A beautiful re-issued edition of poetry from the Scotiabank Giller Prize–winning author of How To Pronounce Knife FEATURING A NEW INTRODUCTION BY THE AUTHOR The language of Small Arguments is simple, yet there is nothing simple in its ideas. Reminiscent of Pablo Neruda’s Elemental Odes, these poems explore the structures of argument, orchestrating material around repetition, variation, and contrast. Thammavongsa’s approach is like that of a scientist or philosopher, delicately probing material for meaning and understanding. The poet collects small lives and argues for a larger belonging: a grain of dirt, a crushed cockroach, the eyes of a dead dragonfly. It is a work that suggests we can create with what we know and with that alone. First published in 2003, Small Arguments announced the arrival of a distinct and utterly original new voice.
This compositional theory of verbal argument structures explores how 'noncore' arguments (i.e. arguments that are not introduced by verbal roots themselves) are introduced into argument structure, and examines cross-linguistic variation in introducing arguments.
“This short book makes you smarter than 99% of the population. . . . The concepts within it will increase your company’s ‘organizational intelligence.’. . . It’s more than just a must-read, it’s a ‘have-to-read-or-you’re-fired’ book.”—Geoffrey James, INC.com From the author of An Illustrated Book of Loaded Language, here’s the antidote to fuzzy thinking, with furry animals! Have you read (or stumbled into) one too many irrational online debates? Ali Almossawi certainly had, so he wrote An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments! This handy guide is here to bring the internet age a much-needed dose of old-school logic (really old-school, a la Aristotle). Here are cogent explanations of the straw man fallacy, the slippery slope argument, the ad hominem attack, and other common attempts at reasoning that actually fall short—plus a beautifully drawn menagerie of animals who (adorably) commit every logical faux pas. Rabbit thinks a strange light in the sky must be a UFO because no one can prove otherwise (the appeal to ignorance). And Lion doesn’t believe that gas emissions harm the planet because, if that were true, he wouldn’t like the result (the argument from consequences). Once you learn to recognize these abuses of reason, they start to crop up everywhere from congressional debate to YouTube comments—which makes this geek-chic book a must for anyone in the habit of holding opinions.
Drawing on advice from the world’s leading experts on conflict and communication—from relationship scientists to hostage negotiators to diplomats—Ian Leslie, a columnist for the New Statesman, shows us how to transform the heat of conflict, disagreement and argument into the light of insight, creativity and connection, in a book with vital lessons for the home, workplace, and public arena. For most people, conflict triggers a fight or flight response. Disagreeing productively is a hard skill for which neither evolution or society has equipped us. It’s a skill we urgently need to acquire; otherwise, our increasingly vociferous disagreements are destined to tear us apart. Productive disagreement is a way of thinking, perhaps the best one we have. It makes us smarter and more creative, and it can even bring us closer together. It’s critical to the success of any shared enterprise, from a marriage, to a business, to a democracy. Isn’t it time we gave more thought to how to do it well? In an increasingly polarized world, our only chance for coming together and moving forward is to learn from those who have mastered the art and science of disagreement. In this book, we’ll learn from experts who are highly skilled at getting the most out of highly charged encounters: interrogators, cops, divorce mediators, therapists, diplomats, psychologists. These professionals know how to get something valuable – information, insight, ideas—from the toughest, most antagonistic conversations. They are brilliant communicators: masters at shaping the conversation beneath the conversation. They know how to turn the heat of conflict into the light of creativity, connection, and insight. In this much-need book, Ian Leslie explores what happens to us when we argue, why disagreement makes us stressed, and why we get angry. He explains why we urgently need to transform the way we think about conflict and how having better disagreements can make us more successful. By drawing together the lessons he learns from different experts, he proposes a series of clear principles that we can all use to make our most difficult dialogues more productive—and our increasingly acrimonious world a better place.
In The Value of the Humanities prize-winning critic Helen Small assesses the value of the Humanities, eloquently examining five historical arguments in defence of the Humanities.
