Greetings, this is Andy Johnson. Topic of today's
presentation is the importance of arguments.
Arguments are not bad things. Arguments are good
things. In fact, they are essential things. Now,
an argument in an academic setting is not two
people yelling at each other. An argument in
this setting is the process of engagement. where
you put forth a proposition and support it using
reason, evidence, and analysis while another
listens. And when you're finished propositioning
and supporting, the other puts forth a counterargument
while you listen. Focusing only on the initial
proposition, this process continues until one
of five things occur. One, you persuade the other
or others of the correctness of your proposition.
Two, you get persuaded of the wrongness of your
proposition. Three, you find areas of agreement
and compromise. Four, you have a better understanding
of the other but recognize that differences are
irreconcilable. or five, one of you gets mad
and leaves in a huff. Now, the argumentative
process, argumentation process is the foundation
of academic discourse within the academy. It's
worked for centuries, enabling our various academic
fields to continually evolve. These arguments
usually take place in academic journals, academic
conferences, and various other academic presentations.
Yeah, you say, but we're not in an academic setting,
you liberal egghead. Yes, this is a well -stated
proposition with which I agree. We are not in
an academic setting. However, in a non -academic
setting, constructive argumentation is still
the best way to move the conversation forward.
Here, propositions are still made and supported
using reason, evidence, and analysis. In fact,
the white men in tight pants who designed our
democracy 250 years ago also believed the argumentative
process to be so important that they built it
into our form of governments. Today we have courts
and legislative bodies where arguments are heard,
propositions are supported, and decisions are
made. So the importance of argument, as stated
previously, the argumentative process promotes
change, growth, and evolution. Argument invites
us to revisit and review our view on things.
And then we either reify or revise our thinking.
Now, changes in thinking don't indicate a flip
-flopper or a spineless fraud. It doesn't mean
that a person lacks strong conviction about things.
It means that the person is alive. And things
that are alive change and grow when they encounter
new information or have new experiences. Things
that are dead stay the same and eventually wither
away. It's the ability to change and grow in
our thinking that has been hardwired into our
species. It's what enabled our ancestors to leave
the trees and evolve on the plains of the savannas
millions of years ago. Yet some would prefer
to stay in the trees teaching children to sound
out words instead of teaching them to read. They
see and hear only what they understand and information
or experiences that differ. from the current
ways of thinking are discarded or explained away.
They wave their arms in screech and anger when
they encounter words like balanced literacy or
three -queueing. They live in clans of like -thinking
individuals. And this has resulted in cognitive
inbreeding and all sorts of wacky mutations such
as letters, professional development. There will
be no dissent. While essential for a healthy
functioning democracy, autocracies have never
been comfortable with arguments. Arguments to
get people believe in the wrong sorts of things,
they say. There'd be chaos if people were allowed
to go around believing whatever they want, they
say. And besides, arguments are not needed if
you are right about everything, they say. And
I'll point out here that Donald Trump has insisted
that he's been right about everything. Throughout
the centuries, the more powerful have always
tried to quash the arguments made by the less
powerful. They believe that people won't start
believing the wrong sorts of things if they can't
hear the arguments. So they quash them. Governments,
political movements, and even religions have
stayed in power far longer than they should have
by eliminating the argumentative process. And
it's worth noting that Trump's FCC and Justice
Department have done all sorts of things to eliminate
the argument. These actions represent the very
worst unpatriotic, un -American impulses. So
what are we talking about here, you ask? Religion,
politics, or reading instruction? To which I
say, yes. But the book I'm working on is about
the science of reading, so I'll be putting this
in the context of reading instruction.