Discovering Warrants in Political Argumentation

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2021-12-07 DOI:10.22329/il.v41i4.6765

I. Gallhofer, W. Saris

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Philosophers deny a proposal for actions can be deduced from arguments for or against the proposal because they may be incompatible. Nevertheless, people in general, and politicians especially, make decisions and present arguments they believe are convincing. We studied politicians who made decisions in complex situations. They spoke about possible actions, their consequences, the probabilities of these consequences and their evaluations, but rarely indicated why their arguments led to their choice. We hypothesized implicit argumentation rules involved and checked whether they predicted those choices. We found seven implicit informal logic rules involved. We also found a random sample of people made the same choices based on the same arguments, suggesting basic warrants by which people argue about decisions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

政治论证中的权证发现

哲学家们否认一个行动建议可以从支持或反对该建议的论点中推断出来，因为它们可能是不相容的。尽管如此，一般人，尤其是政治家，都会做出他们认为有说服力的决定并提出论点。我们研究了在复杂情况下做出决策的政治家。他们谈到了可能的行动、后果、这些后果的可能性以及他们的评估，但很少说明为什么他们的论点会导致他们的选择。我们假设了隐含的论证规则，并检查它们是否预测了这些选择。我们发现了七个隐含的非正式逻辑规则。我们还发现，随机抽样的人基于相同的论点做出了相同的选择，这表明人们对决策进行争论的基本依据。

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.