Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barth E.M., Krabbe E.C.W. (1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logic and argumentation. Berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen L.J. (1992) An essay on belief and acceptance. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1980) Actions, reasons and causes. In: Davidson D. (eds) Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel P. (1998) Believing, holding true, and accepting. Philosophical Explorations 2: 141–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel P. (2000) Introduction: The varieties of belief and acceptance. In: Engel P. (eds) Believing and accepting. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley R. (2001) Intellectual trust in oneself and others. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geach P.T. (1957) Mental acts: Their content and their objects. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin J. (2007) Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27: 69–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. C. (1970). Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press (orig. pub. Methuen.)

  • Hume D. (1975) Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen, P. (1960). Logic und Agon. In Atti del XII Congresso Internazionale di Filosofia (Venezia, 12–18 Settembre 1958), IV: Logica, lionguaggio e communicazione (pp. 187–194). Florence: Sansoni.

  • Paglieri F., Castelfranchi C. et al (2006) Belief and acceptance in argumentation: Towards an epistemological taxonomy of the uses of argument. In: Eemeren F.H. (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Argumentation, forthcoming. SicSat, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto R.C. (2001) Generalizing the notion of argument. In: Hansen H.V. (eds) Argument, inference and dialectic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 10–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, R. C. (2003). The uses of argument in communicative contexts. In J. Anthony Blair, et al. (eds). Informal Logic @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.

  • Ramsey F. (1931) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J. (1979) Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discourse. Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma- dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscalosa, AB

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F.H. et al (1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D., Krabbe E.C.W. (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodfield A. (2000) Commitments defined with the help of public concepts. In: Engel P. (eds) Believing and accepting. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 221–242

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    David M. Godden

Authors
  1. David M. Godden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Godden.

Additional information

Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the University of Windsor Research Group in Argumentation and Informal Logic in November 2005 and February 2007, and at the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation conference Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground (Windsor, Ontario, June 6–9, 2007). I would like to thank J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson, Christopher W. Tindale, and especially Robert C. Pinto for their helpful comments on these earlier versions. Research for this paper was made possible by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada research fellowship and the University of Windsor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Godden, D.M. The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese 172, 397–414 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9398-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9398-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation