can be done", it is more expedient to say "conclude" than "make a conclusion").

3. To lead the argument should be correctly in relation to the employee. It means:

• it is always openly recognized by his right when he is right, even if it can have adverse effects for you. It gives your companion the opportunity to expect the same behavior from the executive side. In addition, in this way, you do not violate the ethics of the manual;
• you can continue to operate only those arguments that the employee adopted;
• avoid empty phrases, they testify to weakening attention and lead to unnecessary pauses in order to win time and catch the lost thread of the conversation (for example, "as mentioned", "or, in other words", "more or less", "along with the noted" "You can, and so," "not said", etc.).

4. It is necessary to adapt the arguments to the personality of the artist, i.e.:

• build arguments taking into account the goals and motives of the interlocutor;
• do not forget that "excessive" persuasive convincing calls on the subordinate side, especially if he has a "aggressive" nature (the effect of "boomeranga");
• avoid non-flash expressions and formulations that make it difficult to argue and understanding;
• attempt to seek your evidence, ideas and considerations as possible. Recall the proverb: "It is better to see once than to hear than a hundred times." Leading bright comparisons and visual arguments, it is important to remember that comparisons should be founded by the performer's experience, otherwise the result will not be, they must support and strengthen the argument of the manager, to be convincing, but without exaggeration and extremes that cause mistrust of the Contractor and thus claiming under Doubt all carried out parallels.

The use of visual aids increases the attention and activity of the employee, reduces the abstractness of the presentation, helps better link the arguments and thereby ensure the best understanding from his part. In addition, the clarity of the arguments gives the argument greater persuasiveness and documentation.

Two basic argumentation designs:

• evidential argument when it is necessary to prove something or justify;
• counterproofing, with which it is necessary to refute theses and approval of the artist.

For both designs, the same basic techniques are applied.

Receivers of arguments

With respect to any convincing impact or speech, there are 10 parameters, the observance of which makes it the most optimal.

1. Professional competence. High objectivity, accuracy and depth of presentation.
2. Clarity. Linking facts and details, avoidance of ambiguity, confusion, inexpensive.
3. Visuality. Maximum use of visibility, well-known associations, minimum of abstractness when presenting thoughts.
4. Permanent direction. During a conversation or discussion, it is necessary to adhere to a certain course, goal or tasks and to some extent to familiarize themselves with the interlocutors.
5. Rhythm. It is necessary to increase the intensity of the business conversation as it approaches its end, and it should be paid to key issues.
6. Reiteration. The emphasis on the main positions and thoughts is of great importance for the interlocutor to perceive the information.
7. Element of suddenness. It is thoughtful, but unexpected and unusual for the interlocutor linking details and facts.
8. "Saturation" of reasoning. It is necessary that emotional accents be made during communication, which require a maximum concentration concentration, as well as the phases of lowering emotionality, which are necessary for the respite and consolidation of thoughts and associations at the interlocutor.
9. The boundaries of the question under discussion. Voltaire somehow said: "The secret to be boring is to tell everything."
10. A certain dose of irony and humor. This rule of business conversation is useful to use when it is necessary to express not very pleasant for the artist's considerations or parry his lunges.

Tactics of arguments

Let us dwell on the argument tactics. A question may arise: what is the difference from the equipment of the argument, which covers the methodological aspects, how to build argumentation, while tactic develops the art of application of specific techniques? In accordance with this, the technique is the ability to bring logical arguments, and tactics - choose psychologically effective.

Consider the main provisions of the tactics of argumentation.

1. Application arguments. The phase of the argument should be started confidently, without special oscillations. The main arguments are subject to any convenient case, but, if possible, every time in the new light.

2. Selection of technology. Depending on the psychological features of the interlocutors, various methods of argument are selected.

3. Avoid confrontation. For a normal progress of the argument, it is very important to avoid exacerbation or confrontation, since the opposite points of view and the stretched atmosphere arising during the presentation of one of the points of argument can easily be distributed to other areas. There are some subtleties here:

• it is recommended to consider critical questions or at the beginning, or at the end of the phase of the argument;
• it is useful for especially delicate issues to talk with the performer alone before the start of the discussion, since "with an eye on the eye" you can achieve great results than at the meeting;
• in extremely difficult situations, it is useful to take a break to "cooled heads", and then return to the same question.

4. "Stimulation of appetite". This technique is based on the next position of social psychology: the most convenient to offer the performer options and information to preliminary awakening interest to it. This means that you first need to describe the current state of affairs with an emphasis on possible negative consequences, and then (based on the "provoked appetite") indicate the direction of possible solutions with a detailed justification of all advantages.

