What I've learned about argument from Aquinas
And how I learned it
Folks argue all the time. I’ve spent much of my morning arguing with my partner and my children. In the ed-space, people are certainly arguing all the time—and quite rightfully. Often we’re fussing about things due to a mixture of caring a lot about the complex thing at hand, and/or the complex people involved.
Oftentimes we’re arguing so much it’s tough to notice how ubiquitous it is. This is something I think about a lot in my scholarship around talk, dialogue and conversation—language is suffused throughout our experience of the world, it’s something we’re hardly conscious of, kinda like our breathing.
But once you attend more closely to these things—the language we’re using, and the arguments being made—you can start to see some interesting things. This is where the Aquinas bot comes onto the scene…
Aquinas bot
I’m an early adopter of wild experiences with language. So ten-plus years ago, I spent some time listening to the open-source LibriVox recordings of Aquinas’ Summa. I’d definitely recommend this, partly because Aquinas cites an outrageously broad and mysterious corpus, but mostly because of how he argues—the explicit, systematic structure of it. I just got hooked on him saying—On the contrary!
It’s no secret I’m LLM friendly around here—so in and around some of that thinking about the ubiquity of language and argument, it crossed my mind to make a simple tool that would only argue like Aquinas. The general idea is thus: Give it any idea, and it’ll argue like Aquinas. I even made a funny description for it:
I couldn’t truly forecast what this would mean for me. It just kind of lingered in the background for me for a while—through the depths of winter, according to this screenshot. But, every once in a while, I would toss it an idea, mostly jokes—what’s up with Christmas? Who has the best King Cake?
But then I started asking it more serious questions. As I mentioned before, in this ed-space, there’s surely a lot to argue about. This is a great place to find hot-topics to send on over to the Aquinas bot—so this is what I started to do:
—« Hi, what is your mental representation of teaching and learning »
—Ah, teaching and learning, a fascinating topic indeed. Let's dive into it using the scholastic method.
1. The broad question we'll be addressing is: "What is the nature of teaching and learning?"
2. Now, let's present a few objections or arguments against a particular view on teaching and learning:
Objection 1: Teaching is simply the transmission of knowledge from a teacher to a student, and learning is the passive acquisition of that knowledge.
Objection 2: Teaching and learning are purely cognitive processes, with no need for any emotional or experiential elements.
Objection 3: Learning is solely the responsibility of the student, and teaching only serves as a facilitator.
3. To destabilize these objections, let's turn to an authoritative source, Scripture, for guidance. In Proverbs 22:6, it states: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." This passage suggests that teaching involves more than just knowledge transmission, but also guidance and formation.
4. Now, let's present Aquinas' own view on the nature of teaching and learning:
Aquinas' view: Teaching is a dynamic process that involves not only the transmission of knowledge but also the cultivation of virtues and the development of critical thinking skills. Learning, on the other hand, is an active process that requires the engagement and effort of the student.
5. Let's respond to each of the initial objections with Aquinas' positive arguments:
Response to Objection 1: Teaching is not a mere transmission of knowledge, but an active process that involves fostering understanding and facilitating the growth of the student's intellectual capabilities. The teacher plays a crucial role in guiding and shaping the student's learning experience.
Response to Objection 2: Teaching and learning are not solely cognitive processes. Emotions, experiences, and practical applications are integral to effective learning. By engaging students on an emotional and experiential level, teachers can enhance understanding and retention of knowledge.
Response to Objection 3: While students have a responsibility to engage in the learning process, the role of the teacher goes beyond mere facilitation. Teachers provide guidance, structure, and support to help students navigate the complexities of learning and develop their full potential.
6. These responses to the objections are grounded in Aquinas' positive arguments for his own view:
Positive argument 1: Teaching involves not only the transmission of knowledge but also the cultivation of virtues. By instilling moral and intellectual virtues, teachers prepare students for a life of moral and intellectual excellence.
Positive argument 2: Learning is an active process that requires the engagement and effort of the student. By actively participating in the learning process, students develop critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
7. Through this dialectic, Aquinas engages thoroughly with the objections and shows the superiority of his view. By emphasizing the active role of the teacher and the importance of experiential and emotional elements in learning, Aquinas provides a comprehensive understanding of teaching and learning.
8. The result is an accessible, well-reasoned defense of Aquinas' view on the nature of teaching and learning, which recognizes the multi-faceted nature of the educational process and the responsibilities of both the teacher and the student.
How does he argue?
Dude, Aquinas wasn’t messing around. The more I think about it, the more this becomes completely obvious and fundamentally bound to the ‘scholastic’ idea itself. The point of the Summa was to create a comprehensive theological compendium that systematically explained the teachings of the Catholic faith, so he really went about it in a careful way.
