Argumentation Library – serie

My impulse when I decided to collect into a single volume the essays on topics in logical theory and related subjects that I have written in the last fifteen years was to borrow from the title of a work by Sextus Empiricus, and call my collection "Against the Logicians." Although the essays address a variety of problems that interest me, the thread that runs through them is a scepticism about how logicians see things. So, the title appealed to me. However, I had second thoughts and chose instead a title of one of my own essays, "In Defense of Informal Logic", which emphasizes my support for other approaches. Although my criticisms of logical theory are designed to cut deeply, I do not want to be unresponsive to the needs that it is supposed to satisfy. However, my position that we have adequate resources for critically analyzing a particular argument and 00 not need a theory of argumentation, will not completely satisfy those who think that there is a need for it. So, I want them to know that I am taking their concerns seriously.

Scare Tactics, the first book on the subject, provides a theory of the structure of reasoning used in fear and threat appeal argumentation. Such arguments come under the heading of the argumentum ad baculum, the `argument to the stick/club', traditionally treated as a fallacy in the logic textbooks. The new dialectical theory is based on case studies of many interesting examples of the use of these arguments in advertising, public relations, politics, international negotiations, and everyday argumentation on all kinds of subjects. Many of these arguments are amusing, once you see the clever tactic used; others are scary. Some of the arguments appear to be quite reasonable, while others are highly suspicious, or even outrageously fraudulent. In addition to the examples taken from logic textbooks, other cases treated come from a variety of sources, including political debates, legal arguments, and arguments from media sources, like magazine articles and television ads. The purpose of this book is to explain how such arguments work as devices of persuasion, and to develop a method for analyzing and evaluating their reasonable and fallacious uses in particular cases. The book shows how such arguments share a common structure, revealing several distinctive forms of argument nested within each other. Based on its account of this cognitive structure, the new dialectical theory presents methods for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating these arguments, as they are used in specific cases. The book is a scholarly contribution to argumentation theory. It is written in an accessible style, and uses many colorful and provocative examples of fear and threat appeal arguments that are suitable for classroom discussions. The matters treated will be of interest to professionals and students in law, critical thinking, advertising, speech communication, informal logic, cognitive science, rhetoric, and media studies.

Chapters 1-12 of this volume contain the papers on infonnal logic and argumentation that I've published and/or read at conferences over the last 17 years. These papers are reproduced here pretty much unchanged from their first appearance; it is my intention that their appearance here constitute a record of my positions and arguments at the time of their original publication or delivery. I've made minor changes in fonnat, in the style of references, etc., for the sake of consistency; I've also corrected typographical errors and the like. The only extensive changes in wording occur in the last few pages of Chapter 7, and were made only to enable the reader to see more clearly what I was getting at in my first attempt to write about the notion of coherence. Chapter 13 was written expressly for this volume. It looks retrospectively at the contents of the first 12 chapters and attempts to highlight the unifying themes that run through them. It also revisits the ideas about dialectic that occupied my first in light of later developments in my thinking but also re­ paper, reworking them emphasizing themes about which I've tended to remain silent in the last few years.

Founded on the philosophical relativism of Protagoras, antilogic is a dynamic rather than a formal approach to argument, focused principally on the dialogical interaction of opposing positions (anti-logoi) in controversy. In ancient Athens, antilogic was the cardinal feature of Sophistic rhetoric. In Rome, Cicero redefined Sophistic argument in a concrete set of dialogical procedures. In turn, Quintilian inherited this dialogical tradition and made it the centrepiece of his own rhetorical practice and pedagogy. "Many Sides" explores the history, theory, and pedagogy of this neglected rhetorical tradition and, by appeal to recent rhetorical and philosophical theory, reconceives the enduring features of antilogical practice in a dialogical approach to argumentation especially suited to the pluralism of our own age and the diversity of modern classrooms.