5. Bilateral argumentation. She will no longer affect the employee whose opinion does not coincide with yours. In this case, you indicate both the advantages and the weaknesses of the proposed solution. The effectiveness of such a reception depends on the intellectual abilities of the Contractor. In any case, if possible, we should point out all the flaws that he could learn from other sources of information. One-way argumentation can be applied in cases where the employee has developed his opinion or it openly expresses a positive attitude towards your point of view.

6. Priority advantages and disadvantages. In accordance with the conclusions of social psychology, the decisive influence on the formation of the position of the interlocutor provides such information when the advantages are first listed, and then flaws.

7. Personification of argumentation. Based on the fact that the persuasive evidence, first of all, depends on the perception of subordinates (and they are not critical to themselves), you come to the thought that you must first try to identify their position, and then include it in your argument design or, at least Extent to ensure that it contradicts your prerequisites. The easiest thing is to be achieved by direct access to the employee:

• "What do you think about this sentence?"
• "How do you think you can solve this problem?"
• "You're right"

Recognizing his rightness, manifesting attention, we are therefore encouraging a person who will now take our argument with less resistance.

8. Drawing up conclusions. It is possible to carry out the argument with the brilliance, but still not to achieve the desired goal if we do not be able to summarize the proposed facts and information. Therefore, to achieve as much persistence as possible, you must make conclusions themselves and offer them to employees, because the facts do not always speak for themselves.

9. Counters of counterproofing. When you are trying to put in a dead end through impeccable, at least at first glance, arguments should be cold and think:

• Are the statements outlined? Is it possible to refute their bases or at least some parts, where the facts are not linked to each other?
• Is it possible to identify any contradictions?
• Are the conclusions erroneous or at least partially inaccurate?

Arguments that convince

Perhaps the most important element of exposure to public opinion is a conviction. The belief is the task of the overwhelming majority of PR programs. The theory of belief has an indispensable number of explanations and interpretations. In principle, the conviction means that a person will make something through the Council, justification or a simple twisting of the hands. A lot of books were written about the immense authority of advertising and PR as convictions.

How can I convince people? Saul Alinsky (Saul Alinsky), the legendary radical organizer, developed a very simple theory of belief: "People understand things from the point of view of their own experience ... If you are trying to bring your ideas to other, not paying attention to what they want to tell you , then you can forget about your venture. " In other words, wanting to convince people, it is necessary to provide evidence that correspond to their own beliefs, emotions and expectations.

What are the arguments convince people?

1. Facts. Facts are indisputable. Although it is true that, as they say, "statistics sometimes lies", after all, empirical data is a convincing tool for building an "home" for the point of view. That is why a good PR program begins with a study - search for facts.

2. Emotions. Maslow was right. People really react to appeals to emotions - love, peace, family, patriotism. Ronald Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator" mainly due to the fact that he applied to emotions. Even when the entire nation was insulted after in 1983, 200 American soldiers died as a result of a terrorist act in Lebanon, President Reagan was able to defeat her skepticism, talking with the wounded American marine, lying in the Lebanese hospital.

3. Personalization. People react to personal experience.

• When poetess Maya Angelou (Maya Angelou) speaks of poverty, then people listen and have respect for a woman who came out of dirty and poor in the deep southern segregation times.
• When a member of the Congress of Caroline McCarthy (Carolyn McCarthy) stands for control over a weapon, then people understand that her husband was killed, and the son is seriously injured armed crazy at the Long Island Railway.

4. Appeal to "You". There is one word that people do not get tired to listen, is "you". "What will it give me?" - The question that is asks all. Thus, one of the secrets of belief is to constantly put itself in the place of the audience and constantly contact "you."

Despite the fact that these four commandments are so simple, they are hard to understand, especially business leaders who do not approve of emotions, or personalization, or even appeal to the audience. Some consider "lower than their dignity" to expose human emotions. Of course, this is a mistake. The power of convictions - the influence of public opinion is the criterion of not only a charismatic, but also an effective leader.

Influence on public opinion

Public opinion is much easier to appreciate than to influence him. However, a well-thought-out PR program can crystallize approaches, strengthen beliefs and sometimes change public opinion. First of all, it is necessary to highlight and understand the opinion that you want to change or modify. Second - clearly define the target group. The third - the PR specialist should have a clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat "laws" is guided by public opinion, whatever amorphous they are.

In this context, 15 public opinion laws have been applied, developed many years ago by a social psychologist Hadley Cantril (Hadley Cantril).

15 Public Opinion Laws

1. The opinion is super-sensitive to important events.

2. Events of an unusual scale can make public opinion on time to move from one extreme to another. Opinion does not stabilize until the prospects for the consequences of events are assessed.

3. The opinion as a whole is determined by events, and not in words, with the exception of those cases when the words themselves can be interpreted as an event.

4. Oral statements and programs of action are of great importance in those situations when the opinion is unstructured, and people are open to proposals and are waiting for explanations from reliable sources.

