CHAPTER V ASSERTION AND EVIDENCE SECTION 1. ASSERTION What assertion is. When a student has learned by critical reading what the terms of his proposition mean, and consequently knows the general history of the question (that is, the immediate cause for its discussion, the origin of the question, and the broad clash of opinion), and when, by analysis, he has cut down this broad clash of opinion to the essential ideas, and finally to the group of ideas that are the special issues, he has probably felt the need of a knowledge of the nature of evidence (that is, the material of proof) and the tests whereby he may accurately estimate its value. Even students who are careful in their preliminary reading, and who analyze well, often fail in supporting their view of the issues; for, after reading widely, they feel so sure of the correctness of their resulting opinions that they merely state what those opinions are, expecting their readers to accept them without question. But, except under one set of conditions,' assertion (that is, unqualified affirmation that something is true or false, wise or foolish, without any statement of the reasons why the writer holds his opinions) is in argumentation valueless. For instance, a minister, talking to his congregation on the lessons to be drawn from the war between China and Japan, asserted that the reason for the success of the Japanese was that they keep Sunday and the Chinese do not. Any cautious member of the congregation might well wish proof that the Japanese as a nation keep 1 That is, the argument from authority. See page 70. Sunday. Even if he granted this, he would certainly wish proof that this custom among the Japanese is not only a sufficient cause to lead to so great a result as the overwhelming success of the Japanese army, but the chief cause. Had the minister been asked for this proof, the absurdity of his statement would have been laid bare. The effectiveness of insistence on the valuelessness of assertion is shown in the following from Sir Thomas Wyatt's defense when accused of high treason: First you must understand that my masters here, sergeant and other of the King's Counsel that allege here against me, were never beyond the sea with me, that I remember. They never heard me say any such words there, never saw me have any intelligence with Pole, nor my indicters neither. Wherein you must mark, that neither these men which talk here unsworn, nor the indictment at large, is to be regarded as evidence. The indicters have found that I have done. If that be true, what need your trial? but if quests fetch their light at indictments at large,1 then is a man condemned unheard; then had my Lord Dacres been found guilty; for he was indicted at large by four or five quests; like was his matter avowed, affirmed, and aggravated by an help of learned men; but on all this the honourable and wise nobility did not once look; they looked at the evidence, in which they weighed, I suppose, the malice of his accusers, the unlikelihood of the things hanging together, and chiefly of all, the substance of the matter and the proofs.2 How assertion arises. Assertion, the most common fault in argumentation, arises from the fact that the untrained mind forgets that lack of equal knowledge of the subject, differences of temperament, prejudice, any one of many causes, may make one man unable to see a matter as does his neighbor. What to him seems true is true for him, and should, he thinks, be equally true for his fellow men. For any man his own experience and his reasoning from that 1 "If juries decide after simply hearing the charges." 2 The Poetical Works of Sir Thomas Wyatt, p. lxxii. Bell & Daldy. experience are more convincing than the experience and reasoning of another. As a result statements that seem selfevident to the writer from his own experience, or, more likely, from his special knowledge of the subject, appear to those whom he is trying to convince to be sadly in need of evidential support. It follows, therefore, that the moment a statement of a writer is contradicted or even seriously doubted on account of the experience or reasoning of a reader, even if the experience or the reasoning or both be unsound, the writer must give reasons for the correctness of his statement. The sweeping statements of the following paragraphs, written shortly after the Spanish War by a student strongly opposed to the great increase of the army from twenty-five thousand to one hundred thousand men, probably seemed to him, in his zeal for his side, to be valid as arguments. A little careful consideration of the position of his readers, however, must have made him realize that he would have to treat these important matters in an entirely different fashion before he had any right to expect to convince a reader who even doubted his proposition. The expense of one soldier to the government is about one thousand dollars a year, even when the soldiers are kept in their country. If soldiers were sent into the islands the expense per man would be greater, and the expense of one hundred thousand men would mean about four dollars tax where there is one dollar tax now. Besides the amount of expense for salaries, food, and transportation there would be a great additional amount in the number of pensions, which the government would have to grant if the army were increased to one hundred thousand men. The most capable army officers we have are graduated from West Point where they receive first-rate military instruction, but even now with our present small army, West Point graduates are hardly enough to fill the positions made vacant in the army. What would happen if our army should be suddenly increased to one hundred thousand men? The officers of this increased army would have to be made up of incapable men, who have had no good military instruction and are fully incapable in every way. Perhaps there are some men in the country who would be as good officers as West Point graduates, but the chances of these good men for getting the positions are very poor unless they have a strong political pull, which in these cases has much power. The argument from authority. There is only one set of conditions in which unsupported assertion is safe. There are men and books which have come to be regarded as authoritative on the subjects which they treat, and their testimony as to facts and as to inferences from facts is unquestioningly accepted. The Puritan of 1620 settled an argument by quoting as indisputable a Biblical text. Our fathers with similar assurance of finality cited an article of the Constitution. These men used the argument from authority, in that they gave not a careful statement of reasons for a belief but another's assertion, which, however, they knew no one would question. Lord Chatham, in his speech on removing the British troops from Boston, believing Benjamin Franklin to be the preeminent authority on American affairs, knew he would be recognized as the source of the following argument from authority: I remember, some years ago, when the repeal of the Stamp Act was in agitation, conversing in a friendly confidence with a person of undoubted respect and authenticity, on that subject, and he ⚫ assured me with a certainty which his judgment and opportunity gave him, that these were the prevalent and steady principles of America that you might destroy their towns, and cut them off from the superfluities, perhaps the conveniences of life, but that they were prepared to despise your power, and would not lament their loss, while they have what, my Lords? their woods and their liberty. The name of my authority, if I am called upon, will authenticate the opinion irrefragably.1 Its varying convincingness. Any consideration as to when it is wise to use this argument from authority 1 Specimens of Argumentation, p. 14. in what its strength consists — will show that it must be employed with great care, since it is of variable value. The final judge as to its fitness in any given case is, not the writer, but his readers. The strength of the argument from authority comes ultimately from the fact that people in general may be assumed to admit that on the subject under discussion the book or the person cited cannot state ideas or make judgments incorrectly. With books and men this strength comes either from inspirational knowledge of the truth or from a reputation for probity and for mastery of the subject under discussion. The former is illustrated by the teachings of Christ in the Bible; the latter, by the statements of the best experts. The same assertion, however, may in different places, under different circumstances, vary in its degree of convincingness. Suppose that a Christian in discussing with a Mohammedan some question of morality quotes some precept of the Bible as final authority. Unless this precept, which for the Christian is a perfect argument from authority, is in the Koran also, the Mohammedan will deny its authoritativeness and ask the Christian to show him why this precept should be unhesitatingly followed. Certainly the Christian would behave in the same way as the Mohammedan, if conditions were reversed. The famous scientist who lectures to an unscientific audience may venture, on the strength of his reputation, to make many assertions. An audience more trained in science, knowing that some of the views to which this man clings are fiercely combated by other scientists, will be less willing to trust his mere assertions. This is true because the audience doubts, not his honesty, but rather his complete mastery of the subject; that is, his special information on the particular question under discussion. Many a writer, moreover, makes it evident that he is in a position to know thoroughly what he is discussing, but his very treatment awakens doubt as to the thorough reliability |