DOCSLIB.ORG

DISSOCIATION in REASONING and ARGUMENTATION by Takuzo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DISSOCIATION in REASONING and ARGUMENTATION by Takuzo CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt DISSOCIATION IN REASONING AND ARGUMENTATION by Takuzo Konishi BA in Literature, Waseda University, 1994 Master of Arts in Communication, Wayne State University, 1999 Master of Arts in Philosophy, University of Windsor, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communication University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Takuzo Konishi It was defended on February 20, 2014 and approved by John Lyne, Professor, Department of Communication E. Johanna Hartelius, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Nicholas Rescher, Professor, Department of Philosophy Merrilee H. Salmon, Emeritus Professor, Department of Philosophy Dissertation Advisor: Gordon R. Mitchell, Associate Professor, Department of Communication ii Copyright © by Takuzo Konishi 2014 iii DISSOCIATION IN REASONING AND ARGUMENTATION Takuzo Konishi, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 This dissertation inquires into the nature of dissociation – a maneuver through which a single entity is subdivided and arranged according to a hierarchy – as proposed by Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Drawing on their New Rhetoric Project, Perelman’s regressive philosophy, and research on argumentation schemes, I develop ways of conceptualizing, analyzing, and appraising dissociation as it is utilized in reasoning and argument in natural language. I first examine Chaim Perelman’s regressive philosophy to better situate argumentation in relation to demonstration, then delineate the Project’s framework of argumentation as constituted by a speaker, an audience, and an argumentative discourse. Argumentation is defined here as a symbolic act increasing audience members’ epistemic adherence to a thesis, based on their adherence to the premise and the scheme’s changing of their “level of adherence.” Additionally, I conceptualize dissociation in relation to association, breaking links, and what I call “re-confirming connecting links.” In the process of conceptualization, I defend the position that dissociation and three other categories of argument contain, but are not reducible to, argumentation schemes proper. Based on the four-partite category of argument and the premise-scheme-thesis structure, I analyze eight examples of dissociation and validate the notion that dissociation makes use of various argumentation schemes proper in advancing definitive theses, subdividing an entity, and arranging the subdivided entities according to a hierarchy. Building upon the analysis of dissociation, I explore iv ways in which to appraise dissociation by incorporating regressive philosophy, critical questions, and universal audience. Principles of regressive philosophy remind the critic that argumentation challenges the totality of experience in the rhetorical situation, never achieves certainty, and leaves room for revision. Critical questions address specific points that dissociation must answer in order to count as a “cogent” argument. The universal audience, anchored in particular audience members, must be constructed to maintain the balance between normative orientations of appraisal as well as realistic expectations of the rhetorical situation. Besides advancing our understanding of dissociation, this dissertation contributes to a richer understanding of the New Rhetoric Project, defends relativism in argumentation, and emphasizes the significance of production as well as appraisal of argument. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... X 1.0INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ..................................................... 3 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE ......................... 25 1.3 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER STRUCTURE .................................................. 29 2.0ARGUMENTATION IN THE NEW RHETORIC PROJECT ......................................... 32 2.1 CHAIM PERELMAN’S THEORY OF JUSTICE, PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY, REGRESSIVE PHILOSOPHY AND LEGAL STUDIES ................. 32 2.2 THE FRAMEWORK OF ARGUMENTATION AND COMPONENTS OF AN ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 40 2.3 OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES ........................................................................ 55 2.4 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER ................................................................... 57 3.0CLASSIFYING ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES IN THE NEW RHETORIC PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 61 3.1 ARGUMENT, REASONING, REASONING/ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES ........................................................................................................................... 62 3.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFYING REASONING AND ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES ..................................................................................... 66 vi 3.3 TYPES OF ARGUMENT ACCORDING TO THE AUDIENCE MEMBERS’ ADHERENCE .............................................................................................. 69 3.4 OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES ........................................................................ 80 3.5 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER ................................................................... 87 4.0DISSOCIATION RECONFIGURED .................................................................................. 92 4.1 ASSOCIATION AND DISSOCIATION CLASSIFIED AND CONCEPTUALIZED ........................................................................................................ 92 4.2 USES OF DISSOCIATION IN REASONING AND ARGUMENT ............. 99 4.3 ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES USED IN DISSOCIATION .................. 122 4.4 OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES ...................................................................... 128 4.5 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER ................................................................. 135 5.0THE NEW RHETORICAL APPRAISAL OF DISSOCIATION ................................... 