5. In general, public opinion does not foresee critical situations, but only reacts to them.

6. Observation is generally determined by personal interest. Events, words and any other incentives affect the opinion only to the extent that they are related to personal interest.

7. Opinion does not exist unchanged for a long period of time, except in cases where people feel a high degree of personal interest and when the opinion arising from words is supported by events.

8. If a personal interest arises, then the opinion is not so easy to change.

9. If personal interest is present, the public opinion in a democratic society is likely to dominate official policies.

10. If the opinion belongs to a small majority or if it is not well structured, then the accomplished fact, as a rule, shifts the opinion towards the recognition of the fact.

11. During the crisis, people become more sensitive to the adequacy of their leaders. If people are confident in them, they are inclined to impose great responsibility on them; If they are less confident in their leaders, they become less tolerant than usual.

12. People are not so reluctant to trust the adoption of important solutions to their leaders, if they feel that they themselves take some participation in this.

13. People most often have an opinion, and it is easier for them to form about tasks than about the methods of implementing these tasks.

14. Public opinion, as well as an individual opinion, painted by desire. And when the opinion is mainly built at a desire, and not on information, it can fluctuate under the influence of occurring events.

15. In general, if in a democratic society, people are provided with opportunities for education and easy access to information, then public opinion reflects common sense. The more people are aware of the consequences of events and suggestions regarding personal interest, the greater the likelihood that they will agree with the more objective opinion of realistic experts.

We deliberately repeated the basic truths several times, we hope our material will help you reasonably convince the interlocutor to take the right decision.

Test

1. How can I define argumentation?

A. Argument is the activities of a member of the dispute to protect their point of view.

B. Argument - Ego Proof of the truth of a certain approval.

B. Argument is the process of influence on the interlocutor.

2. Components of arguments:

A. Arguments, point of view.

B. Introduction, the main part, conclusion.

B. Parcels, conclusion.

3. What argument requires direct appeal to reality?

A. Theoretical.

B. Empirical.

B. Theoretical and empirical.

4. Which of the above statements is correct?

A. Private case of criticism - refutation.

B. Private case of refutation - Criticism.

5. Can the proof be a refutation?

6. Compiding point of view:

A. The proposition comprising approval; An expression that fixes the attitude of a person to this statement.

B. Approval containing the proposition; An expression that fixes the attitude of a person to this statement.

B. Approval, proposition.

7. Arguments are:

L. Statements, with the help of which justify the point of view.

B. statements, with which they protect the point of view.

B. Schedules, with which the point of view criticize.

8. Can the criticism be progressive?

9. Can the argument be simultaneously progressive and regressive?

Basics of the theory of argument [textbook] Ivin Aleksandr Arhipovich

1. What is argument

1. What is argument

The argument is to bring the arguments to change the position, or belief, the other side.

Argument, or argument, is one or more related statements. The argument is intended to support the thesis of the argument - the allegations that the argumenting party finds the need to inspire the audience, make it an integral part of her beliefs.

The word "argumentation" is often called not only the procedure for bringing arguments in support of some position, but also the combination of such arguments.

The theory of argumentation explores the diverse ways of believing the audience using speech exposure.

The theory of argumentation analyzes and explains the hidden mechanisms of "invisible art" of speech impact within the framework of a variety of communicative systems - from scientific evidence to political propaganda, artistic language and trade advertising.

You can influence the beliefs of listeners or viewers not only with the help of speech and verbally pronounced arguments, but in many other ways: gesture, facial expressions, visual images, etc. Even silence in certain cases is quite a good argument. These ways of exposure to persuasion are studied by psychology, theory of art, etc., but are not affected by the theory of argument.

You can, further, influence violence, hypnosis, suggestion, subconscious stimulation, drugs, drugs, etc. Psychology is engaged in these methods of impact, but they clearly go beyond even the widely interguable argument theory. "Argentation," Jonston writes, "there is an all-perky trait of human life. It does not mean that there are no cases when a person is amenable to hypnosis, subconscious stimulation, drugs, brainwashing and physical strength, and that there are no cases in which it can properly control the actions and the views of his fellows - people with funds other than the argument . However, only the person who can be called inhuman will enjoy the impact on the behavior of other people with non-ungumental means, and only an idiot will be willing to obey him. We do not even rule over people when we only manipulate them. We can rule over people, just considering them as people. "

The argument is a speech action, which includes a system of statements intended for justification or refutation of some kind of opinion. It is addressed primarily to the human mind that is capable of, judging, to accept or reject this opinion.

Thus, the following features are characteristic of the argument:

The argument is always expressed in the language, has the form of spoken or written allegations; The theory of argumentation explores the relationship of these statements, and not the thoughts, ideas, motives that are behind them;

The argument is targeted activities: it has its task strengthening or weakening someone's beliefs;

The argument is social activity, since it is aimed at another person or other people, suggests a dialogue and active response of the other party to the arguments;

The argument involves the rationality of those who perceive it, their ability to rationally weigh the arguments, take them or challenge.

