Argumentation 32 (2):213-240 (2018)

Abstract
We all seem to have a sense of what good and bad arguments are, and there is a long history—focusing on fallacies—of trying to provide objective standards that would allow a clear separation of good and bad arguments. This contribution discusses the limits of attempts to determine the quality of arguments. It begins with defining bad arguments as those that deviate from an established standard of good arguments. Since there are different conceptualizations of “argument”—as controversy, as debate, and as justification—and since arguments in each of these senses can be used for different purposes, a first problem is that we would need a large variety of standards for “good” arguments. After this, the contribution focuses in particular on proposals made in the literature on how to assess the quality of arguments in the sense of justification. It distinguishes three problems of assessment: How to determine whether reasons are acceptable, whether reasons are sufficient to justify the conclusion, and how to identify arguments in real-world speech acts and texts? It is argued that limitations of argument assessment result from unavoidable relativism: The assessment of many—if not most—arguments depends on the epistemic situation of the evaluator.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-017-9442-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,999
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
Contents.Dan Sperber & Hugo Mercier - 2017 - In Dan Sperber & Hugo Mercier (eds.), The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Evidentialism and Skeptical Arguments.Dylan Dodd - 2012 - Synthese 189 (2):337-352.
What a Real Argument Is.Ben Hamby - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (3):313-326.
Natural Theology and the Uses of Argument.John M. DePoe & Timothy J. McGrew - 2013 - Philosophia Christi 15 (2):299-309.
Argument Quality and Cultural Difference.Siegel Harvey - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (2):183-201.
Can 'Big' Questions Be Begged?David Botting - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
What Must a Proof of Incompatibilism Prove?Seth Shabo - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 154 (3):361-371.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-18

Total views
17 ( #589,349 of 2,410,618 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #540,271 of 2,410,618 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes