Informal logic : the first international symposium
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1980
The most acute problem in teaching and studying the field of informal fallacies is that lack of c... more The most acute problem in teaching and studying the field of informal fallacies is that lack of clear and theoretically adequate models of the fallacies makes it impossible to know or prove that what strongly seems to be a fallacy really is an argument that is incorrect, or in some sense invalid. Notoriously, it is also easy to get into unresolvable disputes about whether some evidently bad argument is an instance of one fallacy as opposed to another. But the deficiencies of what Hamblin [5] calls the Standard Treatment of the fallacies are well known. What is needed is some theory. At the same time, the unique value and appeal of the study of the fallacy domain is its potential applicability to the critical evaluation of argumentation, and therefore it is important that this theory should be strongly tied to the analysis of significant arguments. A discouraging problem is that the quest for applicable theory might tend to take us far beyond the tidy domain of first order logic. Yet the history of the disarray that is the Standard Treatment suggests that there is little value in studying the fallacies until we achieve some general understanding of the underlying concepts of argument that are involved in the major informal fallacies. In this paper we will work towards trying to see how what is called petitio principii might be understood as a deficiency in arguments.
This article examines the relation between informal logic and logic. Informal logic originated wi... more This article examines the relation between informal logic and logic. Informal logic originated with the rejection of formal logic in the analysis and evaluation of natural language discursive arguments. Various alternatives are mentioned: fallacy theory; acceptability, relevance and sufficiency; and argument scheme theory. The last is described at some length as involving warrants, schemes, and critical questions. Argument scheme analysis and critique, while informal, has been used in AI to develop computer programs to analyze, assess and even construct arguments in natural language. Thus informal and formal logic have come together.
ABSTRACT It’s argued that some of the norms of premise adequacy vary with the context of argument... more ABSTRACT It’s argued that some of the norms of premise adequacy vary with the context of argumentation. To begin, I set out some of the assumptions the discussion will take for granted, stipulate the senses I give to some of the terms of art which, although common, have different meanings in the hands of different authors, and explain what I mean by “premise adequacy.” A review of the various contexts for evaluating arguments shows that the question about when a premise may be undefended can have radically different motivations. If adequate premises are considered a necessary condition of a “good” argument, there will then be many different kinds of “good argument.” The classic philosophical notion that truth is a sufficient condition of premise adequacy for all argumentation does not stand up to the test of these different contexts of evaluation. KeywordsArgument-Argumentation-Acceptable premises-Argument evaluation-Premise evaluation-Good argument-Premise
ABSTRACT The question, “What norms are appropriate for the evaluation of the probative merits of ... more ABSTRACT The question, “What norms are appropriate for the evaluation of the probative merits of visual arguments?” underlies the investigation of this paper. The notions of argument and of multimodal visual argument employed in the study are explained. Then four multimodal visual arguments are analyzed and their probative merits assessed. It turns out to be possible to judge these qualities using the same criteria that apply to verbally expressed arguments. Since the sample is small and not claimed to be representative, this finding can at best be regarded as suggestive for the probative assessment of multimodal visual arguments in general.
CHAPTER 8 J. ANTHONY BLAIR RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LOGIC, DIALECTIC AND RHETORIC 1. INTRODUCTION A co... more CHAPTER 8 J. ANTHONY BLAIR RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LOGIC, DIALECTIC AND RHETORIC 1. INTRODUCTION A consideration of the relationship among logic, dialectic and rhetoric was found already in the work of Plato and Aristotle and others in the first golden age of Wes- ...
This paper is a commentary on the articles by William Rehg and RobertAsen in this issue of Inform... more This paper is a commentary on the articles by William Rehg and RobertAsen in this issue of Informal Logic. It compares the subject matter of the two papers, offers an interpretation of and commentary on each paper separately, then discusses their overlapping problematic: the importance of public sphere argumentation. Resume: On compare Ie contenu des articles de William Rehg et de Robert Asen publies dans ce numero de Informal Logic; on interprete et commente sur ces deux articles separement, et on discute de leur chevauchement sur la problematique des spheres d'argumentation publique.
ABSTRACT I argue that argumentation is not to be identified with (attempted) rational persuasion,... more ABSTRACT I argue that argumentation is not to be identified with (attempted) rational persuasion, because although rational persuasion appears to consist of arguments, some uses of arguments are not attempts at rational persuasion. However, the use of arguments in argumentative communication to try to persuade is one kind of attempt at rational persuasion. What makes it rational is that its informing ideal is to persuade on the basis of adequate grounds, grounds that make it reasonable and rational to accept the claim at issue.
Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation
A CIP Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 1-4020-1455-... more A CIP Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 1-4020-1455-4 Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, PO Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America by Kluwer ...
ABSTRACT: The authors describe the rationale behind a recent development in the teaching of logic... more ABSTRACT: The authors describe the rationale behind a recent development in the teaching of logic in North America and sketch some features of a dialectical theory of logical criticism. The authors argue that problems with validity and truth as the standards of logically ...
On the first page of the Preface of Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Professor Wa... more On the first page of the Preface of Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Professor Walton says that, 'Many of the fallacies are misuses of presumptive inference.' The book may be read as an extended gloss on this statement. The first two chapters introduce argumentation schemes and presumptive reasoning, the third describes 25 argumentation schemes, and the last three discuss two schemes and a fallacy in great detail, showing the connection between the presumptive reasoning each employs, plus various fallacies.
RH JOHNSON AND JA BLAIR INFORMAL LOGIC AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF LOGIC I. Introduction 1 AIMS OF... more RH JOHNSON AND JA BLAIR INFORMAL LOGIC AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF LOGIC I. Introduction 1 AIMS OF THE CHAPTER This chapter describes how informal logic emerged as an attempt to recon-figure one part of logic in the wake of the sorts of critiques ...
Premissary relevance is a property of arguments understood as speech act complexes. It is explica... more Premissary relevance is a property of arguments understood as speech act complexes. It is explicable in terms of the idea of a premise's lending support to a conclusion. Premissary relevance is a function of premises belonging to a set which authoritatively warrants an inference to a conclusion. An authoritative inference warrant will have associated with it a conditional proposition which is true— that is to say, which can be justified. The study of the Aristotelian doctrine of topoi or argument schemes may contribute to the task of identifying authoritative warrants.
Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Logic as Related to Argument
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 2012
ABSTRACT This article challenges the view that rhetoric, dialectic and logic are three perspectiv... more ABSTRACT This article challenges the view that rhetoric, dialectic and logic are three perspectives on argument, relating respectively to its process, its procedure, and its product. It also questions the view that rhetorical arguments represent a distinctive type. It suggests that, as related to argument, rhetoric is the theory of arguments in speeches, dialectics the theory of arguments in conversations, and logic the theory of good reasoning in each.
The paper's thesis is that dialogue is not an adequate model for all types of argument. The posit... more The paper's thesis is that dialogue is not an adequate model for all types of argument. The position of Walton is taken as the contrary view. The paper provides a set of descriptions of dialogues in which arguments feature in the order of the increasing complexity of the argument presentation at each turn of the dialogue, and argues that when arguments of great complexity are traded, the exchanges between arguers are turns of a dialogue only in an extended or metaphorical sense. It argues that many of the properties of engaged back-and-forth exchanges of paradigmatic argument dialogues are not found in ‘solo’ arguments, and that at least some of the norms appropriate to the former type of argument, such as some of the pragma-dialectical rules of van Eemeren and Grootendorst's model, do not apply to the latter.
Uploads
Papers by Anthony Blair