Introduction to the Theory and Application of Differential Equations with Deviating Arguments 2nd edition is a revised and substantially expanded edition of the well-known book of L. E. El’sgol’ts published under this same title by Nauka in 1964. Extensions of the theory of differential equations with deviating argument as well as the stimuli of developments within various fields of science and technology contribute to the need for a new edition. This theory in recent years has attracted the attention of vast numbers of researchers, interested both in the theory and its applications. The development of the foundations of the theory of differential equations with a deviating argument is still far from complete. This situation, of course, leaves its mark on our suggestions to the reader of the book and prevents as orderly and systematic a presentation as is usual for mathematical literature. However, it is hoped that in spite of these deficiencies the book will prove useful as a first acquaintanceship with the theory of differential equations with a deviating argument.
AS SEEN IN THE NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY THE SOCIAL DILEMMA A WIRED "ALL-TIME FAVORITE BOOK" A FINANCIAL TIMES BEST BOOK "THE CONSCIENCE OF SILICON VALLEY"- GQ “Profound . . . Lanier shows the tactical value of appealing to the conscience of the individual. In the face of his earnest argument, I felt a piercing shame about my own presence on Facebook. I heeded his plea and deleted my account.” - Franklin Foer, The New York Times Book Review “Mixes prophetic wisdom with a simple practicality . . . Essential reading.” - The New York Times (Summer Reading Preview) You might have trouble imagining life without your social media accounts, but virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier insists that we’re better off without them. In Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, Lanier, who participates in no social media, offers powerful and personal reasons for all of us to leave these dangerous online platforms. Lanier’s reasons for freeing ourselves from social media’s poisonous grip include its tendency to bring out the worst in us, to make politics terrifying, to trick us with illusions of popularity and success, to twist our relationship with the truth, to disconnect us from other people even as we are more “connected” than ever, to rob us of our free will with relentless targeted ads. How can we remain autonomous in a world where we are under continual surveillance and are constantly being prodded by algorithms run by some of the richest corporations in history that have no way of making money other than being paid to manipulate our behavior? How could the benefits of social media possibly outweigh the catastrophic losses to our personal dignity, happiness, and freedom? Lanier remains a tech optimist, so while demonstrating the evil that rules social media business models today, he also envisions a humanistic setting for social networking that can direct us toward a richer and fuller way of living and connecting with our world.
Making Arguments: Reason in Context offers a new approach to the teaching of argumentation and debate. Nearly all argumentation courses and textbooks tilt toward one of two extremes: * Critical thinking/informal logic, in which the "laws" of reasoning are universal and not affected by audience or context * Public speaking, in which adaptation to the audience and winning assent trumps logic and reasoning At the first extreme are texts that stress flaws in arguments and how to discern them. Their focus tends to be on the logic (making deductive inferences and avoiding deductive mistakes or other errors of inference) and/or the recognition of fallacies (deficient or fake arguments). They also deal with the messy ambiguities of language. Generally, this approach omits the concept of an audience. And it does not explain how spotting the flaws in reasoning, or improving one's reasoning, translates into the ability to make an effective argument. Further, it is not clear how to address audiences whose grasp of logic is shaky. At the other extreme are books (especially public speaking textbooks) that err in the opposite direction. They are fixated on audience. As a result, their advice about how to argue is grounded in audience adaptation. In fact, the process of reasoning is nearly subordinated to such secondary considerations as style, delivery, and organization. And again, the connection between critical thinking/logic and audience is rarely examined. In Making Arguments, we propose to consider argument at the nexus of invention and judgment, the two endpoints from which logic and public speaking examine argumentation, respectively. By looking at the "stuff" that comes between an argument's design and its delivery, we hope to enrich the understanding and the study of argument, as both a theoretical and applied discipline. In particular, we want to answer some questions that are seldom addressed in print: * What is the starting point for augmentation? When do we even need to argue? * When should one embrace, and when should one avoid, arguing? * Why does the same argument work in one place and fail in another? * Are most audiences capable of understanding a complex argument? * With what authority can one make an argument--absent expertise in the field in which the argument takes place? * Are there substantive differences between oral and written argument? * What does it mean to "present" an argument? * Can someone control the argumentative situation/context to the benefit of his/her position? * How can argument educate and improve the arguer? * Can we learn the "truth" by arguing? This book addresses the whole advocacy process as a series of concatenated intellectual decisions affecting how arguments are created, ordered, rendered, and produced--with judgment as the over-arching concern.
