THINKER'S ALMANAC - January 8

What is the difference between a straw man argument and a steel man argument, and how does this relate to more effective argumentation?

Subject:  Rogerian Argument - Steel Man

Event:  Birthday of Carl Rogers, 1902

Today is the birthday of American psychologist Carl R. Rogers (1902-1987), who was born in Oak Park, Illinois.  

As a psychologist and therapist, Rogers was interested in improving human relationships.  For Rogers, the major factor in healthy relationships was clear communication, which is often hindered by the tendency of people to judge each other. Roger’s mission was to help people set aside their evaluations of one another and to instead truly listen to each other.  For Rogers, truly listening was more than just trying to understand another person’s point of view; instead, it involved climbing into that person’s skin and trying to not only see the world from that person’s perspective but also to achieve an understanding of what it feels like to hold that person’s point of view.

Roger’s work in psychology and communication spilled over into the field of rhetoric and argument in 1970 with the publication of the book Rhetoric:  Discovery and Change by Richard Young, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike.  This book introduced the Rogerian model for argument.  

Unlike the long tradition of adversarial argument dating back to Aristotle, Rogerian argumentation is about finding the truth and about finding common ground.  Instead of combative debate, the goal of a Rogerian argument is to acknowledge the validity of the opposing side’s position, set aside emotional appeals and work to reach agreement (1).

                                                            Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay 

While there is no specific structure that must be followed in a Rogerian argument, the following basic moves should be included:

-State the issue or problem using neutral, nonjudgmental language, including the impact of the issue on both sides.

-Describe the opposing side of the argument as objectively and fairly as possible, acknowledging the validity of its support and evidence.

-Present your argument, support, and evidence in dispassionate language, striving for a fair and balanced tone.

-Find common ground between the opposing sides, considering alternative solutions and achieving a beneficial compromise (2).

The Rogerian perspective is reminiscent of the lesson that Atticus Finch tried to teach his daughter in the classic book To Kill a Mockingbird.  When Scout comes home from her first day of school in tears because of an argument she’s had with her teacher, Atticus tries to get her to see the situation through her teacher’s eyes:

 . . . if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view–until you climb into his skin and walk around in it. 

Rogerian argumentation might just be an antidote to the political gulf that divides so much of our culture.  So often our first instinct is to create a straw man of our opponent’s argument by exaggerating or distorting its claims, its assumptions, or its premises.  We love to create a narrative that helps us frame the argument in the way we see it.  For example, say you're in a debate about gun control, and your opponent believes that there should be some new laws to prevent accidental gun deaths. It might be tempting to build a straw man by saying, “You won’t be happy until the government breaks down every citizen’s door and confiscates all their guns!”  

Instead of distorting our opponent’s argument with a false narrative, the Rogerian argument challenges us to create a narrative that accurately reflects the way our opponent sees the issue.  Instead of a straw man, we should try to create a steel man: the best form of our opponent’s argument.  Before debating an issue we should be able to state our steel man clearly enough that our opponent agrees that it is accurate.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How does the steel man differ from the straw man and which of these approaches would Carl Rogers prefer?

Challenge - I See Your Point:  What is a current issue or contemporary problem that you could present in a Rogerian argument?  How would you in a fair and balanced way summarize the side of the argument that is opposite to yours?  Select an issue that you feel strongly about. Instead of writing your side of the argument, attempt to summarize the opposing side of the argument as fairly and objectively as you can.  As you write, maintain a tone that is fair and balanced.  Strive to truly capture the arguments that run counter to yours. 

ALSO ON THIS DAY: 

-January 8, 1492: On this day Christopher Columbus, while sailing near the coast of what is now the Dominican Republic, observed some odd looking ocean creatures and falsely concluded that they were mermaids.  In reality the creatures were manatees.

-January 8, 1942:  On this day theoretical physicist and author Stephen Hawking was born.  He said, “Science is not only a discipline of reason but also one of romance and passion.”

