Argumentation theorists know that their work has real-life application, and similarly, they draw inspiration for that work from real-life experiences. Sometimes, it comes from some public medium – the newspaper, a blog, a debate stage. But we also draw from more private reason-exchanges – a conversation with a neighbor, small-talk with a colleague, or a lovers’ spat. A few worries about publicly theorizing about those more private cases arise. We may be making public something that was unguarded, and so betray (...) a trust. Our theoretical reflections may themselves warp the relationship we’d originally savored, particularly when our partners know about the possibility of them being publicly scrutinized. Novelists and poets regularly struggle with this challenge with their work, and we argumentation theorists should, too. Les théoriciens de l’argumentation savent que leur travail a des applications concrètes et, de la même manière, ils s’inspirent d’expériences réelles. Parfois, ces idées proviennent d’un média public – un journal, un blog, une tribune de débat. Mais nous nous inspirons aussi d’échanges de raisonnement plus privés – une conversation avec un voisin, une petite conversation avec un collègue ou une dispute amoureuse. Nous craignons de théoriser publiquement sur ces cas plus privés. Nous pouvons rendre public des commentaires irréfléchis et ainsi trahir une confiance. Nos réflexions théoriques peuvent déformer la relation que nous avions initialement très appréciée, en particulier lorsque nos partenaires savent qu’ils peuvent être scrutés publiquement. Les romanciers et les poètes sont régulièrement confrontés à ce défi dans leur travail, et nous, les théoriciens de l’argumentation, devrions également le faire. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to develop the notions of particularism and generalism in argumentation theory. Generalism is the claim that to argue we need general rules that specify which data support which conclusions, while particularism denies it. The problem is that it is not always clear what these rules consist of, and in what sense argumentation depend on them. To clarify this, I will first introduce the discussion in moral philosophy and show how it has been adapted to (...) argumentation theory. Then I will distinguish some ways of understanding rules and contend that their alleged necessity might be supported in at least three ways. This will allow me to identify some variants of generalism and, on this basis, to outline what I consider to be the most promising reading of particularism. L’objectif de cet article est de développer les notions de particularisme et de généralisme en théorie de l’argu-mentation. Le généralisme est l’affirma-tion selon laquelle pour argumenter, nous avons besoin de règles générales qui pré-cisent quelles données soutiennent que-lles conclusions, alors que le particula-risme le nie. Le problème est qu’il n’est pas toujours clair en quoi consistent ces règles et dans quel sens l’argumentation en dépend. Pour clarifier cela, je com-mencerai par introduire la discussion en philosophie morale et montrerai com-ment elle a été adaptée à la théorie de l’argumentation. Ensuite, je distinguerai quelques façons de comprendre les règles et soutiendrai que leur prétendue nécessité pourrait être soutenue d’au moins trois façons. Cela me permettra d’identifier certaines variantes du géné-ralisme et, sur cette base, d’esquisser ce que je considère comme la lecture la plus prometteuse du particularisme. (shrink)

In Memoriam for Professor Michael Scriven.

In this paper, a reaction is presented to Siegel’s claim that the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation ignores or neglects epistemological viewpoints that he finds vital to any normative theory of argumentation. The focus is on the most important problems in Siegel’s argument: 1) the ambiguity of the term ‘argument’ and the alleged negligence of this ambiguity in pragma-dialectics; 2) the critical rational perspective of the pragma-dialectical account; and 3) the alleged negligence of the “abstract propositional sense” of argument in pragma-dialectics.

