Switch to: References

Citations of:

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

Synthese 145 (3):339-370 (2005)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Regress Argument Reconstruction.Jan Willem Wieland - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
    If an argument can be reconstructed in at least two different ways, then which reconstruction is to be preferred? In this paper I address this problem of argument reconstruction in terms of Ryle’s infinite regress argument against the view that knowledge-how requires knowledge-that. First, I demonstrate that Ryle’s initial statement of the argument does not fix its reconstruction as it admits two, structurally different reconstructions. On the basis of this case and infinite regress arguments generally, I defend a revisionary take (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education.Aikaterini Konstantinidou & Fabrizio Macagno - 2013 - Science & Education 22 (5):1069-1087.
    The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):519-547.
    This paper compares current ways of modeling the inferential structure of practical reasoning arguments, and proposes a new approach in which it is regarded in a modular way. Practical reasoning is not simply seen as reasoning from a goal and a means to an action using the basic argumentation scheme. Instead, it is conceived as a complex structure of classificatory, evaluative, and practical inferences, which is formalized as a cluster of three types of distinct and interlocked argumentation schemes. Using two (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Quintilian's Theory of Certainty and Its Afterlife in Early Modern Italy.Charles McNamara - 2016 - Dissertation, Columbia University
    This dissertation explores how antiquity and some of its early modern admirers understand the notion of certainty, especially as it is theorized in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, a first-century educational manual for the aspiring orator that defines certainty in terms of consensus. As part of a larger discussion of argumentative strategies, Quintilian turns to the “nature of all arguments,” which he defines as “reasoning which lends credence to what is doubtful by means of what is certain” (ratio per ea quae certa (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making in terms of adequate support for conclusions.Henrik Friberg-Fernros & Johan Karlsson Schaffer - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):251-265.
    How can we assess the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making? Sceptics doubt such assessments are possible, as they must rely on controversial substantive standards of truth and rightness. Challenging that scepticism, this paper suggests a procedure-independent standard for assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making by evaluating whether it is adequately supported by reasons. Adequate support for conclusion is a necessary aspect of epistemic quality for any epistemic justification of democracy, though particularly relevant to theories that emphasize public deliberation. Finding (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • On the Social Benefits of Knowledge.Vihren Bouzov - 2016 - Analele Universitatii Din Craiova, Seria Filosofie 37 (1).
    Knowledge is one of the most important factors determining the development of global economy and overcoming the present existing inequalities. Humankind needs a fair distribution of the potential of knowledge because its big social problems and difficulties today are due to the existence of deep‐going differences in its possession and use. This paper is an attempt to analyze and present certain philosophical arguments and conceptions justifying cooperative decision‐making in the searching for fair distribution of the benefits of knowledge in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Paradox of Charity.Marcin Lewiński - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (4):403-439.
    The principle of charity is used in philosophy of language and argumentation theory as an important principle of interpretation which credits speakers with “the best” plausible interpretation of their discourse. I contend that the argumentation account, while broadly advocated, misses the basic point of a dialectical conception which approaches argumentation as discussion between two parties who disagree over the issue discussed. Therefore, paradoxically, an analyst who is charitable to one discussion party easily becomes uncharitable to the other. To overcome this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Ratio Juris 18 (4):434-463.
    . A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at , helps a user display an argument on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The structure of argumentation in health product messages.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (3):179-198.
    This paper presents an analysis of argumentation in direct-to-consumer health product ads in Newsweek that brings out special features of the arguments used in the ads, including practical reasoning, chained arguments, enthymemes, and prolepsis. A way to help overcome deficiencies in techniques of tailored health communication in consumer health informatics is shown by using argumentation schemes, argument visualisation tools, and dialogue models to frame these persuasive communication messages. The evidence collected is shown to be useful to allow the health informatics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Implicit dialogical premises, explanation as argument: A corpus-based reconstruction.Kieran O'Halloran - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (1):15-53.
    This paper focuses on an explanation in a newspaper article: why new European Union citizens will come to the UK from Eastern Europe (e.g., because of available jobs). Using a corpus-based method of analysis, I show how regular target readers have been positioned to generate premises in dialogue with the explanation propositions, and thus into an understanding of the explanation as an argument, one which contains a biased conclusion not apparent in the text. Employing this method, and in particular ‘corpus (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Semantic clause types and modality as features for argument analysis1.Maria Becker, Alexis Palmer & Anette Frank - 2017 - Argument and Computation 8 (2):95-112.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Teaching as Abductive Reasoning: The Role of Argumentation.Chrysi Rapanta - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (2):293-311.