139 5.1 SIGNIFICANCE AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THEORY AND PRACTICE OF APPRAISAL OF ARGUMENT ......................................................... 140 5.2 ANCHORED CONSTRUCTION OF AUDIENCE AND HEALTHY RELATIVISM IN THE NEW RHETORICAL FRAMEWORK OF APPRAISING ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 147 5.3 PRINCIPLES OF APPRAISING DISSOCIATION IN THE NEW RHETORICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 156 5.4 APPRAISING DISSOCIATIVE ARGUMENTS ......................................... 165 5.5 REPLIES TO RITIVOI’S CONTEXTUALISM .......................................... 183 5.6 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER ................................................................. 187 6.0CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 190 vii 6.1 ANSWERS TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................. 190 6.2 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ............................................................................. 193 6.2.1 Contributions to the New Rhetoric Project ............................................... 193 6.2.2 Defense of healthy relativism ...................................................................... 196 6.2.3 Relationship between appraisal and production of argument ................ 198 6.3 LIMITS OF THE CURRENT RESEARCH ................................................. 201 6.4 AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................ 202 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 206 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Different types of premises used in argumentation ....................................................... 50 Figure 2. Different types of theses used in argumentation ........................................................... 52 Figure 3. Controversial thesis without premise and argumentation scheme ................................ 53 Figure 4. Controversial thesis and acceptable premise ................................................................. 54 Figure 5. Acceptable thesis and premise and the argumentation scheme ..................................... 54 Figure 6. Four categories of arguments ........................................................................................ 73 Figure 7. Summary of four categories of arguments .................................................................... 74 Figure 8. Elements of dissociation ................................................................................................ 94 Figure 9. Association and dissociation and their subcategories ................................................... 97 Figure 10. Summary of the example arguments ......................................................................... 126 Figure 11. Dissociation and its subcategories ............................................................................. 127 ix PREFACE It was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Xerox University Microfilms
    INFORMATION TO USERS This malarial was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Rhetoric Project As a Response to Anti-Semitism: Chaïm Perelman’S Reflections on Assimilation1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Open Research Exeter The New Rhetoric Project as a Response to Anti-Semitism: Chaïm Perelman’s Reflections on Assimilation1 Michelle Bolduc Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca have both been recognized for their tireless efforts on behalf of Jews: Perelman, himself a Jew, was praised for his work with the Jewish Resistance group, the Comité de la Défense des Juifs [CDJ], which was founded in his living room in June 1942; he was also noted for his postwar activities, including the Aliyah Bet movement immediately following the war.2 Olbrechts-Tyteca, for her part, was honored as one of the ‘Righteous among the Nations’ by Yad Vashem in 1980 for her work on the Comité des Marraines [Godmother Committee] founded by Fela Perelman, which hid Belgian Jewish children during the second World War.3 The present study does not have Perelman’s and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s work on behalf of the Jews as its subject; this has been amply described elsewhere (by, among others, Frank 1997, 2003, 2004, 2014; Steinberg 1978; Gross and Dearin 2003). It is rather an exploration of how they (and Perelman in particular) translate their experiences (direct and indirect) of anti-Semitism into the philosophical meditations of the Traité and the other writings that make up the New Rhetoric Project [NRP].4 If, as Amos Kiewe has pointed out, “scholarship on anti-Semitism from a rhetorical perspective is almost none existent” (vii), scholarship on the NRP’s response to anti-Semitism is, to date, slim.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric by Scott R
    KSO 2016: 42 Review Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric by Scott R. Stroud Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press [ISBN: 978-0-271-06419-2 hb] John Poulakos, University of Pittsburgh t a time when the lines of demarcation between philo- sophy and rhetoric are nowhere as clear as they were in A the eighteenth century, Scott Stroud has written an impressive monograph mining Immanuel Kant’s philosophy for rhetorical gold. Postulating that every philosopher (indeed, every author) has a philosophy of rhetoric, even if only implicit or unconscious, this project resembles the likes of Martin Warner’s Philosophical Finesse, Jeff Mason’s Philosophical Rhetoric, Steve Fuller’s Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge, Chaim Perelman’s The New Rhetoric and the Humanities, to name a few. Likewise, Stroud’s inquiry is in line with the spirit of Philosophy and Rhetoric, a journal that has since 1968 been publishing scholarship on the rhetorical dimension of philosophical works as well as the philosophical underpinnings of rhetorical discourses. Beyond the above two similarities, however, Stroud’s work occupies a unique place; no student of rhetoric has delved so deeply into Kant’s corpus or advanced so sympathetic an interpretation of “Kantian rhetoric.” Stroud acknowledges upfront that Kant’s disparaging re- marks against rhetoric are difficult to finesse or explain away. Just the same, he takes on the challenge, seeking to reconcile what Kant says about rhetoric with what he does when he himself puts the techne into practice. Readers of this book will recognize the implicit argument at hand — it has been ad- John Poulakos Review of Scott R.