In 1999 we invited a small number of colleagues to take part in a colloquium - voted to the analysis of argumentative discourse from two kinds of perspective: a dialectical and a rhetorical perspective. Our intention was to start a thorough disc- sion on the commonalities and differences between the two approaches. In this way we hoped to promote the development of analytic tools for dealing with argum- tation in which, in some way or other, the merits of both approaches are combined. The colloquium took place at the University of Amsterdam. In 2000 it was followed by a second colloquium at New York University, and in 2001 by a third one at Northwestern University. We are grateful to all three universities for giving us the chance to organize three exciting and fruitful meetings and we thank Eugene Garver, Eveline T. Feteris, M.A. van Rees, Ralph Johnson, A. Francisca Snoeck Hen- mans, Jose Plug, Bart Garssen, and Leah Polcar, who took part in the discussions but are not represented inthis volume, for their critical and useful contributions.

Contemporary developments in philosophy have declared the concept of truth to be troublesome. In a systematic survey, this study investigates what is at stake when truth is given up. A historical overview shows how the current problem of truth came about, and suggests ways to overcome rather than to repair the problem. A key issue resulting from the loss of truth is the lack of normativity - truth provided an alternative understanding of this important concept. Elaborating on the "dialectical shift" in logic, a dialogico-rhetorical understanding of normativity is presented. Rather than requiring truth, agreement, or rationality, dialogico-rhetorical normativity is the result of a balance of particular standards. This type of normativity is shaped within discussions - by advancing and accepting arguments - and is not located in sets of predetermined rules. The result is a "small" but strong form of normativity. If this understanding of normativity is viable, one of the central problems of contemporary philosophy, the problem of incommensurability, can be seen in a different light. As a result, truth reappears again.Surviving the postmodern criticisms, it is a matter of accountability rather than of description.

This volume contains a selection of papers (keynote addresses and other important papers) from the International Conference on Argumentation at Amsterdam of 2002 by prominent international scholars of argumentation theory. The contributions are representative of the main approaches to the study of argumentation: the informal logical approach, the logical approach, the dialectical approach, the rhetorical and the communicative approach. Taken together the papers in this volume provide an insightful cross-section of the current state of affairs in argumentation research in 2003. The collection of essays as a whole should be of interest to all those working in the field of argumentation theory and to all scholars who are interested in recent developments in this field.

This volume of the Argumentation Library contains a collection of twenty-six theor­ etical contributions to the study of argumentation. Together they provide an over­ view of recent developments in the theory of argumentation which does justice to the theoretical variety in the field. InAnyone Who Has a View, the subject of argu­ mentation is approached from different angles. Both the formal and informal logical approaches and the rhetorical and communicative approaches arc represented in various ways. We arc convinced that the collection of essays as a whole will be of interest not only to those engaged directly in the study of argumentation, but also to scholars from a variety of disciplines who arc interested in the recent developments in this field. The book opens with an essay by the informal logician Robert C. Pinto. For all the differences between them, James B. Freeman, Harvey Siegel, Ralph H. Johnson, Hans V. Hansen, and J. Anthony Blair are also prominent members of that move­ ment. Some informal logicians either eschew or simply do not use formal methods in their approach to argumentation, while others, such as David Hitchcock, use both formal and informal methods. Erik C.W. Krabbe is a logician who proudly defends a formal dialectical approach to argumentation. Daniel H. Cohen, Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Fred J. Kauffeld, C. Scott Jacobs, Christian Kock, Christian Plantin, Sorin Stati, Chris Reed, Douglas N.

In the late 1990s, AI witnessed an increasing use of the term 'argumentation' within its bounds: in natural language processing, in user interface design, in logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, in Al's interface with the legal community, and in the newly emerging field of multi-agent systems. It seemed to me that many of these uses of argumentation were inspired by (of­ ten inspired) guesswork, and that a great majority of the AI community were unaware that there was a maturing, rich field of research in Argumentation Theory (and Critical Thinking and Informal Logic) that had been steadily re­ building a scholarly approach to the area over the previous twenty years or so. Argumentation Theory, on its side; was developing theories and approaches that many in the field felt could have a role more widely in research and soci­ ety, but were for the most part unaware that AI was one of the best candidates for such application.

