Informal Logic 37 (2):85-113 (2017)
AbstractThe paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumentation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a comparative approach to practical reason. I argue that given the comparative structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.
Similar books and articles
Ad hominem arguments in practical argumentation.Eerik Lagerspetz - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (2):363-370.
Considering the roles of values in practical reasoning argumentation evaluation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2013 - Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).
Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):519-547.
The rhetoric of the reasoned social scientific fact.Donald P. Cushman & Branislav Kovacic - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (1):33-47.
Elements for an Argumentative Method of Interpretation.María G. Navarro - 2010 - Rozenberg Quarterly. The Magazine 1 (1).
Did he jump or was he pushed?: Abductive practical reasoning.Katie Atkinson - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
Potential Conflicts between Normatively-Responsible Advocacy and Successful Social Influence: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research. [REVIEW]Daniel J. O’Keefe - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (2):151-163.
Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes.Robert Anthony & Mijung Kim - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (1):81-113.
A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.
The canon of pure reason: Kant on the non-dependent establishment of the practical use and the unity of reason.Adriano Perin - 2008 - [email protected] - An International Journal for Moral Philosophy 7 (2):137-150.
Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments.Dima Mohammed - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):221-245.
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Speech Act Pluralism in Argumentative Polylogues.Marcin Lewinski - 2021 - Informal Logic 42 (4):421-451.
Just Following the Rules: Collapse / Incoherence Problems in Ethics, Epistemology, and Argumentation Theory.Patrick Bondy - 2020 - In J. Anthony Blair & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor, ON, Canada: pp. 172-202.
Discovering Warrants in Political Argumentation.Irmtraud Gallhofer & Willem Saris - 2021 - Informal Logic 42 (4):641-676.
References found in this work
No references found.