How Philosophers Argue

Fernando Leal Trained in Germany in philosophy, classical scholarship, and general linguistics, he founded the first research center for the study of contemporary Mexican Indian languages. As a professor of research methodology, he has sought the unification of that field with the fields of academic writing and argumentation theory. He is currently working on applying pragma-dialectical theory to the study of philosophical argumentation in particular and academic argumentation in general. To serve that purpose, he is trying to put questioning and questions at the center of interest of argumentation theory. He is author of over 150 academic papers and has authored or edited over 10 books. More information at academia.edu (guadalajara.academia.edu/FernandoLeal). Hubert Marraud From 2005 on, after a first period as formal logician, I work in Argumentation Theory. My view of the Theory of Argument is developed in the book ¿Es lógic@? Análisis y evaluación de argumentos [Is it logic? Is it logical? Analysis and evaluation of arguments] (Madrid, 2013). My position is characterized by:(1) My definition of arguing as offering for examination something as a reason for another thing. (2) The importance I attach to argumentative connectors and operators.(3) The use of a version of the Toulmin model to describe the structure of arguments(4) The attention given to counterargumentation.(5) The advocacy for a comparative or topological concept of cogency, grounded on the notion of argument strength or weight.

“The book is a serious piece of scholarly work and a welcome addition to argumentation studies.” (Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Argumentation, Vol. 37 (1), 2023)

• Preface.- Introduction.- Chapter 1. Argumentation Theories.- Part I: A P-Theoretical Analysis of the Debate, by Fernando Leal.- Chapter 2. Description of the Method Followed.- Chapter 3. Analysis of Segment I: Start of the Debate.- Chapter 4. Analysis of Segment II: Discussion of Copleston’s Metaphysical Argument.- Chapter 5. Analysis of Segment III: Discussion of Copleston’s Religious Argument.- Chapter 6. Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argument.- Chapter 7. Analysis of Segment V: Summing-Up of the Arguments.- Part II: An E-Theoretical Analysis of the Debate, by Hubert Marraud.- Chapter 8. Argument Dialectic.- Chapter 9. Argumentation Structures and Operations.- Chapter 10. Counterarguments.- Chapter 11. Co-oriented Reasons and Modifiers.- Chapter 12. Intertwined Structures.- Chapter 13. An Argument-Dialectical Analysis of the Russell-Copleston Debate.- Chapter 14. An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration.- Appendix: Text of the Russell-Copleston Debate.