Innards

For many years, whenever people used the phrase internal assessment, I would think of my brother-in-law the specialist in internal medicine. It was then a short step from internal assessment to haruspimancy. As they say, the quality of life depends on the liver.

This haphazard and peculiar divinatory practice was, of course, designed to produce useable knowledge. The main problems of knowledge are obvious - how it is obtained; how it is justified; of what use it is, what applications it has; what intrinsic properties, propensities and biases it contains and presumes upon; how it is sufficient for certain purposes and not for others; how well does it support other knowledge; what forms it takes and how resilient those forms are - and so on.

The trick in any argument involving knowledge is to narrow an issue down to which problem of knowledge best describes it, and what can be done to resolve the issue on that basis. For this, the proponent has to bring to bear an established set of analytical tools, with the results displayed to best effect. Begin with the difficulties of the issue, and why the problem chosen is a problem at all. Then examine the ways in which the problem can be resolved, and propose a method of resolution. If the argument can be sustained with each point justified, logically linked (i.e. with consistency and inevitability) and relevant to the case, then the argument is strong; if the argument shows insight, originality, precision and brevity, so much the better.

Yet, all arguments have logical consequents. If these are then summarised and dealt with in a way that is clear, rational, and easily understood when complete, the argument is likely to be successful on the appreciative (as opposed to purely cognitive) level of assessment. Regardless, if the argument remains hypothetical, it is unlikely to have utility value.

For an argument to develop utility value, it must be shown to be directly applicable to a contemporary and important issue. This applicability must be demonstrated to be direct as opposed to tangential, specific as opposed to general, and provide a good level of resolution. Most important, it must make abstract principles relevant to concrete reality in a way that leaves little scope for opponents to complain about vagueness and exceptions of various kinds.

Throughout, the proponent of the knowledge-based argument should remain calm, controlled, clear, coherent and consistent. At no point should circular or specious arguments be employed - be on guard against such! If you can pass this test of communication, then the argument is complete, the innards intact, and the assessment of such innards auspicious.

=====

And at the end of all that, I must say that this was not such an argument, nor was meant to be.