scholarly journals Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory as an Engaged Discipline

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Main Components

Natural normativity describes the means whereby social and cultural controls are placed on argumentative behaviour. The three main components of this are Goals, Context, and Ethos, which combine to form a dynamic and situational framework. Natural normativity is explained in light of Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, and Rhetoric. Finally, the theory is applied to the Biro-Siegel challenge.

scholarly journals A World of Difference: The Rich State of Argumentation Theory

1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. Van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Communication Theory ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Speech Communication ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Quality Of Democracy ◽  
Educational Methods ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
The Rich

This paper surveys the contributions to the study of argumentation in the two decades since the work of Toulmin and Perelman. Developments include Radical Argumentativism (Anscombre and Ducot), Communication and Rhetoric (American Speech Communication Theory), Informal Logic (Johnson and Blair), Formal Analyses of Fallacies (Woods and Walton), Formal Dialectics (Barth and Krabbe), and Pragma-Dialectics (van Eemeren and Grootendorst). From the survey it is concluded that argumentation theory has been considerably enriched. If the contributions can be made to converge, a sound basis will be created for developing educational methods for producing, interpreting and evaluating argumentative discourse. Thus, argumentation theory may be instrumental in improving the quality of democracy by furthering a reasonable management of differences of opinion.

Argumentation, Cooperation and Charity in Qualitative Enquiry

1996 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 163-172
Author(s):  
Adri Smaling ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Logical Basis ◽  
Philosophy Of Life

Contemporary argumentation theory or informal logic is the appropriate logical basis of qualitative inquiry. The communicative principles of cooperation and charity are essential within argumentation theory. An optimal observance of these principles, for strategical reasons for example, is of methodological relevance to qualitative research. In addition, an ethically motivated optimalization of the observance may also enhance methodological quality, especially dialogical intersubjectivity or openness. Moreover, this ethically motivated observance may be supported by a philosophy of life, which may stimulate opting for qualitative inquiry and promote its methodological quality.

scholarly journals Emotion, Argumentation and Informal Logic

2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Traditional Attitude ◽  
The Past ◽  
Made In

Over the past 60 years there have been tremendous advances made in Argumentation Theory. One crucial advance has been the move from the investigation of static arguments to a concern with dialogic interactions in concrete contexts. This focus has entailed a slow shift toward involving both non-logical and non-discursive elements in the analysis of an argument. I argue that the traditional attitude Informal Logic has displayed toward emotion can be and ought be moderated. In particular, I examine the role of emotion in everyday argumentation, and how Informal Logic can encompass it alongside the more traditional logical mode of communication

Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map

2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Lumer
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Better Than

An overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation, explaining what it is, justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach. systematizing the main directions and theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation.

Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRIS REED ◽  
DOUGLAS WALTON ◽  
FABRIZIO MACAGNO
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
History Of ◽  
Argument Diagram ◽  
Evidence Law

AbstractIn this paper, we present a survey of the development of the technique of argument diagramming covering not only the fields in which it originated — informal logic, argumentation theory, evidence law and legal reasoning — but also more recent work in applying and developing it in computer science and artificial intelligence (AI). Beginning with a simple example of an everyday argument, we present an analysis of it visualized as an argument diagram constructed using a software tool. In the context of a brief history of the development of diagramming, it is then shown how argument diagrams have been used to analyse and work with argumentation in law, philosophy and AI.

scholarly journals The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Hundleby
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Argument Evaluation ◽  
Adversary Method

Popular textbook treatments of the fallacies approach to argument evaluation employ the Adversary Method identified by Janice Moulton (1983) that takes the goal of argumentation to be the defeat of other arguments and that narrows the terms of discourse in order to facilitate such defeat. My analysis of the textbooks shows that the Adversary Method operates as a Kuhnian paradigm in philosophy, and demonstrates that the popular fallacies pedagogy is authoritarian in being unresponsive to the scholarly developments in informal logic and argumentation theory. A progressive evolution for the fallacies approach is offered as an authoritative alternative.

scholarly journals Auditory Arguments: The Logic of 'Sound' Arguments

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Groarke
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Good Argument ◽  
Verbal Arguments

This article discusses “auditory” arguments: arguments in which non-verbal sounds play a central role. It provides examples and explores the use of sounds in argument and argumentation. It argues that auditory arguments are not reducible to verbal arguments but have a similar structure and can be evaluated by extending standard informal logic accounts of good argument. I conclude that an understanding of auditory elements of argument can usefully expand the scope of informal logic and argumentation theory.

scholarly journals The Coherence of Hamblin’s Fallacies

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 305
Author(s):  
Ralph Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
The Real ◽  
Traditional Approaches

Hamblin’s Fallacies remains one of the crucial documents in the development of informal logic and argumentation theory. His critique of traditional approaches to the fallacies (what he dubbed ‘The Standard Treatment’) helped to revitalize the study of fallacies. Recently I had occasion to reread Fallacies and came to the conclusion that some of my earlier criticisms (1989, 1990) had missed the real force of what was going on there, that I and others have perhaps not fully appreciated what Hamblin is up to. In this paper, I plan to revisit Fallacies and make manifest its coherence.

scholarly journals Informal Logic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence

2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic

Informal Logic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence

scholarly journals Is there such a thing as visual argumentation, or the case of the hydrated tulip

KÜLÖNBSÉG ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hédi Virág Csordás
Keyword(s):  
Verbal Communication ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Visual Content ◽  
Economic Competition ◽  
Visual Argumentation ◽  
Verbal Content

When studying the apparatus of argumentative technique, one can ask if methods of analyzing verbal communication can be extended to the analysis of visual content, too. One can argue that pictures contain statements just like sentences do, and if these statements are identified, their content can also be reconstructed. These visual contents can be analysed from two perspectives: argmentation-theory and rhetorics. The first part of the paper argues that the analysis of verbal content can be performed like the reconstruction of verbal texts: on the basis of informal logic. Also, I argue that visual contents not only complement the verbal but can also be the precondition of its understanding. The second part of the paper analyses a case study for visual argumentation: advertising. In many advertisements arguments rely of visual content that is often sanctioned by the Bureau of Economic Competition, as their analysis by the usual methods of argumentation-theory show. In sum, the paper identifies argumentative schemes of advertisements and highlights the role of visual contents in the process of persuasion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document