Abstract
Relevance is a triadic relation between an item, an outcome or goal, and a situation. Causal relevance consists in an item's ability to help produce an outcome in a situation. Epistemic relevance, a distinct concept, consists in the ability of a piece of information (or a speech act communicating or requesting a piece of information) to help achieve an epistemic goal in a situation. It has this ability when it can be ineliminably combined with other at least potentially accurate information to achieve the goal. The relevance of a conversational contribution, premiss relevance and conclusion relevance are species of epistemic relevance thus defined. The conception of premiss relevance which results provides a basis for determining when the various ‘arguments ad’ called fallacies of relevance are indeed irrelevant. In particular, an ad verecundiam appeal is irrelevant if the authority cited lacks expertise in a cognitive domain to which the conclusion belongs, the authority does not exercise its expertise in coming to endorse the conclusion, or the conclusion does not belong to a cognitive domain; otherwise the ad verecundiam is relevant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barth, Else and E.C.W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Blair, J. Anthony: 1989, ‘Premise Relevance’, in Robert Maier (ed.), Norms in Argumentation, Foris, Drodrecht, pp. 67–83.
Chesterton, G.K.: 1987, Thirteen Detectives, Dodd, Mead, New York.
Copi, Irving M.: 1986, Introduction to Logic, 7th edition, Macmillan, New York.
Cutler, Winnifred B.: 1990, Hysterectomy: Before and After, Harper & Row, New York.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst: 1990, ‘The Relevance Problem in the Analysis of Argumentative Texts: A Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction’, Hermes 5, 57–68.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst and Tjark Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.
Finocchiaro, Maurice: 1974, ‘The Concept of Ad Hominem Argument in Galileo and Locke’, The Philosophical Forum 5, 394–404.
Goodwyn, Lawrence: 1990, Breaking the Barrier: The Rise of Solidarity in Poland, Oxford, New York.
Govier, Trudy: 1988, A Practical study of Argument, 2nd edition, Wadsworth, Belmont Calif.
Hamblin, C.L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Hardwig, John: 1988, ‘Relying on Experts’, in trudy Goivier (ed.), Selcted Issues in Logic and Communication, Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.
Hitchcock, David: 1983, Critical Thinking, Methuen, Toronto.
Hitchcock, David: 1985, ‘Enthymematic Arguments’, Informal Logic 7, 83–97.
Hitchcock, David: 1987, ‘Enthymematic Arguments’, in Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 289–298.
Hitchcock, David: 1992, ‘Reasoning by Analogy’, in Stephen Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking, Teachers College Press, New York.
Hitchcock, David: forthcoming, ‘The Validity of Conduvtive Arguments’, in J.A. Blair and R.H. Johnson (eds.), Theories of Informal Logic, Informal Logic Press, Windsor, Ontario.
Johnson, Ralph H.: in progress, ‘The Relevance of Relevance’, paper read at a conference on relevance in argumentation at McMaster University, June 1991.
Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair: 1983, Logical Self-Defense, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.
Kielkopf, Charles: 1980, ‘Relevant Appeals to Force, Pity, and Popular Pieties’, Informal Logic Newsletter ii (2), 2–5.
Locke, John: 1974, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (2 vols.; revised reprint of the 1961 edition by John W. Yolton; first edition published 1690), Dent, London.
Mackenzie, P.J.: 1981, ‘Ad hominem and Ad Verecundiam’, Informal Logic Newsletter iii(3), 9–11.
McMurtry, John: 1986, ‘The Argumentum ad Adversarium’, Informal Logic 8, 27–36.
Michalos, Alex C.: 1970, Improving Your Reasoning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Blackwell, Oxford.
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tracy, Karen: 1982, ‘On Getting the Point: Distinguishing “Issues” from “Events”, An Aspect of Conversational Coherence’, Communication Yearbook 5, 279–301.
Walton, Douglas: 1982, Topical Relevance in Argumentation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam /Philadelphia.
Whately, Richard: 1827, Elements of Logic, J. Mawman, London.
Woods, John: forthcoming, ‘Sunny Prospects for Relevance?’, to be published in J.A. B Blair and R.H. Johnson (eds.), Theories of Informal Logic, Informal Logic Press, Windsor, Ontario.
Woods, John: in progress, ‘Agenda Relevance’, paper distributed at a conference on relevance in argumentation, McMaster University, June 1991.
Woods, John and Douglas Walton: 1989, Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982, Foris, Dordrecht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hitchcock, D. Relevance. Argumentation 6, 251–270 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154329
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154329