    The view that argumentation is a desired reasoning practice in the classroom is well reported in the literature. Nonetheless, it is still not clear what type of reasoning supports classroom argumentation. The paper discusses abductive reasoning as the most adequate for students’ arguments to emerge in a classroom discussion. Abductive reasoning embraces the idea of plausibility and defeasibility of both the premises and the conclusion. As such, teachers’ role becomes the one of guiding students through formulating relevant hypotheses and selecting (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • (1 other version)The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory.D. Walton - 2008 - Journal of Applied Logic 6 (3):361-379.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Enthymematic parsimony.Fabio Paglieri & John Woods - 2011 - Synthese 178 (3):461 - 501.
    Enthymemes are traditionally defined as arguments in which some elements are left unstated. It is an empirical fact that enthymemes are both enormously frequent and appropriately understood in everyday argumentation. Why is it so? We outline an answer that dispenses with the so called "principle of charity", which is the standard notion underlying most works on enthymemes. In contrast, we suggest that a different force drives enthymematic argumentation—namely, parsimony, i.e. the tendency to optimize resource consumption, in light of the agent's (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Finding enthymemes in real-world texts: A feasibility study.Olesya Razuvayevskaya & Simone Teufel - 2017 - Argument and Computation 8 (2):113-129.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory.Nancy L. Green - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
    Various argumentation analysis tools permit the analyst to represent functional components of an argument (e.g., data, claim, warrant, backing), how arguments are composed of subarguments and defenses against potential counterarguments, and argumentation schemes. In order to facilitate a study of argument presentation in a biomedical corpus, we have developed a hybrid scheme that enables an analyst to encode argumentation analysis within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which can be used to represent the discourse structure of a text. This (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • On the Very Concept of an Enthymeme.G. C. Goddu - unknown
    An enthymeme is often defined as an argument with a missing component or an argument with an unexpressed component. Roy Sorensen, in “Are Enthymemes Arguments?”, argues against the possibility of enthymemes being arguments at all, but he assumes that arguments are abstract objects. I shall present and explore some more metaphysically neutral arguments against enthymemes as arguments and ultimately conclude that while not conclusive, the most viable option is Sorensen’s—enthymemes are not arguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Circularity in ethotic structures.Katarzyna Budzynska - 2013 - Synthese 190 (15):3185-3207.
    The aim of this paper is to provide a model that allows the representation and analysis of circularity in ethotic structures, i.e. in communication structures related to the speaker’s character and in particular, his credibility. The paper studies three types of cycles: in self-referential sentences, embedded testimony and ethotic begging the question. It is shown that standard models allow the reconstruction of the circularities only if those circular utterances are interpreted as ethotic arguments. Their alternative, assertive interpretation requires enriching the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • And So On. Two Theories of Regress Arguments in Philosophy.Jan Willem Wieland - 2012 - Dissertation,
    This dissertation is on infinite regress arguments in philosophy. Its main goals are to explain what such arguments from many distinct philosophical debates have in common, and to provide guidelines for using and evaluating them. Two theories are reviewed: the Paradox Theory and the Failure Theory. According to the Paradox Theory, infinite regress arguments can be used to refute an existentially or universally quantified statement (e.g. to refute the statement that at least one discussion is settled, or the statement that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Pregnant Premise Arguments.Scott F. Aikin - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (3):357-363.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Finding enthymemes in real-world texts: A feasibility study.Patrick Saint-Dizier & Manfred Stede - 2017 - Argument and Computation 8 (2):113-129.
    Enthymeme reconstruction, i.e. the task of reformulating arguments with missing propositions, is an exciting task at the borderline of text understanding and argument interpretation. However, there...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • No more charity, please! Enthymematic parsimony and the pitfall of benevolence.Fabio Paglieri - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. OSSA. pp. 1--26.
    Why are enthymemes so frequent? Are we dumb arguers, smart rhetoricians, or parsimonious reasoners? This paper investigates systematic use of enthymemes, criticizing the application of the principle of charity to their interpretation. In contrast, I propose to analyze enthymematic argumentation in terms of parsimony, i.e. as a manifestation of the rational tendency to economize over scant resources. Consequences of this view on the current debate on enthymemes and on their rational reconstruction are discussed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-2007.Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):135-147.
    A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-20.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Epistemic and Dialectical Models of Begging the Question.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Synthese 152 (2):237-284.
    This paper addresses the problem posed by the current split between the two opposed hypotheses in the growing literature on the fallacy of begging the question the epistemic hypothesis, based on knowledge and belief, and the dialectical one, based on formal dialogue systems. In the first section, the nature of split is explained, and it is shown how each hypothesis has developed. To get the beginning reader up to speed in the literature, a number of key problematic examples are analyzed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Plausible Argumentation in Eikotic Arguments: The Ancient Weak Versus Strong Man Example.Douglas Walton - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (1):45-74.
    In this paper it is shown how plausible reasoning of the kind illustrated in the ancient Greek example of the weak and strong man can be analyzed and evaluated using a procedure in which the pro evidence is weighed against the con evidence using formal, computational argumentation tools. It is shown by means of this famous example how plausible reasoning is based on an audience’s recognition of situations of a type they are familiar with as normal and comprehensible in their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations