Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References

Informal Logic and the Dialectical Approach to Argument

Profile image of David GoddenDavid Godden

2007

Abstract

Undoubtedly, Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair are two of the patriarchs of informal logic (IL), and they remain its most recognized exponents. The informal logic movement initially began as a rejection of the tools of formal logic as an effective means of analysing and evaluating everyday reasoning and argumentation. As it developed, IL began to adopt a dialectical conception of its subject matter, and started to utilize the theoretical and methodological tools associated with this approach. This paper explores the influence of the dialectical conception of argument on the development of informal logic. Noting that neither Blair nor Johnson has embraced a dialogic approach to the dialectical, we situate Walton’s dialog-based approach in relation to that of informal logic.

Related papers

Walton's Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach
Juho Ritola

Informal Logic, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
A Possible Rapprochement of Informal Logic with Formal Logic
George Boger

2003

The explosion of developments in logic over the past 25 years deriving from the informal logic movement, as complemented by studies in argumentation theory, pragma-dialectics, critical thinking, and the new rhetoric, has been astounding. A signature feature of this compassing movement treating argumentation 1 is an extraordinary confluence of disciplines -ranging from psychology, sociology, linguistics, rhetoric, and classical textbook logic to phenomenology, and cognitive science. This confluence has dramatically enriched and added new vitality to discussions about argumentation. It has also tagged this movement as broadly multi-dimensional and as replete with trends not all of which are equally compatible and some even contrary. This situation has encouraged some critics to mark this as a serious limitation, citing the movement's lack of definition and apparent aimlessness; they might even venture to predict its eventual dissolution, suggesting that its varied influences will become reabsorbed into traditional disciplines. Nevertheless, informal logicians consider this situation not to detract from but to be a positive feature of the movement, and they tout its special revolutionary and non-conventional nature.

View PDFchevron_right
Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument
federico puppo

2019

This paper traces, in a first-person account, my journey from an assistant professor teaching ethics and political philosophy, through (together with Ralph Johnson) teaching "applied logic", authoring Logical Self-Defense, organizing the first-ever symposium on informal logic, editing the proceedings, publishing and editing the Informal Logic Newsletter and later the journal Informal Logic, organizing later Windsor conferences, revising Logical Self-Defense; then meeting van Eemeren and Grootendorst, serving on the board of ISSA, and more-during the emergence of informal logic and argumentation theory as scholarly fields.

View PDFchevron_right
The “Logic” of Informal Logic
Anthony Blair

Argumentation Library, 2011

Are there any logical norms for argument evaluation besides soundness and inductive strength? The paper will look at several concepts or models introduced over the years, including those of Wisdom, Toulmin, Wellman, Rescher, defeasible reasoning proponents and Walton to consider whether there is common ground among them that supplies an alternative to deductive validity and inductive strength.

View PDFchevron_right
Informal Logic and the Concept of \u27Argument\u27
Matthew Pezzaniti

2015

In this thesis I present an exploration into the concept of ‘argument’ in informal logic. I have separated the work into three major areas: the historical antecedents to the informal logicians, the Windsor group of informal logicians, and recent developments in informal logic and the concept of ‘argument.’ In doing so I provide insight into the concept of ‘argument’ within informal logic

View PDFchevron_right
Informal Logic and Applied Epistemology. Resource Publication Series 3, No. 4
Mark Weinstein

1990

Informal logic, developed in response to the shortcomings of standard introductory college logic courses, stands between formal logic and critical thinking and is consequently subject to two opposing tensions. The first of these tensions concerns analogues to formal principles, context-independent criteria for identifying and assessing arguments. The second demands that informal logicians offer an educational program that is of general utility, enabling students better to assess arguments both in their

View PDFchevron_right
Critical Study INFORMAL LOGIC XVI . 3 , Fall 1994 Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent
Michael Hazen

2007

View PDFchevron_right
Pinto, Robert C.(2001) Argument, Inference and Dialectic
Jim Mackenzie

Argumentation, 2002

This book is a collection of Robert Pinto's papers on informal logic over seventeen years, each reprinted unchanged (except for reference style and the correction of typos), together with a new essay. This format is very useful for scholars in the field, who now have a ...

View PDFchevron_right
Informal Logic and Logic
Anthony Blair

Argumentation Library, 2011

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.

View PDFchevron_right
How philosophical is informal logic?
John Woods

Consider the proposition, "Informal logic is a subdiscipline of philosophy". The best chance of showing this to be true is showing that informal logic is part of logic, which in turn is a part of philosophy. Part 1 is given over to the task of sorting out these connections. If successful, informal logic can indeed be seen as part of philosophy; but there is no question of an exclusive relationship. Part 2 is a critical appraisal of the suggestion that informal logic is applied epistemology. Part 3 examines the claim that informal logic has failed to penetrate into mainstream philosophy, and suggestions for amelioration are considered.

View PDFchevron_right

References (25)

  1. Blair, J. Anthony. 1992. "Everyday argumentation from an informal logic perspective,' in William L. Benoit, Dale Hample and Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. Berlin & New York: Foris, pp. 357-376.
  2. Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. "The limits of the dialogue model of argument," Argumentation 12, 325-339.
  3. Blair, J. Anthony. 2001. "'Argument' and 'Logic' in logic textbooks," in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson, and Robert C. Pinto (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth OSSA Conference: Argumentation and its Applications. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
  4. Blair, J. Anthony. 2003. "Towards a Philosophy of Argument," in J. Anthony Blair, Daniel Farr, Hans V. Hansen, Ralph H. Johnson and Christopher W. Tindale (eds.), Informal Logic @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
  5. Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson. 1987a. "Argumentation as dialectical," Argumentation 1, 41-56. Reprinted in Johnson, (1996).
  6. Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson. 1987b. "The current state of informal logic," Informal Logic 9, 147-151. Reprinted in Johnson, (1996).
  7. Govier, Trudy. 1998. "When they can't talk back: The non-interactive audience and the theory of argument," in John Hoaglund (ed.), The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press, pp. 183-201
  8. Hamblin, Charles. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
  9. Johnson, Ralph. H. 1987. "Logic naturalized: Recovering a tradition," in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 47-56. Reprinted in Johnson (1996).
  10. Johnson, Ralph H. 1993. "Dialectical fields and manifest rationality," in Erik C.W. Krabbe, Renée José Dalitz and Pier A. Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate: Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, pp. 201-210.
  11. Johnson, Ralph H. 1995. "Informal logic and pragma-dialectics: Some differences," in Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirs ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Volume I: Perspectives and Approaches, Amsterdam: SicSat, pp. 237- 245.
  12. Johnson, Ralph H. 1996. The Rise of Informal Logic: Essays on Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Politics, John Hoaglund, ed. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
  13. Johnson, Ralph H. 1996a. "Argumentation: A pragmatic perspective," in John Hoaglund, ed. The Rise of Informal Logic: Essays on Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Politics, Newport News, VA: Vale Press, pp. 103-114.
  14. Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1977. Logical Self-Defense. 3 rd edition, 1993. Toronto: McGraw Hill Ryerson. (First United States edition: New York: McGraw Hill, 1994).
  15. Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1980. "The recent development of informal logic," in J.A. Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), Informal Logic: The First International Symposium. Inverness, Calif.: Edgepress, pp. 3-28. Reprinted in Johnson (1996).
  16. Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1985. "Informal Logic: The past five years: 1978-1983." American Philosophical Quarterly 22, 181-196.
  17. Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1994. "Informal logic: Past and present," in Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair, eds., New Essays in Informal Logic Windsor, ON: Informal Logic, pp. 1-19. Reprinted in Johnson (1996).
  18. Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 2000. "Informal logic: An overview," Informal Logic 20, 94-108.
  19. Johnson, Ralph H. and J.Anthony Blair. 2002. "Informal logic and the reconfiguration of logic," in Dov M. Gabbay, Ralph H. Johnson, Hans Jürgen Ohlbach and John Woods (eds.), Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference: Turn Towards the Practical, Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier, pp. 340- 396.
  20. Reed, Chris and Douglas Walton. 2003. "Argumentation schemes in argument-as-process and argument-as- product," in J. Anthony Blair, Daniel Farr, Hans V. Hansen, Ralph H. Johnson and Christopher W. Tindale (eds.), Informal Logic @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
  21. Walton, Douglas. 1990. "What is reasoning? What is an argument?" Journal of Philosophy 87, 399-419.
  22. Walton, Douglas. 1995. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  23. Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  24. Walton, Douglas and Tom Gordon. 2005. "Critical questions in computational models of legal argument," in Paul E. Dunne and Trevor Bench-Capon (eds.), IAAIL Workshop Series, International Workshop on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 103-111.
  25. Woolridge, Michael. 2002. An Introduction to Multi-Agent Systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Related papers

Informal Logic: Between Logic and Epistemology
Iryna Khomenko

 Nowadays researchers working in various fields study the issues of argument. They represent different approaches which distinguish with theoretical and practical comprehension of argument problems. Informal study of argument is one of the approaches. The key reason of its appearance was the criticism of formal logic in the late 20th century.

View PDFchevron_right
Informal Logic and the Concept of 'Argument
Matthew Pezzaniti

2015

In this thesis I present an exploration into the concept of ‘argument’ in informal logic. I have separated the work into three major areas: the historical antecedents to the informal logicians, the Windsor group of informal logicians, and recent developments in informal logic and the concept of ‘argument.’ In doing so I provide insight into the concept of ‘argument’ within informal logic.

View PDFchevron_right
Informal logic and argumentation: An Alta conversation
David Godden

Godden, D., Groarke, L. and Hansen, H. (2011). Informal logic and argumentation: An Alta conversation. In R. Roland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change: Selected papers from the 17th biennial conference on argumentation (pp. 48-62). Washington, DC: NCA. Alta, Utah, July 28-31, 2011., 2011

Informal logic is both a pedagogical and a theoretical endeavour. It began as a response to formal logic which attempted to provide an analysis and assessment of argument which is better suited to the study of informal arguments -- often described as “natural language” or “everyday” arguments. “IL” (as it is sometimes designated) is a field rather than a school of thought, and characterized by many different and sometimes contrary approaches and perspectives. While its development is characterized by an ever broadening interest in informal argumentation in all its forms, it maintains a focus on inference understood in terms of the relationship between premises and conclusions, and on the normative analysis of arguments in this sense. In the course of its development it has been influenced, and continues to interact with dialectical and rhetorical approaches to argument. This paper is intended as catalyst to further discussion and debate.

View PDFchevron_right
A Look at Informal Logic
Iryna Khomenko

Future Human Image, 2018

The challenges of the global time require new solutions and up-to-date ways of thinking and communication. These challenges call for the ability to use critical thinking to face the ever-changing world and the ability to maintain a dialog based on the effective skills of communication. Studies in the fields of logic and argumentation theory are of particular importance in this regard. Nowadays they can be presented as a mix of theoretical and practical approaches. In this paper, I will present my reflections on informal logic, which was formed in the late 1970s. Unfortunately, in spite of numerous papers, books, and text-books published over the last forty years, consensus on many issues in this field has not been achieved so far. Therefore, it is difficult to treat informal logic as one of the well-defined approaches to argumentation. The goal of this paper is to take a look at the place of informal logic in state-of-the-art study of argumentation by clarifying its subject matter and figuring out the realm to which informal logic belongs. Keywords: logic, informal logic, formal logic, theory of argumentation, epistemology, cognitive science, real argument

View PDFchevron_right
Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair (eds.) New Essays in Informal Logic
Ralph H. Johnson

Argumentation, 1997

This volume contains revised versions of twelve papers selected from those presented at the The Third International Symposium on Informal Logic held at the University of Windsor in 1989. It is not the full conference Proceedings, however, and many of the conference papers not included here have been published elsewhere. The editors supply a Preface, a short Introduction containing one paragraph summaries of the papers, a brief Afterword and biographical notices of the contributors. There is no index or overall bibliography, though many of the papers have substantial lists of references.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved