Progymnasmata, Logic / Rhetoric: Writing an Argument Like St. Thomas Aquinas

From our son's latest assignments from "Molding Your Argument" - We've posted his submissions pro and con for movie censorship. The assignment is to write like St. Thomas Aquinas. In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas presents his arguments in articles that have a specific structure:

1. A specific yes-or-no question. "Whether..." (utrum)
2. List of objections that begin with "It seems that...". The objections should be apparent proofs to the opposite of the thesis (aka
the opposite of the debate) - and should be arguments, not opinions (supportable by evidence) (oportet)
3. Indicate own position - "On the contrary..." - (sed contra) usually argument from authority.
4. "I answer that.." (respondeo dicens)- Thomas proves his own case - provides more background explanations. Aquinas explains how each objection went wrong.

With his permission, our son agreed to let us post his assignments:

PRO: It seems that Hollywood movies should be censored.

Objection 1: There have been professional studies that would appear to indicate that media violence increases real-world violence.
Objection 2: Movies can have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality. Studies have confirmed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed or physiologically aroused when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims.
Objection 3: There have been many confirmed instances in which violent movies have had a direct role in inspiring people to inflict pain, suffering, and death on others. At least nine murders around the world have been directly linked to the slasher film Scream.

I answer that: The right for movies to be free from censorship should be protected. Our country is founded upon principles of freedom of expression, and freedom of expression is necessary for a thriving democracy to have differences of opinion freely discussed, debated, and considered. Censoring objectionable content cuts off free discussion of controversial issues, and it can stifle opposing political opinions.

Reply to Objection 1: As violent media is constantly produced, the rate of violence among children has actually gone down.
Reply to Objection 2: The standards of moral behavior differ between people, religions, and cultures; different people have different reactions to media violence.
Reply to Objection 3: Mentally-unstable people may have negative reactions to media violence, but one has to consider the intent of the director. Is he glorifying violence, or is he portraying it in a negative light?

CON: It seems that movies should not be censored.

Objection 1: Many claim that censorship is in opposition to freedom of expression, and that it is in direct opposition to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Prohibiting content cuts off discussion of controversial worldviews, they say, and it can stifle opposing political opinions.
Objection 2: Some have said that there is no evidence that media violence has a notable effect on the public at large. Violence and immorality have been ubiquitous since the time of Adam and Eve, and they cannot always be prevented by media regulation.
Objection 3: Censorship is difficult to successfully regulate. Different people and cultures have different standards of morality; it is difficult to decide on a single standard of morality by which to prohibit objectionable material.
I answer that: Movies should be censored because messages of extreme violence and overt sexuality are harmful to the mental well-being of viewers and, ultimately, to the community as a whole.

Research in the field of psychology has shown that violence in the media increases aggression. Also, in the cases of murder and other serious crimes inflicting pain and suffering, perpetrators have admitted that movies had a role in inspiring their actions. Finally, movies have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality so that extreme negative images of sexuality and hatred can be a corrupting influence on impressionable audiences.

Reply to Objection 1: The protection of freedom of speech was never meant to endanger the lives of others, as media violence does. The Constitution also grants people the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and media violence influences people to violate those unalienable rights.
Reply to Objection 2: Movie censorship might not prevent all immorality, but it would prevent some of the more severe instances. There have been several confirmed instances around the world of mass murderers being directly influenced by slasher films.
Reply to Objection 3: Our legislative and judicial system regulate morality all the time in terms of physical interaction and in terms of intention.


References: Peter Kreeft's excellent Summa of the Summa
Picture from Thomas Aquinas

The Loyalist vs. Patriot Debate in American History

Our son had fun writing his Patriot position for the upcoming class debate in his Omnibus course. He is supposed to counter the argument that the colonialists should be grateful to England for her protection.

He found this link and the Declaration of Independence very helpful for his research. This is a great activity for synthesizing information about the origins of revolutionary war, making arguments, and persuasion / rhetoric.

His speech:

My fellow Patriots, it has been suggested that the Colonists should be grateful or indebted to the British. I vehemently disagree.

Some have said that we should be grateful to the British for fighting with us in the French and Indian War. After all, they say, our men fought alongside your men, and our men died alongside your men. The Colonists and the Crown both helped win the war against the French and the Indians, and both of us benefited from the defeat.

I pose that England did not enter the war simply to aid us, though, but solely to fatten herself. The British now hold vast tracts of land in America and freely trade fish and fur.

But, my fellow Patriots, there are many questions we should ask ourselves regarding our gratitude to Britain. Should we be grateful for the British blockade of our trade with the rest of the world, impoverishing the hardworking citizens of this country and making us reliant on the scraps King George gives us? Should we be grateful for England's refusal to pay us back for the loans we were forced to give Her Majesty for the war? Should we be grateful that Parliament has abolished our laws and stifled our entire system of government? And should we be grateful that the Crown has sent us armed troops for the purpose of threatening us, shielding them from any punishment should they murder our citizens? Should we be grateful for the deaths of Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, Patrick Carr, and Crispus Attucks, all of whom were murdered by the British troops in the Boston Massacre?

Writing a Socratic Dialogue

Our son's just finishing his online Logic course through Biola, and after reading Plato's Meno, the students were asked to write a Socratic dialogue on any topic of their choice. This assignment is a perfect cap to a logic course; I also can't help thinking it will make him more successful at being able to analyze the arguments of others and persuade some to his own opinions when important topics (different philosophies, religious beliefs, social or political opinions) are being considered.

Wikipedia describes the Socratic method as "a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, which may subconsciously shape one's opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances."

