What is a “Real” Argument?

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


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



    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


Added to PP

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