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

Abstract

An overvic\\ of tht: epistemological approach to argumentation. explaining \\hat it is. justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach. systematizing the main directions and theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation. Resume: On decrit l'approche epistemologique de I' argumentation. la compare aux autres approches. systematise scs directions principales et ses theories selon ses criteres d 'un bon argument, presente les contributions des theoriciens de cette approche sur les sujets majeurs de la theorie d•argumentation. Entin. on resume les articles de ce numero special d' Informal Logic ainsi que ceux du prochain.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (48)

  1. Battersby, Mark E. (1989). "Critical Thinking as Applied Epistemology. Relocating Critical Thinking in the Philosophical Landscape." Informal Logic II: 91-100.
  2. Biro, J[ ohn] I. (1977). "Rescuing 'Begging the Question'." Metaphilosophy 8: 257-271.
  3. Biro, John I. (1984). "Knowability, Believability, and Begging the Question. A Reply to Sanford." Metaphilosophy 15: 239-247.
  4. Biro, J[ohn] I. (1987). "A Sketch of an Epistemic Theory of Fallacies." In: Frans H. van Eemeren let al.] (eds.), Argumentation, Analysis and Practics. Proceedings of the 1986 Amsterdam Conference on Argumentation. Dordrecht: Foris. Pp. 65-73.
  5. Biro, John [1.] & Harvey Siegel (1992). "Normativity, Argumentation and an Epistemic Theory of Fallacies." In: Frans H. van Eemeren [et al.] (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: SicSat. Pp. 85-103.
  6. Biro, John [1.] & Harvey Siegel (2006). "In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation." Informal Logic 26. I.
  7. Feldman, Richard (1994). "Good Arguments." In: Frederick F. Schmitt (ed.), Socializing Epistemology. The Social Dimensions of Knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & . Littlefield. Pp. 159-188.
  8. Feldman, Richard (1999). Reason and Argument. 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1993.
  9. Fogelin, Robert J. & Timothy 1. Duggan (1987). "Fallacies:' Argumentation I: 255-262.
  10. Freeman, James B. (2005). Acceptable Premises. An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
  11. Goldman, Alvin I. (1994). "Argumentation and Social Epistemology." Journal of . Philosophy 91: 27-49.
  12. Goldman, Alvin I. (1997). "Argumentation and interpersonal justification." Argumentation 11:155-164.
  13. Goldman, Alvin I. (I999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon.
  14. Goldman, Alvin I. (2003). "An Epistemological Approach to Argumentation." Informal Logic 23: 51-63.
  15. Habermas, Jiirgen (198 I). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Vol. I• Handlungs-rationalitdt und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt: Suhr-kamp. Engl. Trans!.: The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Transl. by T. MaCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press 1984.
  16. Hamblin, C[harles] L[eonhard] (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
  17. Jacquette, Dale (1993). "Logical Dimensions of Question-Begging Argument." American Philosophical Quarterly 30: 3 I 7-327.
  18. Johnson, Ralph H. (1990). "Acceptance [s Not Enough. A Critique of Hamblin." Philosophy and Rhetoric 23: 271-287.
  19. Johnson, Ralph H. (1999). "The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic." Argumentation 13: 265-274.
  20. Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, New Jersey & London: Erlbaum.
  21. Johnson, Ralph H. & J. Anthony Blair (1977). Logical Self-Defense. Toronto: MacGraw- Hill Ryerson, 1977, 1983, 1993 (New York: McGraw-Hili, first U.S. edition, 1994; New York: [nternational Debate Education Association, reissue of 1st U.S. edition, 2006)
  22. Korb, Kevin B. (2003). "Bayesian Informal Logic and Fallacy." Informal Logic 23: 41-70.
  23. Lumer, Christoph (1988). "The Disputation. A Special Type of Cooperative Argumentative Dialogue." Argumentation 2: 44 1-464.
