Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 24 (4):489-512 (2010)
This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT, see Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009), we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT’s denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and methodological perspective of pragma-dialectics in its extended version, reconciling dialectic and rhetoric; nevertheless, it also takes into account numerous other contributions to the study of argument schemes. Aiming at a representation of argument schemes able to monitor the inferential cohesion and completeness of arguments, AMT focuses on two components of argument scheme that could be distinguished, readapting pragma-dialectical terms, as procedural and material respectively. The procedural component is based on the semantic-ontological structure, which generates the inferential connection from which the logical form of the argument is derived. The material component integrates into the argument scheme the implicit and explicit premises bound to the contextual common ground (Rigotti 2006). In this paper, the comparison of the AMT to other approaches focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments and not on the typologies of argument schemes and on the principles they are based on, which the authors intend to tackle in a further paper.
|Keywords||Argument scheme Topics Loci Material starting point Procedural starting point Semantic analysis Argumentum Model of Topics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Douglas Walton (2007). Evaluating Practical Reasoning. Synthese 157 (2):197 - 240.
Nancy Green (2010). Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
J. Anthony Blair (2001). Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. [REVIEW] Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
J. Anthony Blair (1998). The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
Nathaniel Goldberg (2004). E Pluribus Unum: Arguments Against Conceptual Schemes and Empirical Content. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (4):411-438.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
J. Katzav & C. A. Reed (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2008). The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):525 - 549.
Anatoliy Ishmuratov (1994). Quest Schemes in Analytical Models of Discourse. Synthese 100 (1):29 - 38.
Terence Rajivan Edward (2013). From an Analysis of the Notion of Organization to Limits on Conceptual Diversity. Ethos 6 (1):86-94.
Jack S. Crumley (1989). Talking Lions and Lion Talk: Davidson on Conceptual Schemes. Synthese 80 (3):347-371.
Jack S. Crumley II (1989). Talking Lions and Lion Talk: Davidson on Conceptual Schemes. Synthese 80 (3):347 - 371.
Added to index2011-05-11
Total downloads8 ( #136,825 of 1,018,179 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #65,321 of 1,018,179 )
How can I increase my downloads?