Summarizing, in The Uses of Argument Toulmin emphasized a number of points that are by now familiar, but still deserve attention: 1. Reasoning and argument involve not only support for points of view, but also attack against them. 2. Reasoning can have qualified conclusions. 3. There are other good types of argument than those of standard formal logic. 4. Unstated assumptions linking premisses to a conclusion are better thought of as inference licenses than as implicit premisses. 5. Standards of reasoning can be field dependent, and can be themselves the subject of argumentation. Each of these points is illustrated by his layout of arguments. The rebuttal illustrates the first point, the qualifier the second point, and the warrant and backing the last three points. 2. RECEPTION OF TOULMIN’S BOOK As Toulmin himself notes in his essay in this volume, which was delivered as an address in 2005, his fellow philosophers we re initially hostile to the ideas in his book. They were taken up, however, by specialists in fields like jurisprudence and psychology, who found that they fit the form s of argument and reasoning that they were studying. And Toulmin’s model was embraced by the field of speech communication in the United States, whose textbooks on argumentation now include an obligatory chapter on the Toulmin model of micro arguments.

The theory in the book is based on the latest research in argumentation theory, and especially on new applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to legal argumentation. The methodology of the book derives from recent work in argumentation theory and AI in which forms of reasoning other than deductive and inductive have been the focus of much investigation. The aim is not just to show how character judgments are made, but to show how they should properly be made based on sound reasoning, in order to avoid certain fallacies, errors and superficial judgments of a kind that are common. The book is about character judgments, but centrally about the kind of logical reasoning and evidence that should properly be used to support or question such judgments. According to the new theory put forward in this book, such evidence is based on a kind of multi-agent simulative reasoning in which one agent is able to explain the actions of another by understanding the situation confronted by the other,and recreating the plan adopted by the other. According to the theory, one agent can reach reasoned conclusions about the presumed character properties of another, using plan recognition and ar- mentation schemes representing stereotypical forms of reasoning. We use character evidence every day in reasoning, as in the inference, “He has a certain character trait, so that is evidence he is the one who carried out this particular action”.

Argumentative Indicators: A Pragma-Dialectical Study identifies and analyses English words and expressions that are crucial for an adequate reconstruction of argumentative discourse. It provides the analyst of argumentative discussions and texts with a systematic set of instruments for giving a well founded analysis which results in an analytic overview of the elements that are relevant for the evaluation of the argumentation. In the book a systematic connection is made between linguistic insights into the characteristics of argumentative discourse and insights from argumentation theory into the resolution of differences of opinion by means of argumentation.

Dissociation is a pervasive argumentative technique that can be found in argumentative discussions from all realms of public and private life. Up till now, a comprehensive and systematic argumentation theoretical study of dissociation does not exist. This book aims to fill this gap.The treatment in this book, in several respects, is innovative. To begin with, so far, dissociation has been studied mainly from a monologual orientation. This book specifically focuses on dialogual aspects of the use of dissociation in argumentative discussions. In the second place, extant studies deal primarily with examples of dissociation from the philosophical and literary spheres or from the political arena. This book discusses a great variety of examples, many from every-day contexts, from such sources as newspapers, television shows, websites, Parliamentary Reports, and ordinary conversations. Last, but not least, the present book examines a broad range of features of dissociation. The first part of the book clarifies the notion of dissociation and provides insight into the way in which dissociation becomes manifest in argumentative discourse. The second part of the book, using the theoretical perspective of Pragma-Dialectics, answers the question how dissociation is used by the participants in argumentative discussions to realize their dialectical and rhetorical aims. The third and last part of the book discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the use of dissociation in argumentative discussions, both with regard to its dialectical soundness and to its persuasive effectiveness.

Pondering on Problems of Argumentation is a collection of twenty essays brought together for anyone who is interested in theoretical issues in the study of argumentation. This collection of papers gives the reader an insightful and balanced view of the kind of theoretical issues argumentation theorists are currently concerned with. Because most of the perspectives on argumentation that are en vogue are represented, this volume provides a multidisciplinary and even interdisciplinary outlook on the current state of affairs in argumentation theory. Some of the contributions in Pondering on Problems of Argumentation deal with problems of argumentation that have been recognized as theoretical issues for a considerable time, like the problems of fallaciousness and identifying argumentation structures. Other contributions discuss issues that have become a focus of attention only recently or regained their prominence, such as the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric, and the strategic use of the argumentative technique of dissociation. In five separate sections papers are included dealing with argumentative strategies, problems of norms of reasonableness and fallaciousness, types of argument and argument schemes the structure of argumentation and rules for advocacy and discussion.

Ars Topica is the first full-length study of the nature and development of topoi, the conceptual ancestors of modern argument schemes, between Aristotle and Cicero.Aristotle and Cicero configured topoi in a way that influenced the subsequent tradition. Their work on the topos-system grew out of an interest in creating a theory of argumentation which could stand between the rigour of formal logic and the emotive potential of rhetoric. This system went through a series of developments and transformations resulting from the interplay between the separate aims of gaining rhetorical effectiveness and of maintaining dialectical standards.Ars Topica presents a comprehensive treatment of Aristotle’s and Cicero’s methods of topoi and, by exploring their relationship, it illuminates an area of ancient rhetoric and logic which has been obscured for more than two thousand years.Through an interpretation which is philologically rooted in the historical context of topoi, the book lays the ground for evaluating the relevance of the classical approaches to modern research on arguments, and at the same time provides an introduction to Greek and Roman theory of argumentation focussed on its most important theoretical achievements.

This book investigates the role of inference in argumentation, considering how arguments support standpoints on the basis of different loci.

As a result, the book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which are discussed in a number of separate publications, hang together.The following crucial topics are discussed: (1) argumentation theory as a discipline;

This volume focuses on the role language plays at all levels of the argumentation process. It explores the effects that specific linguistic choices may have in the production and the reception of arguments and in doing so, it moves beyond the first, necessary, descriptive stance provided by current literature on the topic. Each chapter provides an original take illuminating one or more of the following three issues: the range of linguistic resources language users draw on as they argue; how cognitive processes of meaning construction may influence argumentative practices; and which discursive devices can be used to fulfil a number of argumentative goals. The volume includes theoretical and empirical or applied stances, providing the reader both with state-of-the-art reflections on the relationship between argumentation and language, and with concrete examples of how this relationship plays out in naturally occurring argumentative practices, such as classroom interaction, and political, parliamentary or journalistic discourse.This is a very original, timely and welcome contribution to the study of argumentation conducted with the tools of the language sciences. The collection of papers relevantly tackles key linguistic, discursive and cognitive aspects of argumentative practices whose treatment is underrepresented in mainstream argumentation studies by offering new and exciting linguistically-grounded theoretical accounts. As such, the volume testifies both to the vigour of the linguistic current within the discipline and to the high standards of scholarly commitment and quality that the younger generation is pushing forward. Without question, this book marks an important milestone in the relationships between linguistics and argumentation theory. Christian Plantin, Professor Emeritus

This volume comprises a selection of contributions to the theorizing about argumentation that have been presented at the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), held in Amsterdam in July 2018.

This volume comprises a selection of contributions to the theorizing about argumentation that have been presented at the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), held in Amsterdam in July 2018.

Bringing together scholars from a broad range of theoretical perspectives, The Language of Argumentation offers a unique overview of research at the crossroads of linguistics and theories of argumentation.In addition to theoretical and methodological reflections by leading scholars in their fields, the book contains studies of the relationship between language and argumentation from two different viewpoints. While some chapters take a specific argumentative move as their point of departure and investigate the ways in which it is linguistically manifested in discourse, other chapters start off from a linguistic construction, trying to determine its argumentative function and rhetorical potential. The Language of Argumentation documents the currently prominent research on stylistic aspects of argumentation and illustrates how the study of argumentation benefits from insights from linguistic models, ranging from theoretical pragmatics, politeness theory and metaphor studies to models of discourse coherence and construction grammar.

Bringing together scholars from a broad range of theoretical perspectives, The Language of Argumentation offers a unique overview of research at the crossroads of linguistics and theories of argumentation.In addition to theoretical and methodological reflections by leading scholars in their fields, the book contains studies of the relationship between language and argumentation from two different viewpoints. While some chapters take a specific argumentative move as their point of departure and investigate the ways in which it is linguistically manifested in discourse, other chapters start off from a linguistic construction, trying to determine its argumentative function and rhetorical potential. The Language of Argumentation documents the currently prominent research on stylistic aspects of argumentation and illustrates how the study of argumentation benefits from insights from linguistic models, ranging from theoretical pragmatics, politeness theory and metaphor studies to models of discourse coherence and construction grammar.

This book is concerned with the evaluation of natural argumentative discourse, and, in particular, with the language in which arguments are expressed. It introduces a systematic procedure for the analysis and assessment of arguments, which is designed to be a practical tool, and may be considered a pseudo-algorithm for argument evaluation.The first half of the book lays the theoretical groundwork, with a thorough examination of both the nature of language and the nature of argument. This leads to a definition of argumentation as reasoning expressed within a procedure, which itself yields the three frames of analysis used in the evaluation procedure: Process, Reasoning, and Expression. The second half begins with a detailed discussion of the concept of fallacy, with particular attention on fallacies of language, their origin and their effects. A new way of looking at fallacies emerges from these chapters, and it is that conception, together with the understanding of the nature of argumentation described in earlier sections, which ultimately provides the support for the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation.The first two levels of this innovative procedure are outlined, while the third, that dealing with language, and involving the development of an Informal Argument Semantics, is fully described. The use of the system, and its power of analysis, are illustrated through the evaluation of a variety of examples of argumentative texts.

This book is concerned with the evaluation of natural argumentative discourse, and, in particular, with the language in which arguments are expressed. It introduces a systematic procedure for the analysis and assessment of arguments, which is designed to be a practical tool, and may be considered a pseudo-algorithm for argument evaluation.The first half of the book lays the theoretical groundwork, with a thorough examination of both the nature of language and the nature of argument. This leads to a definition of argumentation as reasoning expressed within a procedure, which itself yields the three frames of analysis used in the evaluation procedure: Process, Reasoning, and Expression. The second half begins with a detailed discussion of the concept of fallacy, with particular attention on fallacies of language, their origin and their effects. A new way of looking at fallacies emerges from these chapters, and it is that conception, together with the understanding of the nature of argumentation described in earlier sections, which ultimately provides the support for the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation.The first two levels of this innovative procedure are outlined, while the third, that dealing with language, and involving the development of an Informal Argument Semantics, is fully described. The use of the system, and its power of analysis, are illustrated through the evaluation of a variety of examples of argumentative texts.

The book includes contributions from specialists in the history of philosophy as well as specialists in contemporary argumentation theory, and stimulates the dialogue between scholars studying issues relating to argumentation theory in ancient philosophy and contemporary argumentation theorists.

The book includes contributions from specialists in the history of philosophy as well as specialists in contemporary argumentation theory, and stimulates the dialogue between scholars studying issues relating to argumentation theory in ancient philosophy and contemporary argumentation theorists.

This book collects a renowned scholar's essays from the past five decades and reflects two main concerns: an approach to logic that stresses argumentation, reasoning, and critical thinking and that is informal, empirical, naturalistic, practical, applied, concrete, and historical;

This book collects a renowned scholar's essays from the past five decades and reflects two main concerns: an approach to logic that stresses argumentation, reasoning, and critical thinking and that is informal, empirical, naturalistic, practical, applied, concrete, and historical;

This book revisits the definition of polemical discourse and deals with its functions in the democratic sphere. It first examines theoretical questions concerning the management of disagreement in democracy and the nature of polemical discourse. Next, it analyses case studies involving such issues as the place of women in the public space, illustrated by the case of the burqa in France and public controversy in the media on the exclusion of women from the public space. The book then explores reason, passion and violence in polemical discourse by means of cases involving confrontations between secular and ultra-orthodox circles, controversies about the Mexican Wall and fierce discussions about stock-options, and bonuses in times of financial crisis.Although polemical exchanges in the public sphere exacerbate dissent instead of resolving conflicts, they are quite frequent in the media and on the Net. How can we explain such a paradox? Most studies in argumentation avoid the question: they mainly focus on the verbal procedures leading to agreement. This focus stems from the centrality conferred upon consensus in our democratic societies, where decisions should be the result of a process of deliberation. What is then the social function of a confrontational management of dissent that does not primarily seek to achieve agreement? Is it just a sign of decadence, failure and powerlessness, or does it play a constructive role? This book answers these questions.