{"title":"Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions","authors":"Frank Zenker, Shiyang Yu","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09573-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Authority arguments generate support for claims by appealing to an agent’s authority status, rather than to reasons independent of it. With few exceptions, the current literature on argument schemes acknowledges two basic authority types. The <i>epistemic</i> type grounds in knowledge, the<i> deontic</i> type grounds in power. We review how historically earlier scholarship acknowledged an<i> attractiveness-based</i> and a <i>majority-based</i> authority type as equally basic type. Crossing these with basic speech act types thus yields authority argument sub-schemes. Focusing on the<i> epistemic-assertive</i> sub-scheme (‘an epistemic authority <i>A</i><sub><i>E</i></sub> asserts a proposition <i>P</i>’), we apply a meta-level approach to specifying critical questions. Results improve the evaluation of this sub-scheme and show how similar improvements are obtainable for other schemes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"37 1","pages":"25 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-022-09573-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Authority arguments generate support for claims by appealing to an agent’s authority status, rather than to reasons independent of it. With few exceptions, the current literature on argument schemes acknowledges two basic authority types. The epistemic type grounds in knowledge, the deontic type grounds in power. We review how historically earlier scholarship acknowledged an attractiveness-based and a majority-based authority type as equally basic type. Crossing these with basic speech act types thus yields authority argument sub-schemes. Focusing on the epistemic-assertive sub-scheme (‘an epistemic authority AE asserts a proposition P’), we apply a meta-level approach to specifying critical questions. Results improve the evaluation of this sub-scheme and show how similar improvements are obtainable for other schemes.
期刊介绍：
Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1. Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2. Pose a clear and relevant research question 3. Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4. Be sound in methodology and analysis 5. Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6. Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
