Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes
Argumentation (Browse Results) (forthcoming)
| Abstract | Abstract Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to true belief and correct choices, needs to take into account the attitudes of dialogue partners as well as normative models of dialogue and communicative activity types, in particular social and cultural settings. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-32 DOI 10.1007/s10503-012-9262-y Authors Douglas Walton, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), University of Windsor, 2500 University Ave. W., Windsor, ON N9B 3Y1, Canada Giovanni Sartor, Law Department, European University Institute, Villa Schifanoia, Via Boccaccio 121, 50133 Florence, Italy Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDouglas Walton (2012). Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26 (3):369-391.
J. Anthony Blair (2001). Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Douglas N. Walton (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. L. Erlbaum Associates.
C. Andone (2012). Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. Giving Reasons. A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 26 (2):291-296.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
C. Andone (2010). Henrique Jales Ribeiro (Ed.): Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Beginning of the XXIst Century . Coimbra University Press, Coimbra, 2009, 312 Pp. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (4):513-518.
Hugo Mercier (2012). Looking for Arguments. Argumentation 26 (3):305-324.
Michael J. Hoppmann (2012). Review of Harald Wohlrapp's “Der Begriff des Arguments”. [REVIEW] Argumentation 26 (2):297-304.
Richard Andrews & Frøydis Hertzberg (2009). Introduction: Special Issue on Argumentation in Education in Scandinavia and England. Argumentation 23 (4):433-436.
Axel Barceló Aspeitia (2012). Words and Images in Argumentation. Argumentation 26 (3):355-368.
Floris Bex & Bart Verheij (2012). Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
Ana Laura Nettel & Georges Roque (2012). Introduction. Argumentation 26 (1):1-17.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-02-06Total downloads5 ( #160,483 of 549,250 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,250 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