There is a common understanding among logicians today that nonmonotonic types of reasoning, such as defeasible or presumptive, can clearly warrant a rational acceptance of its conclusion. Recognition of the significance and legitimacy of these forms of arguments, which were considered for long as fallacious, is believed to be very recent and many logicians tended to reject any discussions around it within the tradition of logic after Aristotle. In contrast, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), since medieval age, has recognised the validity and (...) importance of non-deductive forms of reasoning, analysed the structures of such arguments and demonstrated how the conventionally understood fallacies are not essentially fallacies. Qiyās – generally represents analogical reasoning – is taken here as a case of defeasible reasoning in Islamic argumentation. This paper will show through works of two emblematic medieval Muslim jurist-logicians, al-Juwainī and al-Ghazzālī, that understanding the legitimacy and the structure of non-deductive forms of arguments is at the core of Islamic legal theories (usūl al-fiqh), and that they recognised its legitimacy and proposed a dialectical method (jadal) of approaching it. Les logiciens comprennent généralement que les types de raisonnement non monotones peuvent justifier l’acceptation rationnelle des conclusions. L’importance et la légitimité de ces formes d’arguments, qui ont longtemps été considérées comme fallacieuses, ont été controversées parmi les logiciens de la tradition logique aristotélicienne. En revanche, la jurisprudence islamique (fiqh) a depuis longtemps reconnu l’importance des formes de raisonnement non déductives et a démontré que les sophismes conventionnellement compris ne sont pas essentiellement des sophismes. Le qiyās – qui représente généralement le raisonnement analogique – est un exemple de raisonnement réfutable dans l’argumentation islamique. Je montre à travers les travaux de deux juristes-logiciens musulmans médiévaux emblématiques, al-Juwainī et al-Ghazzālī, que la compréhension de la légitimité des formes d’arguments non déductives est au cœur des théories juridiques islamiques (usūl al-fiqh), qui ont proposé une méthode d’approche dialectique (jadal). (shrink)

Arguments from fairness as described in Aristotle’s _Rhetoric_ are usually taken to aim at mitigating the strictness of the law or, in terms of procedure, to favour the defendant. This paper considers a more inclusive interpretation, that is, that arguments from fairness can work both ways. In the example given in the _Rhetoric,_ arguments from fairness are directed at a restrictive interpretation of the text. That may not be necessary however. Likewise, fairness may speak for the claimant. Two examples may (...) support this conclusion: a judicial speech by Hyperides, and the doctrine of issues appearing in Hellenistic school rhetoric. (shrink)

The orthodox view holds that analogical arguments are a distinctive type of argument, while the eliminative view and its enhanced variant proposed in this paper contend that analogical arguments can be reducible to non-analogical arguments by eliminating the similarities proposition. This paper shows that the existing defense for the orthodox view fails to tackle the challenge posed by the eliminative view and its enhanced variant. The new defense for the distinctiveness of analogical arguments argues that an analogical argument is composed (...) of both a conductive and principle-based argument. Consequently, analogical arguments remain irreducible, as the similarities proposition is not eliminated. (shrink)

This article discusses Harvey Siegel’s general justification of the epistemological theory of argumentation in his seminal essay “Arguing with Arguments." On the one hand, the achievements of this essay are honoured—in particular, a thorough differentiation of the different meanings of ‘argument’ and ‘argumentation,’ the semantic justification of the fundamentality of arguments as sequences of propositions, and the detailed critiques of alternative theories of argumentation. On the other hand, suggestions for strengthening the theory are added to Siegel's expositions, which make different (...) perspectives within the epistemological theory of argumentation recognisable. (shrink)

This paper is a response to H. Siegel’s “Arguing with Arguments” from a rhetorical perspective on argumentation. First I address Siegel’s concept of ‘argument in its abstract propositional sense’ and attempt to show that it is not at all an obvious object that should unquestionably be the privileged focus of argumentation theory. I then defend C. W. Tindale’s rhetorical perspective on argumentation against some of Siegel’s misreadings and also some of his legitimate disagreements regarding the relations between _persuasion_ and _rational_ (...) _justification_ and the way we should understand the source of argumentative normativity. (shrink)

