Arguing with Arguments

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2024-01-21 DOI:10.22329/il.v43i4.7667

Harvey Siegel

引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

与论点争论

在当代论证理论中，"论证 "具有多重含义和所指。理论家们很清楚这一点，但在他们的理论中却常常不承认这一点。在下文中，我将区分 "论证 "的几种含义，并论证一些备受瞩目的理论在该术语的某些含义上基本正确，但在另一些含义上却不正确。这样，我希望表明，在理解各种 "论证"、论据和论证的多学科努力中，表面上的理论对手最好被视为合作者或伙伴，而不是对手。我还主张对论证评价和论证规范采取多元方法，因为论证和论证可以从多个维度进行合理评价，但我敦促认识论规范在概念上享有优先权。

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

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.