    [Show full text]
  • For Peer Review Only
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE An Introduction to and Translation of Chaïm Perelman’s 1933 De l’arbitraire dans laconnaissance [On the Arbitrary in Knowledge] AUTHORS Bolduc, M; Frank, DA JOURNAL Advances in the History of Rhetoric DEPOSITED IN ORE 11 March 2019 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36397 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Advances in the History of Rhetoric For Peer Review Only A Commentary on and Translation of C haim Perelman’s 1933 “De l’arbitraire dans la connaissance” [On the Arbitrary in Knowledge] Journal: Advances in the History of Rhetoric Manuscript ID Draft Manuscript Type: Translation Keywords: Chaïm Perelman, New Rhetoric Project, arbitrary in knowledge, translation URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ Email: [email protected] Page 1 of 77 Advances in the History of Rhetoric 1 2 3 A Commentary on and Translation of Chaim Perelman’s 1933 “De l’arbitraire dans la 4 5 6 connaissance” [On the Arbitrary in Knowledge] 7 8 9 10 11 “Two writers whom historians of twentieth-century rhetorical theory are sure to feature,” 12 13 writes Wayne Brockriede, “are Kenneth Burke and Chaïm Perelman. They may dominate an 14 For Peer Review Only 15 account of rhetorical theory in this century as Adam Smith and George Campbell dominate 16 17 18 Wilbur Samuel Howell’s characterization of eighteenth-century” (76).
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, and Cultural Diversity
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 12: Evidence, Persuasion & Diversity Jun 5th, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, and Cultural Diversity Jianfeng Wang University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Wang, Jianfeng, "Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, and Cultural Diversity" (2020). OSSA Conference Archive. 8. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA12/Friday/8 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, and Cultural Diversity: Argumentative Style in a Cross-Cultural “Rhetorical Borderland” JIANFENG WANG Argumentation Studies Program 2183 Chrysler Hall North, University of Windsor 401 Sunset Ave., Windsor, ON N9B 3P4 Canada College of Foreign Languages Fujian Normal University 8 Shangsan Rd., Fuzhou 350007, Fujian Province China [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: Taking issue with the current scholarship over the notion of a “rhetorical borderland,” we approach it as a disputable space in cross-cultural argumentation where arguers run into encounters with a composite audience. By drawing upon a few different theoretical resources, we propose a three-dimensional agenda for a new understanding of “rhetorical borderland”: as a discursive construct in the mental horizon; as a conceptual notion with essential uncertainties; and as a disputable space in cross-cultural argumentation. Keywords: Community of minds, deep disagreement, deep rhetoric, incommensurability, style, cross-cultural argumentation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Topics a Union President Visited to Mobilize Members
    Document generated on 10/01/2021 2:29 p.m. Relations industrielles Industrial Relations Topics a Union President Visited to Mobilize Members Thèmes traités par un président de centrale syndicale afin de mobiliser ses membres Temas abordados por un presidente sindical para movilizar a sus miembros Yonatan Reshef and Charles Keim Volume 73, Number 2, Spring 2018 Article abstract We analyze four calls to action issued by the British Columbia Teachers’ URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1048571ar Federation (BCTF) president, Jim Iker. These appeals sought to mobilize DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1048571ar members during the 2013-2014 collective bargaining that pitted the BCTF against the British Columbia government and the direct employer, the British See table of contents Columbia Public School Employers’ Association. We apply a “theory of rhetoric” developed by Chaim Perelman to locate and analyze the topics the BCTF president used to persuade his members to adhere to his arguments Publisher(s) about the merit of collective action. We argue that the president constructed his rhetoric by visiting five Département des relations industrielles de l’Université Laval topics—urgency, fairness, futility, agency, and integrity. The first three promoted a utilitarian logic for collective action. Iker used them to persuade ISSN teachers, and other stakeholders, that collective action was necessary for addressing the problem—the futility of the bargaining process to produce a 0034-379X (print) negotiated fair agreement due to the government’s reluctance to bargain in 1703-8138 (digital) good faith. The last two topics—agency and integrity—comprised a rhetoric of comfort and reassurance offering an affective logic for acting collectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Logic 25 Years Later the First International Symposium On