Our intuition is straightforward: yes, argumentation changes minds. It can’t be otherwise! But many cognitive and discursive habits seem to suggest otherwise. As the literature in the psychology of reasoning incessantly emphasizes, we hardly change our minds (and the minds of others) because a predisposed robust confirmation bias (or myside bias) is at work every time we argue, among other persistent cognitive illusions (Pohl, 2012), heuristics and biases (Santibáñez, 2023). To adequately answer the questions of why and how argumentation changes (...) minds, if at all, this paper frames the problem in an evolutionary perspective. My main thesis is that argumentative competence changes minds because its ultimate goal (Laland et al., 2011; Scott-Phillips, Dickins & West, 2011) is to construct the future to predict more accurately (Suddendorf, Redshaw & Bulley, 2022). This idea converges with some evolutionary analysis of other cognitive skills and cultural inventions. To explain my perspective, I use the distinction between ultimate and proximal goals of a trait, and the cultural background of argumentative competence plays a fundamental role within this distinction. Notre intuition est simple: oui, l’argumentation change les men-talités. Mais de nombreuses habitudes cognitives et discursives suggèrent le contraire. Comme le soulignent sans cesse les écrits sur la psychologie du raisonnement, nous ne changeons guère d’avis parce qu’un biais de con-firmation robuste (ou biais de-mon-côté) prédisposé est à l’oeuvre lorsque nous argumentons. Pour répondre adéquatement aux questions de pour-quoi, comment et si l’argumentation change les mentalités, je pose le prob-lème dans une perspective évolution-niste. Je soutiens que la compétence ar-gumentative change les mentalités parce que son but ultime est de con-struire l’avenir, de prédire avec plus de précision. Cela converge avec les anal-yses évolutionnistes d’autres compé-tences cognitives et inventions cul-turelles. Pour expliquer ma perspec-tive, j’utilise la distinction entre les buts ultimes et proximaux d’un trait. (shrink)

It is widely believed that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of argumentation is vulnerable to the charge of relativism. This paper provides a more charitable interpretation of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s normative views, one that properly considers the historical trajectory of their work and a wider range of texts than existing interpretations. It is argued that their views are better characterized as a form of “contrastivism about arguments” than any kind relativism. This more accurate depiction contributes to ongoing efforts to revive interest (...) in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s work as well as build bridges with trends in contemporary argumentation theory. (shrink)

‘Argument’ has multiple meanings and referents in contemporary argumentation theory. Theorists are well aware of this but often fail to acknowledge it in their theories. In what follows, I distinguish several senses of ‘argument’ and argue that some highly visible theories are largely correct about some senses of the term but not others. In doing so, I hope to show that apparent theoretical rivals are better seen as collaborators or partners, rather than rivals, in the multi-disciplinary effort to understand ‘argument,’ (...) arguments, and argumentation in all their varieties. I argue as well for a pluralistic approach to argument evaluation and argumentative norms, since arguments and argumentation can be legitimately evaluated along several dimensions, but urge that epistemic norms enjoy conceptual priority. (shrink)

Generative AI appears to threaten argument creativity. Because of its capacity to generate coherent texts, individuals are likely to integrate its ideas, and not their own, into arguments, thereby reducing their creative contribution. This article argues that this view is mistaken—it rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of creativity. Within arguments, creative and critical thinking cannot be separated. Because creativity is enmeshed with skills such as analysis and evaluation, the use of generative AI in the construction of arguments, especially (...) in the role as universal audience, has the potential to heighten, not diminish argument creativity. (shrink)

