What is a “Real” Argument?

Informal Logic 29 (1):1-14 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Numerous informal logi- cians and argumentation theorists restrict their theorizing to what they call “real” arguments. But is there a clear distinction to be made between “real” and “non-real” arguments? Here I explore four possible accounts of the alleged distinction and argue that none can serve the theoretical uses to which the distinction is most often put. Résumé: Plusieurs logiciens construction formels et théoriciens de l’argument- ation limitent leur non de théories à ce qu’ils appellent des arguments « authentiques ». Mais y-a- t’il une distinction claire entre des arguments« authentiques » et « inau- thentiques » ? Ici j’explore quatre descriptions possibles de cette préten- due distinction et je soutiens qu’- aucune ne répond aux besoins théori- ques auxquels elles sont censées ré- pondre

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,199

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-03

Downloads
25 (#465,310)

6 months
1 (#448,894)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

G. C. Goddu
University of Richmond

References found in this work

The Logic of Real Arguments.Alec Fisher - 1988 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.Trudy Gover - 2018 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
Argument Structure a Pragmatic Theory.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Informal logic and the concept of argument.David Hitchcock - 2006 - In Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. North Holland. pp. 5--101.

View all 21 references / Add more references