Abstracts
Abstract
This article discusses Harvey Siegel’s general justification of the epistemological theory of argumentation in his seminal essay “Arguing with Arguments." On the one hand, the achievements of this essay are honoured—in particular, a thorough differentiation of the different meanings of ‘argument’ and ‘argumentation,’ the semantic justification of the fundamentality of arguments as sequences of propositions, and the detailed critiques of alternative theories of argumentation. On the other hand, suggestions for strengthening the theory are added to Siegel's expositions, which make different perspectives within the epistemological theory of argumentation recognisable.
Keywords:
- cognising,
- epistemological argumentation theory,
- epistemological principles,
- good arguments,
- Harvey Siegel,
- instrumental justification,
- meanings of 'argument',
- persuasion,
- semantic justification
Résumé
On discute de la justification générale par Harvey Siegel de la théorie épistémologique de l'argumentation dans son essai fondateur « Arguing with Arguments ». D'une part, les réalisations de cet essai sont honorées, en particulier une différenciation approfondie des différentes significations de « argument » et « argumentation », la justification sémantique de la fondamentalité des arguments en tant que séquences de propositions, et les critiques détaillées des solutions alternatives. D'autre part, des suggestions visant à renforcer la théorie sont ajoutées aux exposés de Siegel, qui en même temps font reconnaître différentes perspectives au sein de la théorie épistémologique de l'argumentation.
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Berger, Jonah. 2020. Catalyst: How to change anyone’s mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
- Biro, John I. and Harvey Siegel. 2006. Pragma-dialectic versus epistem-ic theories of arguing and arguments. Rivals or partners? In Consid-ering pragma-dialectics. A Festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday, eds. Peter Houtlosser and Agnès van Rees, 1-10. Mahwah, NJ; London: Erlbaum.
- Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cam-bridge: Cambridge U.P.
- Feldman, Richard. 1994. Good arguments. In Socializing epistemology. The social dimensions of knowledge, ed. Frederick F. Schmitt, 159-188. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Georges, Karl Ernst and Heinrich Georges. 1913. Ausführliches Lateinisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch. Ausgearbeitet von Karl Ernst Georges. 8. verbesserte und vermehrte Aufl. von Heinrich Georges. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung 1913. Reprint. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1995.
- Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Claren-don.
- Lumer, Christoph. 1988. The disputation. A special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue. Argumentation 2: 441-464.
- Lumer, Christoph. 1990. Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theo-retische Grundlagen, praktische Begründung und Regeln wichtiger Argumentationsarten. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
- Lumer, Christoph. 1991. Structure and function of argumentations. an epistemological approach to determining criteria for the validity and adequacy of argumentations. In Proceedings of the second interna-tional conference on argumentation. Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) at the University of Amsterdam, June 19-22, 1990, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles Arthur Willard, 98-107. Amsterdam: Sicsat.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2000. Reductionism in fallacy theory. Argumenta-tion 14: 405-423.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2005. The epistemological theory of argument - how and why? Informal Logic 25: 213-243.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2007. Überreden ist gut, überzeugen ist besser! Argumentativer Ethos in der Rhetorik. In Persuasion und Wissen-schaft. Aktuelle Fragestellungen von Rhetorik und Argumenta-tionstheorie, eds. Günther Kreuzbauer, Norbert Gratzl and Ewald Hiebl, 7-33. Wien: Lit Verlag.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2020. A theory of philosophical arguments. In Evidence, persuasion & diversity. Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation conference, vol. 12 (2020), ed. OSSA, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. URL accessed 1 November 2023: <https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2487&context=ossaarchive>.
- Lumer, Christoph. forthcoming. Rules for epistemically oriented argu-mentative dialogues. Forthcoming in Proceedings of the 10th ISSA (International Society for the Study of Argumentation) conference, Leiden, 4-7 July 2023, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Ton van Haaften, and Henrike Jansen.
- McKeon, Matthew William. forthcoming. A case for different stand-ards of argumentative rationality. Forthcoming in Proceedings of the 10th ISSA (International Society for the Study of Argumentation) con-ference, Leiden, 4-7 July 2023, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Ton van Haaften, and Henrike Jansen.
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Argument. In Merriam-Webster.com diction-ary. URL accessed 29 July 2023: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument>.
- Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Argument; Argumentation; Reason. In Oxford English dictionary. URL accessed 3 August 2023: <https://www.oed.com>.
- Siegel, Harvey. 1996. Instrumental rationality and naturalized philoso-phy of science. Philosophy of Science 63.S3: S116-S124.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2019. Epistemic rationality – not (just) instrumental. Metaphilosophy 50(5): 608-630.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2023. Arguing with arguments: argument quality, argumentative norms, and the strengths of the epistemic theory. In-formal Logic 43(4): 465-526.
- Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C. Weiner (Eds.). 1989. The Oxford English dictionary. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon. 20 vols.
- Tindale, Christopher W. 2021. The anthropology of argument: Cultural foundations of rhetoric and reason. NY: Routledge 2021.