At the time of writing, in the summer of 2024, we are confronted with a ‘polycrisis’ (e.g., Tooze 2022). This term is used to describe a situation in which multiple crises do not simply add up to a somewhat bigger crisis, but rather create a significantly different, amplified crisis in which the sub-crises influence each other in interdependent ways. As numerous studies have demonstrated (e.g., Heitmeyer 2024; Roberts 2022; Nowotny 2016), crises engender feelings of uncertainty, insecurity, and subsequently fear (Bauman (...) 2006). The aim of this paper is to pose the overarching question: How do governments and citizens cope with such uncertainties? Les crises provoquent la peur, la panique, l’incertitude et l’impuissance. L’incertitude et l’insécurité mettent à l’épreuve tous les acteurs concernés ; chacun attend des instructions, une planification, des explications et la sécurité. Cependant, nous affrontons des alarmismes, des simplifications, une série de stratégies de légitimation et d’erreurs. Plus précisément, les erreurs sont souvent placées avant les intérêts communautaires, nationaux ou même locaux. Ces évolutions sont illustrées par une analyse qualitative et quantitative détaillée du discours des débats en Autriche, à l’été 2023. Je soutiens que les appels fallacieux au bon sens et à la normalité dépendent de leur contexte, avec des contenus, des fonctions et des effets différents observables. De tels appels instrumentalisent une « politique des émotions » de différentes manières. Ainsi, une nouvelle logique politique est normalisée, remplaçant le discours rationnel, la délibération et la formulation de politiques dirigées par des experts. (shrink)

The paper discusses the role of systemic means of persuasion in argument evaluation. The core class of systemic means of persuasion is regress stoppers, whose fundamental function is to halt the infinite regress of justification by making claims, premises, or overall position expressed in a persuasive message more acceptable to a recipient. The paper explores how systemic means of persuasion contribute to the structure of arguments in the Toulmin model and serve as cues for heuristic processing of persuasive messages. It (...) also presents the results of the stylometric analysis and statistical data on the usage of systemic means of persuasion in three corpora which suggest that systemic means of persuasion constitute strategies independent of the strategy based on explicit argumentation marked by inference indicators. (shrink)

Metaphors are emotionally engaging, influenc-ing the evaluation of arguments. The paper empirically in-vestigates whether metaphors in the premise can lead the evaluator to judge an ad hominem argument as sound when the arguer instead committed a fallacy. The results show that ad hominem arguments with conventional and positive metaphors are more persuasive compared to those with novel and negative metaphors. Arguments with conventional metaphors are also perceived as more am-biguous, but less convincing, and emotionally appealing. Additionally, participants believe in the (...) conclusion more when the premise contains a positive rather than a nega-tive metaphor, which instead helps the evaluator detect the fallacy. Résumé: Les métaphores sont émotionnellement engag-eantes et ainsi influencent l’évaluation des arguments. L'article étudie empiriquement si les métaphores em-ployées dans la prémisse peuvent amener l'évaluateur à juger un argument ad hominem comme solide bien que ce sophisme soit commis. Les résultats montrent que les ar-guments ad hominem utilisant des métaphores conven-tionnelles et positives sont plus convaincants que ceux utilisant des métaphores nouvelles et négatives. Les argu-ments utilisant des métaphores conventionnelles sont également perçus comme plus ambigus, mais moins con-vaincants et émotionnellement attrayants. De plus, les participants croient davantage à la conclusion lorsque la prémisse contient une métaphore positive plutôt que néga-tive, ce qui aide plutôt l'évaluateur à détecter le sophisme. (shrink)

In this essay, I make a plea for a wide-ranging, open perspective on the evaluation of arguments. This involves a more flexible understanding of what fallacies are and for what argu-ments may be used. I acknowledge the great wealth of argumentation theory, but bemoan the lack of systematic, re-peatable, and explainable evaluation procedures. I then go on to introduce the works which contribute to this spe-cial issue and explain how they assist in the fulfilment of my hopes. Résumé: Dans cet (...) essai, je plaide en faveur d’une perspective large et ou-verte sur l’évaluation des arguments. Cela implique une compréhension plus flexible de ce que sont les sophismes et des arguments qui peuvent être utilisés. Je reconnais la grande richesse de la théorie de l’argumentation, mais je dé-plore le manque de procédures d’éval-uation systématiques, reproductibles et explicables. Je présente ensuite les travaux qui contribuent à ce numéro spécial et explique comment ils con-tribuent à la réalisation de mes espoirs. (shrink)

