Résumés
Abstract
‘Argument’ has multiple meanings and referents in contemporary argumentation theory. Theorists are well aware of this but often fail to acknowledge it in their theories. In what follows, I distinguish several senses of ‘argument’ and argue that some highly visible theories are largely correct about some senses of the term but not others. In doing so, I hope to show that apparent theoretical rivals are better seen as collaborators or partners, rather than rivals, in the multi-disciplinary effort to understand ‘argument,’ arguments, and argumentation in all their varieties. I argue as well for a pluralistic approach to argument evaluation and argumentative norms, since arguments and argumentation can be legitimately evaluated along several dimensions, but urge that epistemic norms enjoy conceptual priority.
Keywords:
- argument,
- arguments,
- argumentation,
- epistemic theory,
- pragma-dialectical theory,
- rhetorical theory,
- virtue argumentation theory
Résumé
« Argument » a de multiples significations et référents dans la théorie contemporaine de l’argumentation. Les théoriciens en sont bien conscients mais oublient souvent de le reconnaître dans leurs théories. Dans ce qui suit, je distingue plusieurs sens du terme « argument » et je soutiens que certaines théories très visibles sont largement correctes dans certains sens du terme mais pas dans d’autres. Ce faisant, j’espère montrer que les théoriciens apparemment rivaux sont mieux perçus comme des collaborateurs ou des partenaires, plutôt que comme des rivaux, dans l’effort multidisciplinaire visant à comprendre « argument », les arguments et l’argumentation dans toutes leurs variétés. Je soutiens également une approche pluraliste de l’évaluation des arguments et des normes argumentatives, puisque les arguments et l’argumentation peuvent être légitimement évalués selon plusieurs dimensions, mais je conseille vivement que les normes épistémiques bénéficient d’une priorité conceptuelle.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2): 165-179.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2014. In defence of virtue: The legitimacy of agent-based argu-ment appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1): 77-93.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2018a. Inference and virtue. In Argumentation and inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on argumentation, Fribourg 2017, vol. 2, eds. S. Oswald and D. Maillat, 1-9. London: College Publications.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2018b. Commentary on Gascón, “Virtuous arguers: Responsible and reliable.” In Argumentation and inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on argumentation, Fribourg 2017, vol. 1, eds. S. Oswald and D. Maillat, 123-128. London: College Publications.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2023. The fallacy fallacy: From the Owl of Minerva to the Lark of Arete. Argumentation 37(2): 269–280.
- Aberdein, Andrew and Daniel H. Cohen. 2016. Introduction: Virtues and arguments. Topoi 35(2): 339-343.
- Aikin, Scott F. 2008. Three objections to the epistemic theory of argument rebutted. Argumentation and Advocacy 44(3): 130-142.
- Bailin, Sharon. 1999. The trouble with Percy. Informal Logic 19(2-3): 161-170.
- Bailin, Sharon and Mark E. Battersby. 2016. Reason in the balance, 2e. Indianapolis: Hackett.
- Bailin, Sharon. 2022. ‘Inoculating students against conspiracy theories: The case of Covid-19.’ In The pandemic of argumentation, Argumentation Library, vol. 43, eds. S. Oswald, M. Lewiński, S. Greco, and S. Villata, 271-289. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Battersby, Mark E. 1989. Critical thinking as applied epistemology: Relocating critical thinking in the philosophical landscape. Informal Logic 11(2): 91-100.
- Battersby, Mark E. 2016. Enhancing rationality: Heuristics, biases, and the critical thinking project. Informal Logic 36(2): 99-120.
- Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 1992. Normativity, argumentation, and an epistemic theory of fallacies.’ In Argumentation illuminated: Se-lected papers from the 1990 international conference on argumentation, eds. F. H. van Eemeren, Charles A. Willard, Rob Grootendorst, and J. Anthony Blair, 85-103. Dordrecht: Foris.
- Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 2006a. In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation.’ Informal Logic 25(3): 91-101.
- Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 2006b. Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments: Rivals or partners?’ In Considering pragma-dialectics: A festshrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday, eds. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 1-10. Mahuah, NJ: Erl-baum.
- Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 2015. Argument and context. Cogency 7(2): 27-41.
