Abstracts
Abstract
The best arguments are distinguished by more than logical validity, successful rhetorical persuasion, or satisfactory dialectical closure. Argument appraisal has to look beyond the premises, inferences, and conclusions; it must consider more than just the objections and replies, and resolutions that satisfy the arguers might not satisfy outside critics. Arguers and their contexts can be important factors for assessing arguments. This conclusion is reached by considering several scenarios in which similar arguments—up to and including complete word-for-word identity—merit different critical responses.
Keywords:
- argument,
- argument appraisal,
- argumentation
Résumé
Les meilleurs arguments se distinguent par plus que la validité logique, une persuasion rhétorique réussie ou une fin dialectique satisfaisante. L'évaluation des arguments doit aller au-delà des prémisses, des inférences et des conclusions ; elle doit considérer plus que les objections et les réponses, et les résolutions qui satisfont les argumentateurs pourraient ne pas satisfaire les critiques externes. Les personnes qui argumentent et leurs contextes peuvent être des facteurs importants pour évaluer les arguments. Cette conclusion est atteinte en considérant plusieurs scénarios dans lesquels des arguments similaires - jusqu'à et y compris l'identité mot à mot complète - méritent des réponses critiques différentes.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Aberdein, A. 2014. In defence of virtue: The legitimacy of agent-based argument appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1):77-93.
- Bondy, P. 2010. Argumentative injustice. Informal Logic 30(3): 263-278.
- Cohen, D. H. 2022a. El silencio injusto en la argumentacion: Virtudes y vivios de quienes argumentan. In Injusticias epistémicas: Analisis y contexto. L. De Brasi and C. Santibañez, eds. and trs. Palestra.
- Cohen, D. H. 2022b. Giving arguments a good name. In Ethics of Argumentation Speaker Series, 1 April 2022. <https://www.argnet.org/ethics-of-arg>
- Cohen, D. H. 2019. No argument is an island: Argumentation between arguments. In Proceedings of the ninth conference of the Internation-al Society for the Study of Argumentation, eds. B. Garssen, D. God-den, G. R. Mitchell and J. H. M. Wagemans, 210-216. Amsterdam: Sic Sac.
- Cohen, D. H. 2009. Sincerity, Santa Claus arguments, and dissensus in coalitions. In Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, ed. J. Ritola, Windsor, Ontario.
- Cohen, D. H. 2008. Now THAT was a good argument! On the virtues of arguers and the virtues of arguments. Conferencia Internacionale: Logica, Argumentacion y Pensamiento Critico, Santiago, Chile.
- Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
- Godden, D. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345-357.
- Goddu, G. C. 2016. What (the hell) is virtue argumentation? In Argu-mentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the first European conference on argumentation, Vol. 2, eds. D. Mohammed, M. Lew-iński, 439-448. London: College Publications.
- Govier, T. 1999. The philosophy of argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
- Henning, T. 2021. ‘Don’t let your mouth’: On argumentative smother-ing within academia. Topoi 40, 913-924.
- Hundleby, C. 2021. Feminist perspectives on argumentation. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta URL accessed 27 December 2021: <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-argumentation/>.
- Johnson, R. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kornblith, H. 1999. Distrusting reason. Midwest Studies in Philosophy XXIII: 181-196.
- Mercier, H. and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57-74. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968
- O’Keefe, D. 1977 Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13:121-128
- Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric, trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Stevens, K. and D. H. Cohen. 2021. Angelic devil’s advocates and the forms of adversariality. Topoi 40(5): 899-912.
- Tindale, C. W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argumenta-tion. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Wenzel, J. 1980. Perspectives on argument. In Proceedings of the 1979 summer conference on argumentation, eds. J Rhodes, S Newell, 112-133, Washington, DC: Speech communication association,.
- Wohlrapp, H. R. 2014. The concept of argument: A philosophical foun-dation. (vol. 4). Dordrecht: Springer.