Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map (original) (raw)

The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation - A Map

This contribution gives an overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation. It explains what an 'epistemological approach to argumentation' is, and justifies this approach as being better than a rhetorical or a consensualist approach. It systemizes the main directions and theories within the epistemological approach according to their criteria for good argumentation. It presents contributions by epistemological argumentation theorists to major topics of argumentation theory. Finally, it introduces the articles of the two special issues of "Informal Logic" about the epistemological approach to argumentation.

The Epistemological Theory of Argument-How and Why?

INFORMAL LOGIC-WINDSOR ONTARIO-, 2005

The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument, i.e. a theory that regards providing justified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. After introducing some central terms of such a theory (2), answers to its central questions are proposed: the primary object and structure of the theory (3), the function of arguments, which is to lead to justified belief (4), the way such arguments function, which is to guide the addressee's cognizing (5), objective versus subjective aspects of argumentation (6), designing different types of argument (7). Then the notion of '(argumentatively) valid argument' is defined and criteria for the adequate use of such arguments are introduced (8). Finally, this conception is justified as, among others, leading to more true beliefs than competing conceptions (9).

Justifying the Epistemological Theory of Argumentation

Informal Logic, 2024

This article discusses Harvey Siegel's general justification of the epistemological theory of argumentation in his seminal essay "Arguing with Arguments." On the one hand, the achievements of this essay are honoured-in particular, a thorough differentiation of the different meanings of 'argument' and 'argumentation,' the semantic justification of the fundamentality of arguments as sequences of propositions, and the detailed critiques of alternative theories of argumentation. On the other hand, suggestions for strengthening the theory are added to Siegel's expositions, which make different perspectives within the epistemological theory of argumentation recognisable. Résumé: On discute de la justification générale par Harvey Siegel de la théorie épistémologique de l'argumentation dans son essai fondateur « Arguing with Arguments ». D'une part, les réalisations de cet essai sont honorées, en particulier une différenciation approfondie des différentes significations de « argument » et « argumentation », la justification sémantique de la fondamentalité des arguments en tant que séquences de propositions, et les critiques détaillées des solutions alternatives. D'autre part, des suggestions visant à renforcer la théorie sont ajoutées aux exposés de Siegel, qui en même temps font reconnaître différentes perspectives au sein de la théorie épistémologique de l'argumentation.

Argument schemes—an epistemological approach

2011

The paper develops a classificatory system of basic argument types on the basis of the epistemological approach to argumentation. This approach has provided strict rules for several kinds of arguments. These kinds may be brought into a system of basic irreducible types, which rely on different parts of epistemology: deductive logic, probability theory, utility theory. The system reduces a huge mass of different argument schemes to basic types and gives them an epistemological foundation. KEYWORDS: adequacy of arguments, argument schemes, branches of argument schemes, epistemological theory of argumentation, Kienpointner, practical arguments, probabilistic arguments, types of types of arguments, validity, Walton. 1. THEORIES OF ARGUMENT SCHEMES AND THE AIMS OF THIS PAPER The ancestor of the theories of argument schemes is Aristotle's incredibly rich and elaborated "Topics", which dominated rhetoric until the 20 th century. However, with the renaissance of argumentation theory at the end of the 1950s, the study of argument schemes has undergone a continuous inflow of new ideas and approaches. Some important contributions since then have been made by

In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation

Informal Logic

In this paper we defend a particular version of the epistemic approach to argumentation. We advance some general considerations in favor of the approach and then examine the ways in which different versions of it play out with respect to the theory of fallacies, which we see as central to an understanding of argumentation. Epistemic theories divide into objective and subjective versions. We argue in favor of the objective version, showing that it provides a better account than its subjectivist rival of the central fallacy of begging the question. We suggest that the strengths of the objective epistemic theory of fallacies provide support for the epistemic approach to argumentation more generally.

"Giving Reasons. A contribution to Argumentation Theory"

In Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic-approach to Argumentation Theory (Springer, 2011), I provide a new model for the semantic and pragmatic appraisal of argumentation. This model is based on a characterization of argumentation as a second order speech-act complex. I explain the advantages of this model respecting other proposals within Argumentation Theory, such as Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, the New Rhetoric or the Epistemic Approach.

The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View

Argumentation, 2023

In 'The making of argumentation theory' van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness-the crucial issue in argumentation theory-van Eemeren and van Haaften explain the positions taken by representatives from the approaches discussed and indicate where they differ from the pragma-dialectical approach. It transpires that approaches focusing on dialectical reasonableness are, next to pragma-dialectics, formal dialectics and informal logic; approaches focusing on rhetorical effectiveness are, next to pragma-dialectics, rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, and the informal logician Tindale. When it comes to the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, some interest in it is shown in rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, but only in pragma-dialectics and in Tindale's work is it a real focus. The main difference between Tindale's view and the pragma-dialectical view is that in pragma-dialectics the decisive role in deciding about reasonableness is assigned to a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse and in Tindale's approach this role is assigned to Tindale's interpretation of the Perelmanian universal audience.