This paper addresses the prob-lem of how to identify and evaluate argu-ments made in a nonverbal form. Such arguments may employ images, sounds, or a combination of these in a truly mul-timodal presentation. Here, we concen-trate on those which are classified as au-ditory, i.e. contain at least one premise or the conclusion in sound form. We pro-pose and test a solution whereby some el-ements of the Comprehensive Assess-ment Procedure for Natural Argumenta-tion (CAPNA) are modified to allow for the evaluation of (...) auditory arguments. The results of this approach are illus-trated with the help of a number of au-thentic examples. Résumé: Cet article aborde le problème de la façon d'identifier et d'évaluer les ar-guments présentés sous une forme non verbale. De tels arguments peuvent uti-liser des images, des sons ou une com-binaison de ceux-ci dans une présenta-tion véritablement multimodale. Ici, nous nous concentrons sur les arguments classés comme auditifs, c'est-à-dire qui contiennent au moins une prémisse ou la conclusion sous forme sonore. Nous pro-posons et testons une solution dans laquelle certains éléments de la procédure d'évaluation globale de l'argu-mentation naturelle (CAPNA) sont mod-ifiés pour permettre l'évaluation des ar-guments auditifs. Les résultats de cette approche sont illustrés à l’aide de nom-breux exemples authentiques. (shrink)

This paper aims to develop the criteria for assessing semantic arguments. However, while this notion constituted the core of ancient dialectics and is addressed in several approaches to argument analysis, the criteria for evaluating such arguments are insufficient. This paper intends to address this problem by combining the insights of classical and contemporary logic and testing them against some controversies involving controversial definitions or classifications. Through detailed case studies of the argumentative uses involving the (re)definitions of racism, war, peace, and (...) feminism, we formulated and tested eight evaluation criteria that may be expressed as critical questions. Résumé: Cet article vise à développer les critères d’évaluation des arguments sémantiques. Cependant, bien que cette notion constitue le coeur de la dialectique ancienne et soit abordée dans plusieurs approches de l’analyse des arguments, les critères d’évaluation de ces arguments sont insuffisants. Cet article vise à résoudre ce problème en combinant les idées de la logique classique et contemporaine et en les testant par rapport à certaines controverses impliquant des définitions ou des classifications controversées. À travers des études de cas détaillées sur les usages argumentatifs impliquant les (re)définitions du racisme, de la guerre, de la paix et du féminisme, nous avons formulé et mis à l’épreuve huit critères d'évaluation qui peuvent être exprimés sous forme de questions critiques. (shrink)

In this paper, we contend that there are two ways of arguing, namely sincere and insincere arguing. We draw such a distinction, based on the felicity conditions of the complex speech act of arguing as modelled in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical approach. We introduce a conversa-tional setting, which contains a speech act of arguing that does not count as in-sincere arguing, while being a sui gene-ris form of sincere arguing. We desig-nate it as “cooperative inquiry”. Finally, we show that (...) argument evaluation plays a key role in determining whether an in-stance of arguing counts as either argu-ing sincerely or insincerely. Résumé: Dans cet article, nous affir-mons qu’il existe deux manières d’argu-menter, à savoir l’argumentation sincère et l’argumentation non sincère. Nous établissons une telle distinction, basée sur les conditions de félicité de l’acte de parole complexe consistant à argu-menter, tel que modélisé dans l’ap-proche pragma-dialectique de van Eemeren et Grootendorst. Nous intro-duisons un cadre conversationnel, qui contient un acte de parole d'argumenta-tion qui n'est pas considéré comme une argumentation non sincère, tout en étant une forme sui generis d'argumentation sincère. Nous la désignons comme « enquête coopérative ». Enfin, nous montrons que l’évaluation des argu-ments joue un rôle clé pour déterminer si un cas d’argumentation compte comme une argumentation sincère ou non. (shrink)

Anthony Blair, who died in March of this year, may yet be remembered as the scholar who was instrumental in creating, developing and popularizing informal logic in the 1970s, and who then spent the rest of his career trying to decide what exactly it was he had discovered.