-January 8, 1964, at 2:00 AM:  Randy Gardner broke the world record for going without sleep.  He had been up for 11 days, a total of 264 hours.

Sources:

1- Brent, Douglas.  Rogerian Rhetoric.  An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/art/rogchap.html

2-Moxley, Joe.  Rogerian Argument. Writing Commons. 17 Dec. 2010.

https://writingcommons.org/article/rogerian-argument/

THINKER'S ALMANAC - January 7

In 1992, 350 years after it condemned Galileo, what statement was issued by the Catholic Church?

Subject:  Conventional Wisdom - the Discovery of Jupiter’s Moons

Event:  Galileo Galilei Discovers the Moons of Jupiter, 1610

In 1610, the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) made a discovery that changed not just the world but also the heavens.  Although Galileo did not invent the telescope, he did make significant improvements that increased its 

magnification.  He was also among the first to turn the telescope to the night sky and record observations of the stars.  This is exactly what he was doing on the night of January 7, 1610, when he observed what he first thought were three fixed stars near Jupiter.  Further examination revealed that instead of stars, he was seeing natural satellites orbiting Jupiter.  Later he discovered a fourth satellite.  Today we know these satellites as Callisto, Europa, Ganymede, and Io:  the Galilean Moons of Jupiter. 

                                                                Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

Galileo’s discovery was much more significant than just discovering the moons of a distant planet.  What he saw in his telescope called into question the conventional wisdom of the geocentric theory, which said that all celestial bodies rotated around the Earth, the center of the universe. Geocentrism dated back to ancient astronomy and the Old Testament.  As a Catholic, Galileo realized that his discovery was at odds with the teachings of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.  

Years earlier, in 1514, the Polish monk and mathematician Copernicus had theorized the heliocentric model, which put the Sun not the Earth at the center of the solar system.  Copernicus did not have a telescope, however, so his theory lacked the kind of solid proof that would challenge the orthodoxy of the geocentric model.   Galileo’s discoveries provided concrete proof that confirmed Copernicus’ theory.

In 1616, the Catholic Inquisition rejected heliocentrism and ordered Galileo to abandon his claims, but he refused to remain quiet.  In 1632, he published “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,” where he juxtaposed the arguments for the geocentric universe and the heliocentric universe.  After the publication of his book, Galileo was charged with heresy and tried by the Inquisition in Rome.  In June 1633, he was put under house arrest and his publications were banned. On June 22, 1633, Galileo was found guilty of heresy and sentenced to life imprisonment.  Ordered to kneel, he was directed to read a statement recanting his theory.  

Probably the most famous quotation attributed to Galileo is a brief statement that he supposedly made at the end of his trial:  “Eppur si muove”(“And yet it moves).”  This statement -- which is probably more legend than fact -- would be a contradiction of the Catholic Church’s view of the Earth that stands still at the center of the universe.  Even though under house arrest, Galileo continued his 

scientific work until his death in 1642.

Today his views have been vindicated, and not only is he seen as the father of astronomy, but he is also seen as the father of modern science (1).

In 1992, 350 years after the Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II issued a formal statement admitting that the church was wrong:  the Earth does move (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How did Galileo’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons upend conventional wisdom?

Challenge - Where the Experts Were Wrong:  Obviously we know from history that the Catholic Church was wrong about the geocentric universe.  Research another example from history of where the experts were wrong.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

-January 7, 1959:  Today is the birthday of Nicholas G. Carr.  In 2010, Carr published his book The Shallows:  What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.  In his book, Carr challenges the reader to consider how the internet has changed the way we think and to contemplate both what has been lost and what has been gained:

The Net’s interactivity gives us powerful new tools for finding information, expressing ourselves, and conversing with others. It also turns us into lab rats constantly pressing levers to get tiny pellets of social or intellectual nourishment.

Sources:  

1-Levesque, Paul. “Skywatch:  Galileo’s Discovery of the Moons of Jupiter Disrupted Conventional Wisdom.”  Quad-City Times. 4 Oct. 2020.

