Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Frank Zenker, Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska, David Godden, Marcin Selinger, Simon Wells
{"title":"Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength","authors":"Frank Zenker, Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska, David Godden, Marcin Selinger, Simon Wells","doi":"10.2478/slgr-2023-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.","PeriodicalId":38574,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric","volume":"10 1","pages":"133 - 167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2023-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.
不可浪费生命--比较论证强度的五种方法
摘要 不同的方法以不同的方式分析自然语言论证的强度。本文通过将辩证法、结构法、概率法(或贝叶斯法)、计算法和实证法应用于一个论证文本(《挥霍生命的伊壁鸠鲁人》;Aikin & Talisse, 2019),对这些方法进行了对比。我们的主要目标不是将这些方法对立起来,而是展示富有成效的互动空间。我们的重点是对挥霍论证进行辩证分析,将其视为一种剥夺对话者主张权的论证回应。这种分析涉及论证的实用层面,并暗示了一种与感知论证强度的经验证据相一致的论证结构。结果表明,挥霍论证可被评价为(非谬误的)主观论证,但并不一定强于攻击它的可能论证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信