Skip to main content

The need for a dialectical tier in arguments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1085))

Abstract

In this century, the dominant approach in logic to the study of argument has been formal. An argument has been understood as discourse that displays a certain form. The systematic study of such forms is undertaken by formal, deductive logic (hereafter: FDL). In the last 25 years, logicians have been pursuing alternative approaches to argument. One such approach has been characterized as informal rather than formal. Closely related is an approach that has been characterized as pragmatic rather than syntactic or semantic. The purpose of this research paper is to show how these alternative approaches can shed light on the basic question: How are we to understand (and represent) arguments?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, Alan Ross and Nuel D. Belnap,Jr. 1975. Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E. M. 1987. Logic to some purpose: theses against the deductive-nomological paradigm in the science of logic. In van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson, eds. 1980. Informal logic: The first international symposium. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson. 1987. Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation 1, 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. Anthony. 1995. Premiss adequacy. In van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1995), Vol. II, 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copi, Irving. 1961. Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan. (6th edition, 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst, Charles A. Willard and J. Anthony Blair, eds. 1987. Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst, Charles A. Willard and J. Anthony Blair, eds. 1995. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation. 5 Volumes. Amsterdam: Sicsat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, Arthur M. and Katlneen Freeman. 1995. Burden of proof in a computational model of argumentation. In van Eemeren and Grootendorst at al (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1879. Begriffschrift.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, Dov. 1995. Labelled deductive systems and the informal fallacies: a preliminary analysis. In Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, Trudy. 1985. A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (3rd edition, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, Trudy. 1987. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Júrgen. 1984. The Theory of communicative practice. Vol. I: Reason and the rationalization of society. Tr. by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko. 1989. The role of logic in argument. The Monist, 72: 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, David. 1983. Critical thinking: a guide to evaluating information. Toronto: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1980. The recent development of informal logic. In Blair and Johnson (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair 1985. Informal logic: The past five years. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22: 181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1993. Logical Self-Defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. (3rd edition.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ralph H. 1994. Argument: a pragmatic perspective. Inquiry, 13: 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, Howard. 1971. Logic and contemporary rhetoric: The use of reasoning in everyday life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (6th edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneale, William and Martha Kneale. 1970. The development of logic. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, Karel and William Ulrich. 1980. The nature of argument. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. I. and C. H. Langford. 1932. Symbolic logic. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, Willard van Orman. 1944. Introduction to mathematical logic. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Harvey. 1988. Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Reike and Allan Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan. (2nd edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1983. Topical relevance in argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1984. Logical dialogue games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1985. Arguer's position: A pragmatic study of ‘ad hominem’ attack, criticism, refutation and fallacy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1987. Informal fallacies: Towards a theory of argument criticisms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1990. What is Reasoning? What is an Argument? Journal of Philosophy

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas N. and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Ithaca: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, Carl. 1971. Challenge and response: Justification in Ethics. Carbondale, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, Alfred North and Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica. 1910–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, Charles. 1983 Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, Charles. 1989. A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Dov M. Gabbay Hans Jürgen Ohlbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Johnson, R.H. (1996). The need for a dialectical tier in arguments. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Practical Reasoning. FAPR 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_85

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_85

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61313-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68454-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics