2016－英语专业八级真题听力_01

Good morning, everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue? Why do we try to convine other people to believe things that they don't want to believe. And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.

The first model——let's call this the dialectial model——is that we think of arguments as war. And you know what that's like. There is a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing. And that's not really a very helpful model for arguing, but it's a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times——in the street, on the bus or in the subway. Let's move on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematician's argument. Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good? Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises? No opposition, no adversariality——not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense. And there's a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances. Arguments has been in front of an audience. We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something. But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important; namely, that when we argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument; that is, you present your arguments in front of an audience who are like juries that make a judgment and decide the case. Let's call this model the rhetorical model, where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand. 

Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, it shaps how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments. We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. That's the kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments. When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model. But the metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue. First, it elevates tactics over substance. You can take a class in logic argumentation. You learn all about the strategies that people use to try and win arguments and that makes arguing adversarial; it's polarizing. And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph, glorious triumph, or disgraceful defeat. I think those are very destructive effects, and worst of all, it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration. Um, I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation. And finally, this is really the worst thing, arguments don't seem to get us anywhere; they're dead ends. We don't get anywhere.

Oh, and one more thing. That is, if argument is wat, then there's also an implict aspect of meaning, learning with losing. And let me explain what I mean. Suppose you and I have an argument. You believe a proposition and I don't. And I say, "Well, why do you believe that?" and you give me your reasons. And I object and say, "Well, what about...?" And you answer my question. Now, suppose at the end of the day, I've object, I've questioned, I've raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspective and in every case you've responded to my satifaction.

And so at the end of the day, I say, "You know what? I guess you're right." Maybe finally I lost my argument. But isn't it also a process of learning? So you see arguments may also have positive effects. So, how can we find new ways to achieve those positive effects? We need to think of new kinds of arguments. Here I have some suggestions. If we want to think of new kinds of arguments, what we need to do is think of arguers, people who argue. So try this: Think of all the roles that people play in arguments. There's the proponent and the opponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument. There's the audience in rhetorical arguments. There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer, but you're also in the audience, watching yourself argue? Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue? That means you need to be supported by yourself. Even when you lose the argument, still, at the end of the argument, you could say, "Wow, that was a good argument!" Can you do that? I think you can. In this way, you've been supported by yourself.

Up till now, I have lost a lot of arguments. It really takes practice to become a good arguer, in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately, I've had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.

OK. To sum up, in today's lecture, I have introduced three models fo arguments. The first model is called the dialectical model. The second one is the model of arguments as proofs. And the last one is called the rhetorical model, the model of arguments is quite common, we can still make arguments produce some positive effects. Next time I will continue our discussion on the process of arguing.