Mykola Ovcharov: Some Reflections on Argumentation

The definition of evidential argumentation, its differences from logical argumentation, and even more so from rhetorical devices, I have already detailed in the second edition of my book Master of Public Speaking. Nevertheless, this topic remains one of the most complex in modern rhetoric.

Several questions require clarification:

• The difference between fact and argument
• Quality of argumentation
• Citation as argument
• Arguments in forecasts
• Lack of emotionality

Let me try to provide comprehensive answers to them.

Evidential argument and fact

A fact cannot be an argument. A fact is a conclusion that follows from an argument or logical thought. Evidential arguments do not prove facts and are not facts themselves. Evidential argumentation confirms cause-and-effect relationships.

Example:

• "Coffee extends life" – this is a fact.
• "Research by Professor Peter Kistler from the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (Australia) showed that people who consume 2-3 cups of ground coffee per day have a 20% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and live longer" – this is an argument.

Quality of argument

One indicator of the quality of an evidential argument is the absence of an obvious counter-argument (refutation). This is a manifestation of direct, rather than indirect, confirmation of the thesis.

Example 1 (poor quality argument)

Thesis: Online education is more effective than offline education.
Argument: According to the Brandon Hall Group analytical group, online education saves 40 to 60 percent of time.

Refutation: This doesn't make distance learning better; it provides more free time.
Counter-argument: According to a sociological study by UIM, 72% of citizens confirm a decline in education quality due to distance learning.

The counter-argument became possible because the argument confirmed the thesis not directly, but indirectly. In this example, either the thesis should have been changed (distance learning provides more free time), or the argument should have shown an indicator of higher or equal educational level compared to traditional education.

Example 2 (also poor quality argument)

Thesis: Online learning is better than traditional classroom learning.
Argument: According to Open University research, online learning produces 85% fewer carbon emissions per student since they don't need to commute to classes. Therefore, online learning is better for the environment.

Refutation: Students could switch to electric cars, which would solve the environmental problem without reducing education quality.
Counter-argument: According to MOE research, distance learning reduces education quality by 8%.

Therefore, always find arguments that directly confirm your thesis.

Practical consequences

Another indicator of argument quality is practical consequences for the object of persuasion. If the thesis concerns people, then the research results should also be consequences for people, not for, say, substances.

Example:

• Thesis: "Avocados are beneficial for health."

• Incomplete argument: "According to research, avocados contain beta-sitosterol, which helps maintain healthy cholesterol levels."

• Complete argument: "According to research, avocados contain beta-sitosterol, which helps maintain healthy cholesterol levels. Healthy cholesterol levels reduce the risk of heart disease by 60-90% and promote longevity."

The difference between citation and argument

A citation as a thesis is not an argument, but a citation that reveals experience is an evidential argument.

Example:

• "I don't use social media because I think it's a waste of time" – this is not an argument, but a conclusion from other people's experience, i.e., a thesis.

• "I stopped using social media after becoming addicted to them, which negatively affected my sleep and mental health" – evidential argument.

There can be no argumentation about the future

The famous Austrian-English philosopher and one of the founders of analytical philosophy, Ludwig Wittgenstein, believed that genuine truth cannot be proven mathematically or logically. However, the future can only be predicted using these methods. Schopenhauer also believed that criteria of truth are not subject to cognitive verification. Therefore, there can be no truth about the future. Every thought about the future should be treated as falsehood.

Scientific predictions are not evidential argumentation, but logical, i.e., potentially or probably true to the same extent as they are false.

Historical Examples

In 1972, the bestseller The Limits to Growth by a group of scientists from the Club of Rome was published, where scientists predicted that reserves of aluminum, copper, chromium, gold, nickel would soon be exhausted – these metals would become rare and expensive. The reality was the opposite – metals became cheaper, and there is no shortage.

The same happened with oil predictions – it didn't run out, and with predictions about Earth's overpopulation (famine) – this also didn't happen. However, some predictions did come true, but they were also not evidential argumentation, but merely logical.

The number of logical arguments is limited by the data the speaker possesses, their experience, intellect, and imagination. Scientific or professional research about a potential probable future is not evidential argumentation, and when it is presented categorically and assertively, it has nothing to do with science at all, but only with populism and demagoguery.

Lack of Emotionality in the Perception of Evidential Argumentation

Evidential argumentation can be ineffective if the listener or audience is guided by emotionality, values, or worldview beliefs. However, the development of psychology and emotional intelligence provides tools not only to separate emotional reactions from rational ones, but also to cultivate a thinking style based on logic and confirmed facts, making subjective evaluations impossible.

This process has already been launched in the school education system in critical thinking classes and in public presentations by well-known companies (Apple about statistics of lives saved with Apple Watch). Thus, evidential argumentation as the only type of argument and the main subject of position has the greatest chance of changing both thinking and speech.

Mykola Ovcharov
Kyiv
November 21, 2023