- Blair, J. Anthony. 2004. Argument and its uses. Informal Logic 24(2): 137-151.
- Blair, J. Anthony. 2012. Groundwork in the theory of argumentation: Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Argumentation Library vol 21. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson. 1993. Dissent in fallacyland, part 1: Problems with van Eemeren and Grootendorst.’ In Argument and the postmodern challenge: Proceedings of the eighth SCA/AFA Conference on argumentation, ed. R. E. McKerrow, 188-190. Annandale VA: Speech Communication Association.
- Bondy, Patrick. 2015. Virtues, evidence, and ad hominem arguments. Informal Logic 35(4): 450-466.
- Bondy, Patrick. 2018. Epistemic rationality and epistemic normativity. NY: Routledge.
- Bondy, Patrick. 2021. ‘The epistemic norm of inference and non-epistemic rea-sons for belief. Synthese 198(2): 1761-1781.
- Botting, David. 2010. A pragma-dialectical default on the question of truth. Informal Logic 30(4): 413-434.
- Bowell, Tracy and Justine Kingsbury. 2013. Virtue and argument: Taking character into account. Informal Logic 33(1): 22-32.
- Cohen, Daniel H. 2013. Virtue, in context. Informal Logic 33(4): 471-485.
- Cohen, Daniel H. 2022. You can’t judge an argument by its closure. Informal Logic 42(4): 669-684.
- Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2021a. Argument and argumentation. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL accessed 5 February 2022: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/argument/>.
- Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2021b. The dialogical roots of deduction: Historical, cognitive, and philosophical perspectives on reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Eemeren, Frans H. van 2012. The pragma-dialectical theory under discussion. Argumentation 26(4): 439-457.
- Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser. 2003. The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation 17(4): 387-403.
- Feldman, Richard. 1994. Good arguments. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge, ed. F. F. Schmitt, 159-188. NY: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Feldman, Richard. 2005a. Deep disagreement, rational resolutions, and critical thinking. Informal Logic 25(1): 13-23.
- Feldman, Richard. 2005b. Useful advice and good arguments. Informal Logic 25(3): 277-287.
- Fisher, Walter R. 1987. Human Communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
- Freeman, James. 2005. Acceptable premises: An epistemic approach to an informal logic problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Garssen, Bart and Jan Albert van Laar. 2010. A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic 30(2): 122-141.
- Gascón, José Ángel. 2016. Virtue and arguers. Topoi 35(2): 441-450.
- Gascón, José Ángel. 2017. Brothers in arms: Virtue and pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 31(4): 705-724.
- Gascón, José Ángel. 2018. Virtuous arguers: Responsible and reliable. Argumentation 32(2): 155-173.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24(2): 159-177.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 1995. Arguments & arguers. Teaching Philosophy 18(2): 125-138.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 2007. Natural normativity: Argumentation theory as an engaged discipline. Informal Logic 27(2): 149-161.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 2011. The kisceral: Reason and intuition in argumentation. Argumentation 25(2): 163-170.
- Godden, David. 2015. Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning. Informal Logic 35(2): 135-166.
- Godden, David. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345-357.
- Godden, David. 2017. On the norms of visual argument: A case for normative non-revisionism. Argumentation 31(2): 395-431.
- Goddu, G. C. 2011. Is ‘argument’ subject to the product/process ambiguity? Informal Logic 31(2): 75-88.
- Goddu, G. C. 2015. Towards a foundation for argumentation theory. In Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory, Argumentation Library 28, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 43-51. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Goddu, G. C. 2016. What (the hell) Is virtue argumentation? In Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on argumentation, Lisbon, 2015, Vol. II, eds. D. Mohammed and M. Lewiński, 439-448. London: College Publications.
- Goldman, Alvin I. 1994. Argumentation and social epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 91(1): 27-49.
- Goldman, Alvin I. 1997. Argumentation and interpersonal justification. Argumentation 11(2): 155-164.
- Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Goldman, Alvin I. 2003. An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 23(1): 51-63.
- Goody, Jack. 2006. The theft of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Groarke, Leo. 2015. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation 29(2): 133-155.