    Informal logic 25 years later The First International Symposium on Informal Logic, held on this campus on June 26 to 28, 1978, was a rise to self-consciousness of a newly distinguished sub-field of philosophy. This sub-field differentiated itself through the belief of some philosophy instructors in North American colleges and universities that the traditional introductory logic course was not much good at helping to improve students’ abilities to deal with the arguments they encountered in everyday life and in academic contexts. Courses centred on formal systems–whether the systems of categorical syllogistic and propositional logic done by truth tables or the more comprehensive and up-to-date system of first-order logic–had no relevance to the highly charged debates of the late 1960s and early 1970s about such issues as American military action in Vietnam and the position of women in society. In response, a new kind of textbook began to emerge, often focussed on the informal fallacies, which had been a neglected backwater of the traditional introductory logic course. A pioneer among these textbooks was Howard Kahane’s Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, subtitled “The Use of Reason in Everyday Life”, the first edition of which was published in 1971 (Kahane 1971); it is now in its ninth edition. Kahane, who gave a paper at the First International Symposium on Informal Logic entitled “The Nature and Classification of Fallacies” (Kahane 1980), died two years ago, on May 2, 2001. The notice of his death in the Proceedings And Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (Hausman et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice, Law, and Argument Synthese Library
    JUSTICE, LAW, AND ARGUMENT SYNTHESE LIBRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Managing Editor: J AAKKO HINTIKKA, Florida State University Editors: DONALD DAVIDSON, University a/Chicago GABRIEL NUCHELMANS, University ofLeyden WESLEY C. SALMON, University ofArizona VOLUME 142 CH. PERELMAN Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Centre de Philosophie du Droit JUSTICE, LAW, AND ARGUMENT Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning with an introduction by HAROLD J. BERMAN Ames Professor of Law, Harvard University D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY DORDRECHT: HOLLAND / BOSTON: U.S.A. LONDON: ENGLAND Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Perelman, Cha:im. Justice, law, and argument. (Synthese library; v. 142) Chapters translated into English by various persons. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Justice-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Law­ Methodology-Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Law-Philosophy­ Addresses, essays, lectures. 4. Law and ethics-Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Title. K239.P47 340'.1 80-16892 ISBN-13: 978-90-277-1090-1 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-9010-4 DOl: 10.1 007/978-94-009-90 10-4 Chapter 1 translated into English by John Petrie; Chapter 2-6 and 17 by Susan Rubin; Chapter 8 by Graham Bird; Chapter 9 by Melvin T. Dalgamo; Chapter 10 by Heather Relihan; Chapters 11-16 by William Kluback Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Boston Inc., Lincoln Building 160 Old Derby Street, Hingham, MA 02043, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    CHAPTER 2. PIONEERING INFORMAL LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION STUDIES ANTHONY J. BLAIR Abstract: 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. PREFACE The following is an account of my participation in some of the signal developments in the infrastructure supporting the emer- gence of informal logic and argumentation theory in the last quarter of the 20th century. PIONEERING INFORMAL LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION STUDIES 35 1. BEGINNINGS On September 1st 1967, two months after Canada’s centennial celebrations, I began a 39-year appointment in the University of Windsor philosophy department in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. I was hired out of a doctoral program at the nearby University of Michigan, to teach principally philosophical ethics and political theory (which I did teach, among several other things, through- out). Shortly before the start of the 1972-73 academic year, I was asked to help out with a new course, which my colleague Ralph Johnson had created the previous year that had proven so pop- ular the enrolment had doubled—from 20 to 40, as I recol- lect—causing the opening of a second section (those were the days!).