Some common features of a Socratic dialogue (from Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic):

1. The goal is moral or philosophical.
2. Define the question and ambiguous terms.
3. Question, rather than giving one's opinion.
4. Examine the why of the discussant's belief, especially looking for ambiguous terms, a false premise, or logical fallacy.
5. Trace premises back to additional premises.
6. Draw out consequences of the belief (reductio ad absurdum)
7. Construct an argument that contradictors the belief.
8. Closure and proof.

Here's an excerpt of our son's Socratic Dialogue. He wanted to address the issue of Free Will. If you'd like the read the entire dialogue, click here.

"Adelphos: Socrates, why do you waste your time by chatting with the people on the street?

Socrates: Ah, Adelphos! What a delightful surprise!. I have waited years for somebody to ask this question. Exactly in what sense am I wasting my time?

Adelphos: You aren't teaching anyone with your little dialogues in a way that can change their fate. Look at Demos there. He is the son of wise Erasmus, and also a wealthy young man of Athens. The gods know the number of his days, and he has inherited the wisdom of his father and the kindness of his mother. Look upon his face, his bearing, his diligence. He will be a fine young man whether he listens to you babble on for hours or not.

Socrates: There are a few questions I want to ask you. First, if the gods know the number of Demos's days, does that necessarily make any action of his futile?

Adelphos: It does not. The good deeds of a good man bring much blessings, whether his life is long or short.

Socrates: And is it always the case that good fathers have good sons?

Adelphos: That is not the case, though there are more good sons that come from good fathers than bad sons that come from good fathers or good sons that come from bad fathers.

Socrates: Exactly what causes the exceptions, particularly when bad sons are born to good fathers?

Adelphos: It depends. Sometimes it's the result of the bad character that's given to the sons by the gods. Sometimes it's the ideas imposed upon the sons by other people that corrupt a naturally good character.

Socrates: How do these ideas get imposed upon the naturally good sons?

Adelphos: From spending too much time listening to the ideas of other people with poor character and imitating their actions. Let me give you an example. Alcibiades was born of a good family and he had plenty in terms of beauty and cleverness, but he turned out bad because he was surrounded by a few reckless and wild people.

Socrates: Yet it would seem to me that if anyone was fated by the gods to be good, Alcibiades was. It looked as if he had many gifts from the gods and blessings from his parents, yet he turned out bad because he imitated the poor judgments and actions of others. Was he simply fated to spend his time with evil friends and so to learn to make bad choices? Or did he choose to do so?

Adelphos: I see where you are going with this, Socrates. But choosing and being fated to choose are the same thing..."

For more examples of Socratic dialogues, check out the Google books excerpts from Peter Kreeft's Socrates Meets Marx

Pursuit of Why: Scientific Reasoning and Botany

It's not an easy thinking teaching scientific reasoning to children because the facts and details of science can easily overwhelm any planned lesson. Facts and details are an important part of science learning, but they shouldn't be the only thing. We think scientific reasoning is best taught as a habit, and to do that, we need to give children the opportunity to observe, speculate, and criticize their speculations.

Here's something to try with your kids. Have them watch the sunflower experiment at the Plants in Motion page. These side-by-side experiments show an somewhat unexpected effect of sun on growing seedlings:



Questions:
1. What are the two growth conditions for the sunflowers? For a "good" experimental design, what variables should be kept constant (for instance, same soil, same seeds, etc.), and what one variable(sun) the experimental condition?
2. What do you see?
3. Why do you think this happens?
4. Bonus question: How could you test your hypothesis?

If you try this with your children, share some of your discussions with us! We probably do more science at home with our children than other families (we both did some stints in laboratories before), but I was surprised at how much they initially struggled with generating hypotheses. It is hard to do, so it's a good thing to practice!

We were surprised at how many interesting discussion points could come from this little web lab experiment... dark-reared plants are taller with smaller leaves, Greek root, photo (light), synthesis ("syn" = together, "tithermi"=place), energy needed or plant will die, dark-reared plant put energy and resources into vertical growth (plants without sun may be buried deeper and need to grow vertically to reach light), or photosynthesis and the making of leaves might have an energy cost, sacrificing vertical growth to the formation of broader leaves to collect more sun, the idea of the sun like a "switch" - could turn off growth factors affecting the vertical growth of a plant, or turn on factors that start the program for a leaf...

Technorati tags: science, education, parenting, homeschooling, reasoning, classical education

Classics Alive Today: Caesar and the War in Iraq

I found this LA Times article by accident, and it got me thinking about the asset of being able to see today's challenges with a full perspective that includes the past. Classical history seems to provide an unparalleled

Check out this LA Times editorial from a British Caesar historian who contemplates our current situation in Iraq.

Excerpt: "Even without 24-hour news and an international community watching his every move, Caesar was acutely aware of the need to win over public opinion. Each winter he produced an account of the year's campaign, designed to be read aloud and to thrill an audience of Romans."

Maybe you can shake up your discussions a bit at home thinking about how Caesar might have handled the Iraq war differently.

BTW please forward me any articles you come across that have this classical-contemporary bent...they don't have to be political; they could be about anything. I hope to post regularly - and these types of topics might provide good mulling opportunities for logic and rhetoric age students.

LA Times- Caesar: Diplomacy and Power

Technorati tags: classical education, Iraq. Caesar

Logic Stage: Finding Fallacies

Finding fallacies are a good starting place for learning how to analyze differences of opinion or belief. Are you a little rusty at this? Based on an excellent UNC site (here), we reorganized the information in a handout that can be presented as practice for you or your students: Fallacies 1

The first two pages have brief statements that represent classic argument fallacies. Pages 3-14 have the answers as well as more detailed explanations.