Just today, Mrs. Ericson was lecturing about the class notes when a statement caught my eye. It read, "Starches are insoluble in water." A day earlier, however, she had asked us to add the word "most" to the sentence, leading to the newly developed phrase, "Most starches are insoluble in water." The addition of the word triggered a bell in my memory, leading me to the thought of qualifiers used in the Toulmin Method of Argumentation.
Yes, our biology teacher has reminded us many a time to take into account the circumstances within which the information is given. (For example, crystalline ionic bonds are stronger than covalent bonds, yet the reverse is true in aqueous solutions.) Therefore, a piece of information is not necessarily and directly false when countering data is introduced. All is dependent upon the environment, specifically the semantic one. This ties in closely with our discussion of language thusfar. Due to varying intentensional and extensional worlds, along with varying affective connotations/definitions, words, statements, and scenarios may never be understood quite exactly the same more than once.
"...that no word ever has exactly the same meaning twice...since no two contexts are ever exactly the same, no two meanings can ever be exactly the same" (Hayakawa 39).
My question, however, resides more within the boundaries of the qualifiers and argumentation that is tied closely with them. "Most starches are insoluble in water," sounds an awful lot like a claim to me. Yet, how can this be? Starch is a substance easily acquired in our extensional world. It is studied just as easily with the utilization of scientific tools and research. Upon completing a set of studies, one will conclude that MOST starches are insoluble (of course, there are always exceptions to any rule, yet the speaker has acknowledged this fact).
Hayakawa states that, "Namely, when utterances have extensional meanings, discussion can be ended and agreement reached; when utterances have intensional meanings only and no extensional meanings, arguments may, and often do, go on indefinitely" (38).
I am not discussing fairies and mermaids, however. I am stating a fact about something concrete (starch) that has been studied extensively in biological fields. Why, then, does the scientific statement greatly resemble a claim?
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Isn't everything a claim? Perhaps the reason it sounds like a claim is that almost everything is a claim, even the most mundane statements. (I know you disagree on that part, but bear with me :))
Isn't cornstarch soluble in water? It all depends on how to define starch (I'm not sure if cornstarch is classified as a starch scientifically. Then again, the phrase in question does not specify a definition etc. Perhaps that is why we always need qualifiers for even "prove-able" scientific stuff?
Grace Yuan
One must keep in mind that the scientific method is a model developed to find verifiable truths by utilizing rational thought and the manipulation of extensional occurrences. In contrast with scholasticism (Excuse the APEH reference!) where one starts with what one believes to be true and using rational thought to justify it, science uses rational thought to define a set of beliefs.
"Most starches are insoluble in water" is a claim. It is, however, a claim that has already been proven in an argument generally regarded as both verifiable and sound.
If you think about it, one step of the scientific method is the hypothesis - similar to the Toulmin Model's claim. While statements such as "Most starches are insoluble in water" have been proven and accepted, students still verify them by conducting experiments. In these cases the statement still functions as a claim, but the experiments are carried out to reinforce the knowledge since it is already a known scientific fact.
Also, to answer your title question directly, here is something directly out of our Toulmin notes.
ALL verbal communication is persuasive to some degree.
Everything uttered is intended to get the listener to elieve as the speak does.
Everything verbal can be analyzed by a model of argumentation
I guess it follows that everything verbal can also be construed as an argument. After all, even though years and years of experimentation make the possibility unlikely, the statement "Most starches are insoluble" may be proven to be wrong one day.
I agree with all that Grace and Tiffany said, and I just wanted to add something to Tiffany's last sentence:"'Most starches are insoluble may be proven to be wrong one day." The thing is, our world is always changing, and the future can't really be known (big duh, I know). Therefore, it is nearly impossible to figure out what kind of scientific achievements will be made. Perhaps, someone will discover something that changes that qualifier (perhaps even claim) completely. I think that maybe scientists left it that way so that there would be room for the future.
To your main question, I think it's a yes, we can argue about everything, even the most simple stuff. For example, if I claim that I am a girl, someone can walk up to me and object to my statement although his ground+backing will be dubious and insufficient.
And I think your question brings up a point that nothing is universal or absolute. A scientific fact can be proven wrong one day, and people will argue about it no matter how boring the perpetual cycle of rebuttles and counterarguments will be.
No one can think the same way. People are going to have disagreements no matter how much they try to cooperate. When there is something wrong with the listner, speaker, or both, conflicts arise. And I am quite confident with my claim that arguments will still exist unless everyone happens to share the same semantic environment.
(Jennifer Park)
I'd just like to add to all of this that I have many times pondered scientific theories. I think there is a reason they are called "theories"-- room is being left for future discovery. The word "theory" is, in itself, a kind of qualifier, I guess. As it said on the Toulmin Method powerpoint, "arguments are NOT expected to demonstrate certainties! They can usually only establish probabilities." In the case of science, the probabilities are well-proven, but they are not certain.
(Emily T.)
Post a Comment