- Groarke, Leo. 2019. Matching schemes of argument: Verbal, visual, multimod-al. In Proceedings of the ninth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds., Bart Garssen, David Godden, Gordon R. Mitchell, and Jean H. M. Wagemans, 443-457. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
- Groarke, Leo. 2021. Informal logic. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), ed., Edward N. Zalta. URL accessed 18 May 2022: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/logic-informal/>.
- Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Kišiček, Gabrijela. 2018. Can we translate sounds into words? Informal Logic 38(3): 346-361.
- Lloyd, Geoffrey E. R. 2018. The ambivalences of rationality: Ancient and modern cross-cultural explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
- Lumer, Christoph. 1988. The disputation – a special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue.’ Argumentation 2(4): 441-464.
- 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 international conference on argumentation, vol. 1A, eds. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. Willard, 98-107. Amsterdam, SICSAT.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2005a. Introduction: The epistemological approach to argumentation – A map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189-212.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2005b. The epistemological theory of argument: How and why?’ Informal Logic 25(3): 213-243.
- Lumer, Christoph. 2012. The epistemic inferiority of pragma-dialectics – A reply to Botting. Informal Logic 32(1): 51-82.
- O’Keefe, Daniel. 1977. Two concepts of argument. The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13:121-128.
- Paglieri, Fabio. 2015. Bogency and goodacies: On argument quality in virtue argumentation theory. Informal Logic 35(1): 65-87.
- Pinto, Robert C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Popa, Eugen Octav 2016. Criticism without fundamental principles. Informal Logic 36(2): 192-216.
- Reed, Christopher A., and T. J. Norman. 2004. Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Scheffler, Israel. 1989. Reason and teaching. Indianapolis: Hackett. First published 1973.
- Siegel, Harvey. 1988. Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. London: Routledge.
- Siegel, Harvey. 1997. Rationality redeemed?: Further dialogues on an educational ideal. New York: Routledge.
- Siegel, Harvey. 1998. Knowledge, truth and education. In Education, knowledge, and truth: Beyond the postmodern impasse, ed. D. Carr, 19-36. London: Routledge.
- Siegel, Harvey. 1999a. Argument quality and cultural difference. Argumentation 13(2): 183-201.
- Siegel, Harvey. 1999b. Multiculturalism and the possibility of Transcultural educational and philosophical ideals. Philosophy 74: 387-409.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2001. ‘Incommensurability, rationality and relativism: In science, culture and science education. In Incommensurability and related matters, eds. P. Hoyningen-Huene and H. Sankey, 207-224. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2004. Relativism. In Handbook of epistemology, eds. I. Niiniluoto, M. Sintonen, and J. Woleński, 747-780. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2007. Multiculturalism and rationality. Theory and research in education 5(2): 203-223.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2013. Argumentation and the epistemology of disagreement. Cogency 5(1): 135-170.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2017. Education’s epistemology: Rationality, diversity and critical thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2018. Justice and justification. Theory and Research in Education 16(3): 308-329.
- Siegel, Harvey and John Biro. 1997. Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies. Argumentation 11(3): 277-292.
- Siegel, Harvey and John Biro. 2008. Rationality, reasonableness, and critical rationalism: Problems with the pragma-dialectical view. Argumentation 22(2): 191-203.
- Siegel, Harvey and John Biro. 2010. The pragma-dialectician’s dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar. Informal Logic 30(4): 457-480.
- Siegel, Harvey and John Biro. 2021. Walton on argument, arguments, and argumentation. Journal of Applied Logics 8(1): 183-194.
- Tindale, Christopher W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: SUNY Press.
- Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Tindale, Christopher W. 2014. Global governance, argumentation, and diversity. In Argu-ing global governance: Agency, lifeworld, and shared reasoning, eds. C. Bjola and M. Kornprobst, 141-156. London: Routledge.
- Tindale, Christopher W. 2021. The anthropology of argument: Cultural foundations of rhetoric and reason. NY: Routledge.
- Walton, Douglas. 1990. What Is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87(8): 399-419.
- Walton, Douglas. Reed, Christopher and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Willard, Charles A. 1983. Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
- Žagar, Igor. 2021. Four critical essays on argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški Inštitut.