Page 438 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

Chapter 15 Thinking and Speaking Critically 405

of reasoning to help you further develop your ability to think critically, both
as a speaker and a listener. If we want our audience to experience an enduring
attitude change or to inoculate them against counterpersuasion following our
speech, then the central route to persuasion is best (see Chapter 14). As listeners,
we should always be critical of the claims speakers make when deciding whether
to accept them. Whether we are speaking or listening to a message that seeks to
persuade us, critical thinking is important.

Critical Thinking and Public Speaking

Critical thinking is the process of making sound inferences based on accu- critical thinking
rate evidence and valid reasoning. Understanding how to think critically about The process of making
arguments is the fi rst step to constructing and communicating those arguments sound inferences based
to an audience. As noted in Chapter 14, logical proof should be an ethical part on accurate evidence
of any persuasive message. To successfully persuade others of our side of a con- and valid reasoning.
troversial issue, it is important to have well-constructed, sound arguments for
our side. As the elaboration likelihood model introduced in the preceding chap-
ter shows, we are more likely to induce a permanent change in attitude if we use
sound evidence and reasoning.

Pseudoreasoning and Fallacies

As both a speaker and a listener, it is important to differentiate messages that are
logical from those that are not. We need to be on our guard against arguments
pseudoreasoning
that sound good but are actually illogical. Pseudoreasoning is an argument
that appears sound at fi rst glance but contains within it a fl aw in reasoning that An argument that ap-
pears sound at fi rst
renders it unsound. Such a fl aw in reasoning is called a fallacy, defi ned by phi-
glance but contains a
losophers Brook Noel Moore and Richard Parker as “an argument in which the fallacy of reasoning that
1
reasons advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of the claim.” There-
renders it unsound.
fore, our goal in this chapter is to enable you to identify fallacies that signal
pseudoreasoning. As speakers, we want to offer our audience members good fallacy
reasons to accept our claims, and as listeners, we want to be sure that we only An argument in which
accept those claims offered by speakers who base their speeches on sound logic. the reasons advanced
for a claim fail to warrant
acceptance of that claim.
Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness
argumentativeness
When listeners detect fallacious reasoning, they are ethically obligated to The trait of arguing for
bring it to light. Simply remaining silent allows the speaker to mislead those and against the positions
who are not well trained in critical thinking. However, there is an important taken on controversial
distinction between being argumentative and being verbally aggressive. In his claims.
book Arguing Constructively, Dominic Infante makes the distinction between
2
these two personality traits. Argumentativeness is the trait of arguing for verbal
aggressiveness
and against the positions taken on controversial claims. For example, an argu-
The trait of attacking the
mentative person might say, “Legalizing drugs could lead to more accidents on
self-concept of those
the job and on roads, endangering the lives of innocent bystanders.” Verbal
with whom a person dis-
aggressiveness, on the other hand, is the trait of attacking the self-concept of agrees about controver-
those with whom a person disagrees about controversial claims. A verbally ag- sial claims.
gressive person might say, “Only a drug-crazed maniac would favor legalizing