Social Aspects of Argumentation (original) (raw)
Values and Strategies of Argumentation in Everyday Life, Politics and Social Science
The paper discusses some difficulties in intervening in popular political debate. These have to do with strategies of argumentation, types of explanation of social phenomena, and values. It compares social scientific and popular political forms of reasoning, commenting on ‘the belief in a just world’, differences between social and individualistic explanations, and between explanation and justification. It assesses George Lakoff’s claim that political debates are won on the basis of appeals to voters’ values, not policies, and argues that values should be treated as within the scope of reason, and as related to understandings of human needs and well-being.
Oxford Bibliographies, 2023
Two broad divisions characterize orientations to studies of argumentation by communication scholars and scholars in other disciplines. First, communication scholars perform descriptive and normative studies of argumentation, as well as studies that attempt to integrate these two perspectives. Descriptive studies typically employ qualitative and social-scientific research methods and may analyze argumentation both in laboratory and in real-world settings. Normative studies typically employ humanistic research methods and analyze argumentation in the public communication. Second, scholars may view argumentation as more of an epistemological activityone that generates knowledge or justifies belief-or as more of a practical activity that is designed to achieve a variety of outcomes, such as persuasion, consideration of a proposal, or acceptance of a premise. Various basic questions are addressed by argumentation research: How should we define "argumentation"? How should we analyze it? How should we evaluate it? General Overviews The interdisciplinary nature of Argumentation research may explain a dearth of general overviews. Wenzel 1990 continues to serve as a clarifying framework for approaching argumentation research. Van Eemeren, et al. 2014 is the most comprehensive overview. Dutlih Novael 2022 covers fundamental topics in argumentation research and mainly philosophical sources that address them. Hundleby 2021 also covers fundamental topics and mainly philosophical sources but from a feminist perspective. Dutlih Novael, Catarina. 2022. Argument and Argumentation. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Overviews basic topics including definitions of argument, types of arguments (e.g., adversarial and cooperative, epistemic, consensus, conflict management), argumentation theory, argumentation with respect to various disciplines (e.g., computer science, psychology, communication), and more. Good resource for philosophical sources and a view of argumentation from a primarily philosophical perspective. Hundleby, Catherine E. 2021. Feminist perspectives on argumentation. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Overviews basic topics, including the definition of argument, goals of arguing, informal logic and rhetorical perspectives, and fallacies. Describes feminist approaches and perspectives on these and other topics. Critiques assumptions and starting points of argumentation research. Focuses mainly on philosophical sources but includes sources in rhetoric and communication. Good introduction to feminist perspectives on argumentation for students and scholars.
A practical study of argument / Trudy Govier
1 Logika 2 Pikiran Dan Pemikiran a Practical Study of Argument Trudy Govier, 1992
Preface xi two "troubleshooters," Cary MacWilliams (third and fourth editions) and Risa Kawchuk (fifth and sixth editions). Their hard work spared me many errors. For the seventh edition, David Boutland, Colin Hirano, and Gabrielle Motuz assisted with proofreading and discussion of relevant points. I am also indebted to the following prerevision reviewers of the seventh edition:
On the Necessity of Community Argument, Along with Inherent and Emerging Obstacles to It
The most productive arguing typically involves differences in views, and these are to be experienced in contact with communities other than the arguer's. These communities can be social groups or, metaphorically, discrete sections of long term memory. Evolution has ensured that people are inclined to agree with their own social communities and disparage out-group views. It has also designed human memory to have isolated chunks of information that do not normally touch. These inheritances are inherent obstacles to community argument. Emerging ones come from recent work by social scientists, who are designing persuasion techniques that are intended to short-circuit critical thinking. These research projects include distraction, nudging, narratives, visual messages, and others. The ISSA community should begin work on a pedagogy to address these matters.
Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?
Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Further, they assume that what we critically test can be analytically reduced to (1) individual and (2) bi-polar standpoints. I argue that these two assumptions lead to the dominant view of dialectics as a bi-partisan argumentative discussion in which the yes-side (proponent) argues against the doubter or the no-side (opponent). I scrutinise this binary orientation in understanding argumentation by drawing on the main tenets of normative pragmatic and pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. I develop my argument by showing how argumentative practice challenges these assumptions. I then lay out theoretical reasons for this challenge. This paves the way for an enhanced conceptualisation of dialectical models and their standards of rationality in terms of multi-party discussions, or argumentative polylogues.