David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 18 (3):191-209 (2004)
The study of argument has never before been so wide-ranging. The evidence for this claim is to be found in a growing number of different conceptions of argument, each of which purports to describe some component of argument that is effectively over-looked by other conceptions of this notion. Just this same sense that a vital component of argument is being overlooked by current conceptions of this notion is what motivates Dale Hample to pursue a specifically cognitive conception of argument. However, Hamples contribution to the study of argument extends beyond his development of a view of argument as cognition. For Hample is reflective on the interrelationship of his cognitive conception of argument to two other views of argument within which most conceptions of this notion may be taken to fall, the traditional view of argument as a textual product and the view of argument as a social phenomenon. I will argue, however, that what starts out as a well-intentioned aim on the part of Hample to pursue a comprehensive analysis of the notion of argument ends in the circumscription of this concept through Hample s denial of the primacy of argument. I will also argue that a circumscribed concept of argument is an unintelligible concept of argument. The context of my claims will be a similar charge of unintelligibility by Hilary Putnam against a logical positivistic conception of rationality
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Dale Hample (1985). A Third Perspective on Argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric 18 (1):1 - 22.
Graham Oppy (2002). Paley's Argument for Design. Philo 5 (2):161-173.
Dale Hample (2012). Ana Patrícia Macedo: The Development of Children's Argument Skills. [REVIEW] Argumentation 26 (4):529-531.
J. Melia (1999). Holes, Haecceitism and Two Conceptions of Determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
Stephan Blatti (2012). A New Argument for Animalism. Analysis 72 (4):685-690.
Richard Otte (2002). Rowe's Probabilistic Argument From Evil. Faith and Philosophy 19 (2):147-171.
Stephen Hetherington (2006). So-Far Incompatibilism and the so-Far Consequence Argument. Grazer Philosophische Studien 73 (1):163-178.
Charles S. Wallis (1990). Stich, Content, Prediction, and Explanation in Cognitive Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:327 - 340.
E. J. Coffman (2011). Hiddenness, Evidence, and Idolatry. In Raymond VanArragon & Kelly James Clark (eds.), Evidence and Religious Belief. Oxford University Press
Christopher Evan Franklin (2012). The Assimilation Argument and the Rollback Argument. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (3):395-416.
Donald P. Smith (2003). Kant on the Dependency of the Cosmological Argument on the Ontological Argument. European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):206–218.
Jason Shepard & Shane Reuter (2012). Neuroscience, Choice, and the Free Will Debate. American Journal of Bioethics - Neuroscience 3 (3):7-11.
Michael Papazian (2007). The Ontological Argument of Diogenes of Babylon. Phronesis 52 (2):188 - 209.
Qingyin Liang & Yun Xie (2011). How Critical is the Dialectical Tier? Argumentation 25 (2):229-242.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads7 ( #444,625 of 1,934,509 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,193 of 1,934,509 )
How can I increase my downloads?