2-Cowell, Alan.  “After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves.” New York Times 31 Oct. 1992.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - January 6

What does a work of philosophy published in 523 AD have in common with the game show The Wheel of Fortune?

Subject:  Fortune - Wheel of Fortune Gameshow

Event:  Wheel of Fortune debuts, 1975  

On January 6, 1975, one of the most popular game shows in the history of television made its debut:  The Wheel of Fortune.  The show was created by Merv Griffin, who also created the game show Jeopardy as well as its famous theme song, called “Think.” The Wheel of Fortune is basically an adaptation of the game Hangman, where contestants guess letters in an attempt to solve word puzzles.  The show gets its name from the large carnival wheel that contestants spin.  Each spin determines how much money or prizes they can earn for each guess; contestants can also lose all their winnings if the wheel falls on “Bankrupt” or “Lose Turn.” 

                                                                    Image by G Lopez from Pixabay 

Hundreds of years before the invention of television, the image of the wheel of Fortune served as a powerful symbol of the capriciousness of human fate.  Long before Vanna White turned the lighted titles to reveal letters of the alphabet, Fortuna, the Roman Goddess of Fortune, turned her wheel to determine the fate of mortals. Those at the top achieve happiness through acquired wealth and career success.  The wheel, however, spins on its axis, and even kings who were at the top of the wheel one minute can find themselves at the bottom in the next.  There at the bottom is the pain and agony of lost fortune:  failure, poverty, and loss.  As Shakespeare says in Sonnet 29 being at the bottom of Fortune’s wheel is not pleasant:

When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,

I all alone beweep my outcast state,

And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,

In addition to her wheel, Fortuna was frequently depicted with two contrasting objects: in one hand she holds a cornucopia, symbolizing abundance and luxury; in the other hand, she holds a tiller, symbolizing her control over people’s destinies.

There is a long tradition in philosophy that seeks to find an antidote to the fickleness of fate.  The Stoics recognized the need to determine some method of hacking Fortune’s wheel, refusing to surrender individual destiny to capricious fate.  

Probably the best example of this comes from Boethius (475-525 AD), the Roman philosopher who wrote the classic work The Consolation of Philosophy (523 AD). Boethius began his career with success, achieving the position as Consul for the Roman ruler King Theodoric.  Poised at the top of Fortune’s wheel, Boethius fell to the bottom when he was accused of plotting against Theodoric and imprisoned.  In his Consolation, Boethius tells the story of how he was visited in his prison cell by Lady Philosophy.  She advised him to remember and resist the whims of Fortuna.  She challenged Boethius to not base his happiness on what was out of his control -- those things that may be snatched away at any moment by a spin of the fickle wheel. Instead, she instructed Boethius to meditate on what he could control -- that is his powers of reason. Only by controlling his own mind and his own powers of perception could he free himself from the chains of fate.  As Hamlet said, “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” 

If the sky is full of dark clouds that block the sun, and the rain is falling, you can choose to let it affect your mood; the more philosophical approach, however, is to accept those things that you have no power to change and to focus instead on what you can change -- your mind and attitude.   The Stoics remind us that we have power over what we think and what we feel.  We are mere mortals, but we have a super power called reason. 

Descartes said, “I think, therefore, I am”; the Stoics said, “I think, therefore, I am immune to the fickle and frigid finger of fate.”

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Stoic’s antidote for overcoming the fickleness of Fortune’s wheel?

Challenge:  Respond to the following quotation:  ‘Two men look out through the same bars; One sees the mud, and one the stars.” -Frederick Langridge

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

January 6:  Today is the birthday of the literary detective Sherlock Holmes, not because his birth is recorded in any of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories but because one of Doyle’s fans set the date to coincide with Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night.  The logic?  It’s a play that is mentioned twice in the Holmes canon.  As Holmes once said,   “Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell” (2).