From the book Materialism and empiriocriticism Author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

1. What is matter? What is the experience? With the first of these questions, idealists, agnostics, and including Mahist, to materialists; With the second - materialists to the mahistas. We will try to figure out what the case is here. Evienary is talking on the issue of matter: "Inside

From the book Logic: Abstract lectures author Shadrin d a

2. The argument as already mentioned, any proof needs arguments. It is based on them, they carry information that allows you to talk about this or that subject. The logic highlights several arguments. These include

From the book Logic author Shadrin d a

52. The argument as already mentioned, any proof needs arguments. It is based on them, they carry information that allows you to talk about this or that subject. The logic highlights several arguments. These include

From the book the history of philosophy Author Skerebeck Gunnar

Habermas and argumentation for hermeneutic tradition (for example, a gadar) and for a critical deconstruction (for example, Derrida, Foucault, Rorty) is common that they start with a language as text. Therefore, these directions are closely related to comparative literary

From the book theory and practice of argumentation Author Collective authors

The logic and argumentation of the argument can be carried out in various forms depending on the use of those methods of conclusions that are used for conviction. The most convincing are considered, of course, deductive conclusions that are in the form

From the Basics of the Theory of Argumentation [Tutorial] Author Ivin Alexander Arkhipovich

Demonstrative argumentation argument based on evidence-based reasoning is advisable to call demonstrative because it shows how the logical rules are the process of evidence, and thereby arguments. It means that

From the book Logic and Argument: Education. Handbook for universities. Author Ruzavin Georgy Ivanovich

Heuristic argument Unlike demonstrative arguments, heuristic, or not desperate, the argument does not have such accurate rules, for it is based on probabilistic, or plausible reasoning. Thus, if the conclusions

From the book Philosophical Dictionary Author Conte Sponvil Andre

Argument and dialogue The emergence of dialogue as the shape of the joint search for truth was obliged to develop antique dialectics and rhetoric. A recognized master of dialogue and even the founder of this form of argumentation is considered to be Socrates, which did not leave written

From the book Logic for lawyers: Textbook author Ivlev Yu. V.

Conviction and argument In conclusion, consider the question of the relationship between the categories of persuasion and argument, which still causes disputes. On this issue, three main points of view are expressed. The truers are the first of them consider the argument and persuasion

From the book Logic: Textbook for legal universities Author Kirillov Vyacheslav Ivanovich

1. Logic and argument Enabling the "Theory of Argument" in standard logic textbooks suggests that many (if not all) often occurring argument flaws can be overcome using logical methods. At the same time it is silently assumed that

From the book of the author

2. Systemic argument is difficult to indicate the statement that justified in itself, in isolation from other provisions. Rationale is always systemic. The inclusion of a new position in the system of other provisions that gives sustainability to its elements,

From the book of the author

5. Methodological argument Method is a system of prescriptions, recommendations, cautions, samples, etc., indicating how to do something. The method covers primarily the funds necessary to achieve a certain goal, but may also contain

From the book of the author

2.4. Understanding and argument In writing or oral speech, the concept is expressed by the name of the word or a combination of words. Therefore, in general and logical semantics, when they say about the name, then it is distinguished by its meaning (or concept) and meaning, i.e. what denotes it

From the book of the author

Argument (Argumentation) An ordered set of arguments used for rational confirmation of any thesis (prayer is not an argument), but not able to serve as evidence of its truth (it will not be argued, but proof as

From the book of the author

From the book of the author

§ 1. Proof and argument The purpose of cognition is to achieve reliable, objective, true knowledge for active impact on the world around. The establishment of objective truth is an important task of a democratic justice system. Reliable knowledge

Argumentation is a complete or partial substantiation of any approval using other statements.

It is assumed that in good (correct) arguments, other allegations are fully or at least partially substantiated, and the substantiated position of them logically or at least they confirm it.

In a more complete sense, the argument are:

• A judgment (or a set of judgments), conducted in confirmation of the truth of any other judgment.
• Sending proof (base, argument).
• All proof as a whole.

The argument may be evidentia and unapproved

• The evidence argument is to establish the truth of the thesis using logical formulas using arguments, the truth of which is installed in advance. The form of such an argument is deduction. Thesis is a reliable judgment
• The unacceptable argument is three species, the theses of this type of argument are plausible judgments; so:

1. The truth of the arguments (all or some) has not been proven; The form of argument is a deduction or complete (scientific) induction.

2. The truth of the arguments is set in advance; The form of argumentation is induction, analogy.

3. The arguments are plausible; The form of arguments is induction, analogy.