  24. Lumer, Christoph (1990). Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theoretische Grundlagen, praktische Begriindung und Regeln wichtiger Argumentationsarten. (Practical Theory of Arguments. Theoretical Foundations, Practical Justification and Rules of Important Argument Types.) Braunschweig: Vieweg.
  25. " Lumer, Christoph (1991). "Structure and Function of Argumentations. An Epistemological Approach to Determining Criteria for the Validity and Adequacy of Argumentations." In: Frans H. van Eemeren [et al.] (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sicsat. Pp. 98-107.
  26. Lumer, Christoph (1995). "Der theoretische Ansatz der Praktischen Argumentations- theorie." In: Harald Wohlrapp (ed.), Wege der Argumentations-forschung. Stuttgart- Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog. Pp. 81-101.
  27. Lumer, Christoph (1997). "Practical Arguments for Theoretical Theses." Argumentation 11: 329-340.
  28. Lumer, Christoph (2000a). "Reductionism in Fallacy Theory." Argumentation 14: 405- 423. Lumer, Christoph (2000b). "Argumentationstheorie und Logik." In: Geert-Lueke Lueken (ed.), Formen der Argumentation. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitatsverlag. Pp. 53-71.
  29. Lumer, Christoph (2000c). Rationaler Altruismus. Eine prudentielle Theorie der Rationalitdt und des Altruismus. OsnabrUck: Universitatsverlag Rasch.
  30. Lumer, Christoph (2003). "Interpreting Arguments." In: Frans H. van Eemeren (et al.) (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SIC SAT. Pp. 715-719.
  31. Lumer, Christoph (2005). "The Epistemological Theory of Argument-How and Why?" Informal Logic 25.3: 214-232 (this issue).
  32. McGrath, Patrick J. (1995). "When do deductive arguments beg the question?" In: Frans H. van Eemeren [et al.] (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Vol. II. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Pp. 345-352.
  33. Meiland, Jack W. (1989). "Argument as Inquiry and Argument as Persuasion." Argumentation 3: 1.85-196.
  34. Oaksford, Mike; Ulrike Hahn (2004). "A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance." Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58: 75-85.
  35. Pinto, Robert C. (2001). Argument, Inference and Dialectic. Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V Hansen. Dordrecht; Boston & London: Kluwer.
  36. Ritola, Juho (2004). Begging the question. A study of a fallacy. Turku: University of Turku. Reports from the Department of Philosophy, Volume 13.
  37. Sanford, David H. (1972). "Begging the question." Analysis 32: 197-199.
  38. Sanford, David H. (1981). "Superfluous Information, Epistemic Conditions, and Begging the Question." Metaphilosophy 12: 145-158.
  39. Sanford, David H. (1988). "Begging the Question as Involving Actual Belief and Inconceivable Without It." Metaphilosophy 19: 32-37.
  40. Siegel, Harvey (1987). Relativism Refuted. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  41. Siegel, Harvey (1999). "Argument Quality and Cultural Difference." Argumentation 13: 183-201.
  42. Siegel, Harvey & John Biro (1997). "Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies." Argumentation 11: 277-292.
  43. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (1999). "Begging the question." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77: 174-191.
  44. Weinstein, Mark (1994). "Infonnal Logic and Applied Epistemology." In: Ralph H. Johnson & J. Anthony Blair (eds.), Nelv Essays in Informal Logic. Windsor: Informal Logic. Pp.140-161.
  45. Weinstein, Mark (2002). "Exemplifying and Internal Realist Theory of Truth." Philosophica 69: 11-40.
  46. Weinstein, Mark (2003). "If At First You Don't Succeed. Response to Johnson." In: Frans H. van Eemeren [et a1.l (eds.): Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SIC SAT. Pp. 1071-1076.
  47. Weinstein, Mark (2006). 'Three Naturalistic Accounts of the Epistemology of Argument." Informal Logic 26.1 (next issue).
  48. Willard, Charles Arthur (1983). Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Kn01l'ledge. Alabama: Univ. of Alabama Press.