January 6, 1878:  Today is the birthday of American writer and poem Carl Sandburg.  After serving in the Spanish-American War, he briefly attended the United States Military Academy at West Point; he dropped out after just two weeks after failing a mathematics and grammar exam.  He later enrolled at Lombard College in Illinois.  After completing his education, he worked in advertising and as a journalist.  Sandburg was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his writing on three separate occasions:  1919, 1940, and 1951.

In the following poem entitled “Grass,” notice he employs personification:

Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.   

Shovel them under and let me work—   

            I am the grass; I cover all.   

   

And pile them high at Gettysburg   

And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun. 

Shovel them under and let me work.   

Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:   

            What place is this?   

            Where are we now?   

   

            I am the grass. 

            Let me work.

Source:  

1-Boethius and The Consolation of Philosophy.  The School of Life.

2-https://www.inverse.com/article/39990-sherlock-holmes-birthday-early-life-conan-doyle-canon#:~:text=In%20one%20of%20the%20early,Night%20twice%20in%20the%20canon.&text=That%27s%20it

THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 31

If you condensed 15 million years -- the age of the universe -- into a 365 calendar, on what day and at what time did the human species arrive?

Subject: Time - Sagan’s Cosmic Calendar

Event:  December 31

 

The construction of such tables and calendars is inevitably humbling….dinosaurs emerge on Christmas Eve; flowers arise on December 28th; and men and women originate at 10:30 P.M. on New Year's Eve. All of recorded history occupies the last ten seconds of December 31. -Carl Sagan

In his 1977 book Dragons of Eden, astronomer Carl Sagan tackles the problem of trying to illustrate how old the world is relative to how young human beings are.  To do this he constructs what he calls a Cosmic Calendar.  In this calendar, Sagan asks the reader to imagine the 15 billion years condensed and recorded on a 365-day calendar.

On the Cosmic Calendar, the key event on January 1 is the Big Bang (the beginning of the universe).  Other key events don’t occur until September, such as the formation of the earth on September 14 and the origin of life on Earth on September 25.

                                                                    Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay 

If you represented the Cosmic Calendar as the length of a 100 yard football field, the whole of human history would represent a length no larger than the size of a hand.

The key day on the Cosmic Calendar for humankind, therefore, is today: December 31.  It should be humbling to realize how recently our species has appeared:  10:30 PM on December 31st.  Fire became an available tool minutes ago, at 11:46 PM and the first cities appeared at 11:59:35 PM.  Because the alphabet was invented just seconds ago, at 11:59:51 PM, all of recorded human history must be squeezed into a period of just ten seconds.  In Sagan’s words, “Every person we’ve ever heard of lived somewhere in there. All those kings and battles, migrations and inventions, wars and loves. Everything in the history books happens here, in the last 10 seconds of the cosmic calendar.”

The point of the Cosmic Calendar is to give us some perspective about how long our species has been on Earth relative to how long the universe has been in existence.  Although we as humans are newcomers, arriving just 90 minutes before the clock strikes twelve, beginning a new year, we still have enormous power to influence the next cosmic year.  As Sagan puts it, “We have a choice: we can enhance life and come to know the universe that made us, or we can squander our 15 billion year heritage in meaningless self destruction.  What happens in the first second of the next cosmic year depends on what we do.”

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  At what time on the cosmic calendar do humans first appear?

Challenge - It’s the Time of the Season:  What is the best thing anyone has ever said about time?  Do some research to find quotations.  Write down the one you like the best, and explain why you think the quotation is insightful.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

December 31, 1930:  On this day in the 1930s, Jay Hormel hosted a New Year's Eve party where he challenged his guests to create a name for his latest invention, a canned pork product. On that night not only was a new year born but also one of the most successful and most recognizable brand names in history came into being: Spam. The winning name was formed from the contraction of sp(iced h)am; the winner of the contest was awarded $100. Thanks to a sketch and song from the British television show Monty Python's Flying Circus, the word Spam lost its capital letter and became a lowercase common noun referring to unsolicited e-mail. In the sketch, which first appeared in 1970, a waitress recites a list of menu items, all including Spam. As the menu is being recited, a song begins where male voices chant the word Spam more than 100 times. It's this seemingly endless, repetitive chant that inspired computer users to select spam as the appropriate appellation for unwanted, disruptive email in 1994 (2).

