Term
|
Definition
| Argumentation is the field of study in which rhetoric, logic, and dialectic meet. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| “Thinking rhetorically” means reasoning with audience predispositions in mind. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| From logic we derive our concern with form and structures of reasoning. Today, logic is often mistakenly seen as encompassing only formal symbolic and mathematical reasoning. Informal logic, from which argumentation borrows, is grounded in ordinary language and describes reasoning patterns that lack the certainty of mathematics. |
|
|
Term
| Rhetoric and Argumentation |
|
Definition
| From rhetoric we derive our concern with the audience. Today, rhetoric often has negative connotations, including insincerity, vacuity, bombast, and ornamentation. The classical understanding of rhetoric is the study of how messages influence people; it focuses on the development and communication of knowledge between speakers and listeners. |
|
|
Term
| Dialectic and Argumentation |
|
Definition
| From dialectic we derive our concern with deliberation. Today, dialectic is often understood as the grand sweep of opposing historical forces, such as the clash between capitalism and communism. In fact, the term refers to a process of discovering and testing knowledge through questions and answers. Although Plato’s dialogues are the models of dialectic, any conversation that is a critical discussion will qualify |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Ethical considerations figure prominently in argumentation. Any attempt to influence other people raises ethical issues. It is a limitation on freedom of choice. It is the application of superior to inferior force. But argumentation seeks to achieve ethical influence. It does not influence people against their will but seeks their free assent. Without influence, the conditions of society and community are not possible. Argumentation respects different ways of thinking and reasoning.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Controversies involve genuine differences of opinion that matter to the participants and which they wish to see resolved. Controversies have multiple dimensions. |
|
|
Term
| Dimensions of Controversies |
|
Definition
- explicit (recognized by the participants)
- implicit (recognized by an analyst).
- unmixed (only one arguer maintains a position)
- mixed (multiple arguers do so).
- single (relating only to one claim)
- multiple (relating to more than one claim)
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Uncertainty implies that things could be otherwise; the outcome is not known for sure. Therefore, there is an inferential leap in the argument, from the known to the unknown. The audience is asked to accept this leap. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Argumentation involves justification for claims. Arguers offer a rationale for accepting an uncertain claim. The rationale represents reasons for making the inferential leap. The reasons are acceptable if they can convince a reasonable person who is exercising critical judgment. If so, we say that the claim is justified |
|
|
Term
| Implification of Justification |
|
Definition
| To say that claims are justified entails certain implications. Justification is different from proof; it is subjective and dependent upon a particular audience. It implies that people are willing to be convinced, yet skeptical enough not to take statements on faith. Justification is always provisional and subject to change in light of new information or arguments. It varies in degree of strength, ranging from merely plausible to highly probable. |
|
|
Term
| Argumentation and Formal Logic |
|
Definition
| For much of the 20th century, the systematic study of argumentation was associated with formal logic, which achieves deductive certainty at the price of limited relevance to everyday affairs. Formal argument is deductive in nature. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and contains no information that is not already present (at least implicitly) in the premises. |
|
|
Term
| Basic Unit of Reasoning in Formal Argument |
|
Definition
The basic unit of reasoning in formal argument is the syllogism, a structure consisting of two premises and a conclusion. Categorical syllogisms contain statements that relate categories to other categories.
- The statements may be universal or partial.
- The statements may be inclusive or exclusive.
- The only terms that identify quantity are all, some, and none.
- The soundness of a categorical syllogism can be tested either by drawing Venn diagrams or by applying the rules of distribution.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Conditional syllogisms begin with an “if-then” statement. The “if” clause is called the antecedent, and the “then” clause is called the consequent. The argument is sound if the antecedent is affirmed or the consequent is denied. Conversely, denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent will not lead to a sound argument. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Disjunctive syllogisms begin with an “either-or” statement. The argument accepts or rejects one of the alternatives and draws a conclusion about the other. Rejecting one option always implies accepting the other. Accepting one option implies rejecting the other when or is used in an exclusive sense (one or the other but not both); it implies the opposite when or is used in a nonexclusive sense (one or the other or both); this distinction often must be determined from the context. |
|
|
Term
| Formal Reasoning and Modern Argument |
|
Definition
| Although regarded as the model of argumentation well into the 20th century, in recent scholarship formal reasoning is not seen as the prototype of argumentation. Very seldom does one actually reason in syllogistic form. The forms of statements cannot be separated from their content. Also, for many arguments, we need finer gradations of quantity than all, some, and none. |
|
|
Term
| Model for Everyday Argumentation |
|
Definition
Informal reasoning functions as the model for everyday argumentation. The argument cannot be extracted from the language in which it is cast. The conclusion contains new information not present in the premises, does not follow with certainty but relies on some degree of probability, and can be asserted with confidence if the arguer adheres to the conventions of informal reasoning, which are based on accumulated experience. Though eclipsed in the recent past, informal reasoning has a long history. |
|
|