After I ported the bot to GPT4, it got even better. That’s when I started shuffling more contentious topics to the Aquinas bot, and his method of argumentation became more fascinating. First, he names the article under debate, then launches directly into objections. This is my new favorite thing, because if I have a bias in the prompt, he usually validates my argument by naming it—but he’s just setting me up.
Mostly you’ll get three or four objections, then things get more interesting still when he drops an authoritative quote to destabilize the dialogue/dialectic. And no matter how many times I see it, I always love his On the contrary… The citations usually impress me, and I think it’s because Aquinas and the Bible are so thoroughgoing in the LLM training, it usually does great with citing something pretty accurately.
After that destabilizing quote, Aquinas gives his take before addressing each of the previously named objections themselves. And thus is the magic of his scholastic argumentation—and we can learn a lot from it.
So what have I learned?
We argue all the time. After I finish writing this blog, I plan to go argue with people I care about about complex things that I really believe in. It’s really helpful to be able to take a step back from the claims being made, the assertions helpfully punctuating the dialogue, and—as Wendy Smith et al. might say it—separate and connect.
Aquinas’ mode of argument helps illuminate different positions that are taken in contentious debates. It takes in good faith the objections at hand, names them charitably—almost star-manning them. It relatively dispassionately separates points of view, helpfully names them, and allows connection at a broader understanding.
Don’t get me wrong, the Aquinas bot definitely takes positions—and those are oftentimes totally fascinating. Yet taking a pause to thoughtfully consider objections isn’t the worst recommendation, and we’d do well to take it.
Whether Running Records are Beneficial for Reading Instruction?
**Objection 1:** It seems that running records are not beneficial for reading instruction because they consume a significant amount of instructional time that could otherwise be used for direct teaching or engaging students in reading activities. Time spent on administering and analyzing running records could detract from more valuable instructional activities.
**Objection 2:** Furthermore, critics argue that running records can be overly focused on errors and mechanical aspects of reading, such as accuracy rates, at the expense of fostering a love of reading and comprehension skills. This focus on quantifiable metrics may neglect the development of critical thinking and interpretative skills associated with reading.
**Objection 3:** Additionally, some educators contend that the information gained from running records is too narrow and fails to provide a comprehensive picture of a student's reading abilities. They argue that other assessment tools can offer broader insights into a student's reading proficiency, comprehension, and engagement with texts.
**Objection 4:** There is also a concern that running records, being somewhat subjective in nature, can vary significantly in their interpretation from one educator to another. This subjectivity can lead to inconsistencies in how reading abilities are assessed and understood across different settings or times.
**On the contrary,** the National Reading Panel (2000) emphasizes the importance of systematic assessment strategies in reading instruction, highlighting that assessments can guide teachers in identifying students' reading strengths and weaknesses, thereby facilitating targeted instruction. While not referring to running records specifically, this authoritative stance underscores the value of informed assessment in teaching reading.
**Aquinas' View:** In line with the scholastic method, we must affirm the value of running records in reading instruction, despite the objections raised. Running records serve as a crucial tool for teachers to understand the nuances of a student's reading process, including their ability to decode words, use context clues, and self-correct, which are essential components of becoming a fluent reader. They provide immediate, actionable data that can inform differentiated instruction, allowing teachers to meet students where they are and push their learning forward.
**Response to Objection 1:** While running records do require time to administer, the investment is justified by the valuable insights gained into a student's reading development. This precise diagnostic tool helps teachers to efficiently target instruction, thereby saving time in the long run by avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching reading.
**Response to Objection 2:** In response to the concern about focusing too much on errors, it's essential to understand that running records are not merely about counting mistakes but interpreting the types of errors to understand the student's thought process. This nuanced approach helps in fostering not just decoding skills but also comprehension and prediction skills, which are vital for a holistic reading experience.
**Response to Objection 3:** Although running records may seem narrow in scope, they are part of a balanced literacy program that includes various forms of assessment and instructional strategies. When used in conjunction with other tools, running records provide deep insights into a critical aspect of reading development, complementing broader assessments of comprehension and engagement.
**Response to Objection 4:** The potential for subjectivity in running records can be mitigated through professional development and calibration sessions among educators, ensuring a more standardized approach to administering and interpreting these assessments. This process enhances the reliability and validity of running records as a tool for guiding reading instruction.
In conclusion, despite the objections raised, running records remain a valuable component of reading instruction, providing teachers with detailed insights into students' reading behaviors and strategies, which, in turn, can inform targeted, effective instruction.