Sources:

1-Sagan, Carl. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. New York: Ballantine Books, 1978. 

2-Steinmetz, Sol and Barbara Ann Kipfer. The Life of Language. New York: Random House, 2006.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - December 21

How, using a barometer, did a student give his teachers a lesson in creativity?

Subject: Creative Thinking - Functional Fixedness

Event:  The story “Angels on the Head of a Pin” appears in The Saturday Review, 1968

Children must be taught how to think, not what to think. -Margaret Mead

On this day in 1968, Alexander Calandra published a story in The Saturday Review magazine entitled “Angels on the Head of a Pin.”

In the story, Calandra recounts his interaction with a physics student who was referred to him by another instructor who requested that Calandra referee the student’s unconventional answer to a test question.

The question on the exam was “Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.”  

                                                            Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay 

The student responded to the question as follows:  “Take a barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower the barometer to the street and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope.  The length of the rope is the height of the building.”

Although the student’s answer was correct, it clearly did not reflect the instructor’s expectation that a student answers the question in a way that reveals a competence in physics.  A correct answer would involve using the barometer to measure the difference between the pressure at the top of the building and the bottom.

Offering the student a second chance to answer the question, Calandra gave the student six minutes.  This time the student-generated the following answer: 

"Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop that barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then using the formula S = ½ a t2, one could easily calculate the height of the building.”

Intrigued by the student’s thinking, Calandra asked him what other solutions he had to the problem.  The student then proceeds to give four more possible methods.  One, involving a comparison of the shadows cast by the barometer and the building; two, using the barometer as a ruler and marking off the length of the barometer on the wall while climbing the stairs; three, using the barometer on the end of a string to make a pendulum; and four, knocking on the janitor’s door and asking him the following: "I have a fine barometer which will be yours if you tell me the height of this building.”

The truly fascinating thing about Calandra’s parable is that it is the student who is being tested who becomes the teacher, supplying Calandra and the reader with a powerful lesson in flexible thinking.  Too often students are taught one, supposedly acceptable way to solve a problem, rather than being encouraged to use their creativity to explore multiple correct possibilities.  

The student was courageously resisting functional fixedness, the type of thinking that limits solutions to conventional, acceptable answers and discourages new ideas and innovative thinking.  

For example, try the following brain teaser:

What is the capital of Antarctica?

If you Google the question, searching for a city, you’ll discover that Antarctica has no cities, let alone a capital city.  However, if you look at the question with a bit more of a flexible mindset, you might realize that the word “capital” can also refer to letters; therefore, the answer is capital A.

 

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is functional fixedness, and how does it limit creative thinking?

Challenge - Defenestrate The Box:  As the student illustrated in the story, functional fixedness can hinder creative thinking.  Do a bit of research on creative problem solving, and write a public service announcement that encourages people to think outside of the box.  What are important characteristics and habits of creative thinking, and how can people apply these habits to think more creatively?

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

December 21, 2002:  On this day, President George W. Bush was meeting with his closest advisors in the Oval Office to review the evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.  Determining whether or not Iraq had such weapons was crucial in the president’s decision on whether or not to commit U.S. forces to the invasion of Iraq.  At one point in the meeting, President Bush turned to CIA Director George Tenet, asking him how confident he was that Iraq had WMDs.  His reply was, “Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!” In using a basketball metaphor, Tenet was expressing his belief that the presence of WMDs was a sure thing.  History tells us that Tenet might have been better served by selecting a different metaphor considering the fact that the eventual absence of WMDs became a huge embarrassment for the Bush administration after the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Sources:

1-Calandra, Alexander. “Angels on a Pin.” Saturday Review 21 Dec. 1968.