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Discovering the American Public Forum: the Role of Academic Debate
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 458 667 CS 510 683 AUTHOR Weiss, Robert 0. TITLE Re-Discovering the American Public Forum: The Role of Academic Debate. PUB DATE 1997-11-22 NOTE 13p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association (83rd, Chicago, IL, November 19-23, 1997). PUB TYPE Opinion Papers (120) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Citizen Participation; *Debate; *Democracy; Educational Research; Higher Education; Public Opinion; Theory Practice Relationship IDENTIFIERS Argumentation Theory; *Public Discourse ABSTRACT After a long period of substantial academic assault, the ideal of democracy as "government by the'people" is undergoing renewal and re-evaluation. Jurgen Habermas's persistent exploration of the conditions which make rational discussion of public affairs and democratic decision-making possible has generated numerous concepts that may be operationalized in public forum activity. Even the enclave of students of public opinion is moving beyond the mere tabulation of discrete individual attitudes to recognize communal thought patterns and the important role of deliberation in the formation of public opinion. A study on formal academic debate is concerned with the present and potential activities institutionalized and supported on a co-curricular basis beyond normal disciplinary classroom routines. Keeping in mind the nature of American public forum activity as a pragmatic venture in furthering democracy and academic debate as an educational enterprise directed
    [Show full text]
  • Part/Whole Fallacies
    11 If a person dislikes someone else it's ciousness that may be involved in such argu­ lLkely that he will want to have nothing to ments is to be found in the fact that people do. not only with him, but also with the sorts are inclined to consider thoughts and ideas as of things that the other person likes. For being like personal possessions. And since example if Jones dislikes Smith and Smith many people want to distance themselves from sports a moustache and likes to wear tweed the personal posseSSions of those they dislike 'ackets, chances are that Jones will avoid and surround themselves with possessions simi­ ~weed jackets and moustaches. Not only will lar to the possessions of those that they people distance themselves from the sorts of admire, they also want to distance themselves th~ngs their enemies like they will also dis­ from the beliefs (any belief) of those they tance themselves from their thoughts and ideas. dislike and accept the beliefs of those they If 3mith is in favour of capital punishment admire. And of course if anyone were to ig­ for murder and a champion of free enterprise, nore or accept a belief for this sort of rea­ chances are that Jones will be opposed to son he would be reasoning (to the extent that cap~tal punishment and to free enterprise. he could be said to be reasoning) fallaciously . ...'Co FOOTNOTE ~" The same is also true of groups. Fascists were inclined to wear black shirts and cut II.M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (5th their hair short while Communists were in­ ed.), f.1acmillan, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation
    PROBLEMS IN ARGUMENT ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION Windsor Studies in Argumentation Volume 6 TRUDY GOVIER Windsor Studies in Argumentation Windsor Ontario Canada Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation by Trudy Govier & Windsor Studies in Argumentation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Copyright Trudy Govier and Windsor Studies in Argumentation ISBN 978-0-920233-83-2 CONTENTS WSIA Editors v WSIA Editors' Introduction vii Preface viii 1. Rigor and Reality 1 2. Is a Theory of Argument Possible 20 3. The Great Divide 56 4. Two Unreceived Views about Reasoning and 84 Argument 5. The Problem of Missing Premises 123 6. A Dialogic Exercise 161 7. A New Approach to Charity 203 8. Reasons Why Arguments and Explanations are 242 Different 9. Four Reasons There are No Fallacies? 271 10. Formalism and Informalism in Theories of 311 Reasoning and Argument 11. Critical Thinking in the Armchair, the Classroom, 349 and the Lab 12. Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking Tests 377 13. The Social Epistemology of Argument 413 WSIA EDITORS Editors in Chief Leo Groarke (Trent University) Christopher Tindale (University of Windsor) Board of Editors Mark Battersby (Capilano University) Camille Cameron (Dalhousie University) Emmanuelle Danblon (Université libre de Bruxelles) Ian Dove (University of Nevada Las Vegas) Bart Garssen (University of Amsterdam) Michael Gilbert (York University) David Godden (Michigan State University) Jean Goodwin (North Carolina State University) Hans V. Hansen (University of Windsor) Gabrijela Kišiček (University of Zagreb) Marcin Koszowy (University of Białystok) Marcin Lewiński (New University of Lisbon) Catherine H. Palczewski (University of Northern Iowa) Chris Reed (University of Dundee) Andrea Rocci (University of Lugano) Paul van den Hoven (Tilburg University) Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Diego Portales University) Igor Ž.
    [Show full text]