DOCSLIB.ORG

Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: an Analysis and Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: an Analysis and Evaluation View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 8 Jun 3rd, 9:00 AM - Jun 6th, 5:00 PM Argumentative Bluff in rE istic Discussion: An analysis and evaluation Jan Albert van Laar Groningen University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Jan Albert van Laar, "Argumentative Bluff in rE istic Discussion: An analysis and evaluation" (June 3, 2009). OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 100. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/100 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized administrator of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An analysis and evaluation JAN ALBERT VAN LAAR Faculty of Philosophy Groningen University Oude Boteringestraat 52 9712 GL Groningen The Netherlands [email protected] ABSTRACT: How does the evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic (or: polemic) discussion. Any arguer conveys the pretence that his argumentation is dialectically reasonable and, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion, it can be profitable to bluff that these claims are correct. However, it will be defended that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion. KEYWORDS: argumentative bluff, critical discussion, dialogue types, eristic discussion, fallacies 1. INTRODUCTION In order to understand and assess an argumentative discourse we need to investigate the circumstances of the discourse. Argumentation is typically put forward by a particular speaker towards a particular collection of addressees within a particular kind of situation. One component of this “situatedness” or “contextuality” is the type of dialogue in which the argumentation is located. Walton and Krabbe distinguish between six basic types of dialogue, based on more elementary distinctions pertaining to the initial situation of a dialogue, the individual aims of the participants and the collective main goal of the dialogue (1995). These six types are the persuasion dialogue, the negotiation dialogue, the eristic dialogue, the inquiry dialogue, the deliberation dialogue and the information- seeking dialogue. This paper restricts its scope to what is only a subtype of the eristic dialogue, namely eristic discussion.1 An eristic discussion (also referred to as “sophistical dialogue” by Walton 1998, p. 195) forms an highly adversarial and competitive kind of conversation where each party tries to create the impression on the part of an attending audience that it is he who is the most clever and skilful discussant, in a shared attempt to settle upon an appropriate intellectual hierarchy between the participants. What 1 The other subtype is the quarrel and is dealt with in more detail by Krabbe and Walton (Walton and Krabbe 1995; Walton 1998). Laar, J. A. van (2009). Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An analysis and evaluation. In: J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1-11), Windsor, ON: OSSA. Copyright © 2009, the author. JAN ALBERT VAN LAAR consequences does an argumentation’s being situated within an eristic discussion have for its evaluation? In this paper I will first sketch the problem of evaluating argumentation in the context of an eristic discussion. Next, I will characterize the eristic discussion, elaborating on Walton’s account (1998, chapter 7). Third, I will discuss a peculiarity of offering argumentation in this kind of setting, starting from the pragma-dialectical perspective on argumentation as strategic manoeuvring between the dialectical objective of dispute resolution and the rhetorical objective of winning over the other side (Van Eemeren and Houtlosser 1999; 2002). Fourth, I will defend that eristic argumentation can be judged by the standards of a critical discussion and show that it is nevertheless useful to take the eristic dialogue context into account when evaluating argumentation. 2. THE PROBLEM OF EVALUATING ERISTIC ARGUMENTATION Walton proposes to deal with models of types of dialogue as descriptions of kinds of dialogue in which we can be engaged, but also as normative models. In his view, argumentation that is situated within a particular dialogue type must be evaluated by determining to what extent the argumentation serves this dialogue type’s main goal. [W]hen an argument is used it is a good argument (or a successful or correct argument) to the extent that it contributes to the goal of the dialogue. But there can be different goals because there can be different types of dialogue in which the same argument can be used. Thus in the new dialectical method of evaluating arguments, an argument is correct or reasonable if it is used at some stage in a dialogue to contribute the overall goal of that type of dialogue by fulfilling the requirements for the kind of move an argument is supposed to be at that stage. (Walton 1998, p. 30) For example, Walton and Krabbe state that “[i]n the eristic discussion, an outrageous fallacy may be the best and most successful technique to persuade your audience” (1995, p. 79), suggesting that the eristic context makes an otherwise fallacious move non- fallacious. In the course of section 5, I will offer two reasons for adopting an alternative view, according to which we ought not to adopt different argumentative norms for different dialogue types, and so for the view that we should not adopt a more liberal perspective when evaluating reasoning used for polemic purposes.2 But then, in what other way could the argumentation’s being localized in a particular dialogue type be relevant for our assessment of the argumentation? Van Eemeren and Houtlosser defend that argumentation must always be evaluated by determining to what extent it serves or hinders the goal of a genuine critical discussion, that is, the resolution of a difference of opinion, taking into account the merits of both sides. Nevertheless, they hold that the evaluation of argumentation can be improved by taking the so-called argumentative activity type into account. First, knowledge of the argumentative activity can be used in order to reconstruct the discourse adequately, for example by enabling us to unearth the commitments of those involved (Van Eemeren et al., forthcoming). For example, it is because we know what role a prosecutor is supposed play that we know that his question must be reconstructed as part of an argument. Second, the activity type can provide us with context sensitive criteria 2 See Krabbe and van Laar (2007) for an account of the functions of reasoning. 2 ARGUMENTATIVE BLUFF IN ERISTIC DISCUSSIONS with which it can be decided whether a discussion move complies with a general rule for critical discussion (van Eemeren et al., forthcoming). The application of the general norms for critical discussion can depend on the features of an activity type. For example, the rules for critical discussion allow a discussant to employ the so-called pragmatic argumentation scheme. When using this scheme, the discussant argues in favour of a course of action by pointing at desirable consequence of the course of action. If the discussion is part of a parliamentary debate the desirability most plausibly pertains to the interests of the public at large and if the discussion is part of a mediation session between parents on the verge of a divorce, the desirability most plausibly pertains to the interests of the child. So, the context can provide a criterion with which to determine whether a consequence counts as desirable or not. To my mind, these criteria can be reconstructed as contextual specifications of the norms for critical discussion that the participants can agree upon in the opening stage of a critical discussion. By entering a particular argumentative activity type, a person implicitly commits himself to this outcome of the (implicit) opening stage. Krabbe (forthcoming) holds that the normative model for critical discussion prescribes a high level of cooperation between the participants, while at the same time allowing the parties some level of competitiveness. Various dialogue types can be seen as forcing the participants to raise the level of cooperation beyond the level prescribed by a resolution oriented critical discussion.3 For example, an inquiry or a deliberation dialogue requires participants to work more closely together in a shared attempt to reach an outcome that either can count as shared knowledge or as an agreed upon course of action. The additional norms can be applied when evaluating the argumentation. Again, these norms can be reconstructed as implicitly agreed upon by entering the inquiry. In other words, they are additional procedural starting points that the participants have fixed in the opening stage of their discussion. So, both Krabbe and van Eemeren et al. assign a direct evaluative role for the argumentative activity type in letting the (material or procedural) commitments of the participants be partly determined by the argumentative activity type. When evaluating argumentative discourse we can, then, determine
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plato's Euthydemus
    PLATO’S EUTHYDEMUS: A STUDY ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOGIC AND EDUCATION Plato’s Euthydemus is an unlucky dialogue. Few dealt with it in its own right, not just as part of a wider discussion of Plato, and fewer still saw in it more than a topic of sophistic fallacies. Some, of course, paid attention to the constructive sections of the dialogue, but only rarely do we come across a real attempt to unify its different aspects.1 In this paper I propose to show how, in the Euthydemus, Plato tries to distinguish between the Socratic and the Sophistic conceptions of education, by tracing them to their roots in the opposing views of the Sophists — and especially those of the second generation — and of Socrates about truth and about the role of logic. And although the eristic techniques of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are obviously fallacious, they turn out to be developments of Protagoras’ views and follow from philosophical positions worthy of serious examination. The Euthydemus is a caricature, to be sure. But, as all good caricature, it has a serious intent. It sketches the degeneration of the Sophistic approach to education, in some of its aspects. More important­ ly, it distinguishes Socratic education from the methods and effects of its Sophistic counterpart. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, the two sophist brothers, are reminis­ cent of the great Sophists of the Protagoras in more than one way. They are polymaths like Hippias, and at one time or another have taught a variety of arts, from forensic rhetoric to armed combat. Also, they have Prodicus’ penchant for linguistic analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation
    1 ARGUMENTATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF DELIBERATION DIALOGUE Douglas Walton, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner and Dan Cartwright According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue: persuasion dialogue, negotiation, deliberation, information-seeking dialogue, inquiry, and eristic dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of these types of dialogue and showing how they can be implemented in, for example, multi-agent communications systems. In this paper, we (1) clarify the distinction between deliberation dialogue and persuasion dialogue, (2) survey some recent research in artificial intelligence studying formal properties of deliberation dialogue, (3) present a model of argumentation in deliberation dialogue that has proved to be useful in electronic democracy, and (4) argue that this model provides an attractive alternative to the dominant cost-benefit model of rational argumentation traditionally accepted in economics and other fields as the basis for evaluating argumentation of the kind used in policy decision making. One of the most important lessons of argumentation theory has been that arguments need to be analyzed and evaluated not only by identifying the logical form of an argument in abstraction from its context of use, but also by paying attention to the purpose for which an argument was supposedly used in a conversational setting. In particular, as we will show in this paper, it is vitally important to distinguish between two different types of conversational frameworks called persuasion dialogue and deliberation dialogue. As we will show, logical fallacies can easily be committed in the most common kinds of everyday reasoning by failing to take this distinction into account.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading the Proemium of Plato's Theaetetus: Euclides in Action
    Reading the Proemium of Plato’s Theaetetus: Euclides in Action Eleni Kaklamanou and Maria Pavlou HE FRAMES of the Platonic dialogues constitute a vexed and contentious issue and have been variously treated T by students of Plato throughout the centuries. Proclus classified Plato’s ancient commentators as those who pay little or no attention to the prefatory parts, those who acknowledge their moral aspect but deem them irrelevant to a dialogue’s subject-matter, and those who contend that they have a bear- ing on the main philosophical discussion.1 Modern scholars have adopted a similar stance: while some either completely ignore or attribute little philosophical significance to the proemia, others consider them to be an integral part of the dialogues and not merely ‘trimmings’ or decorative literary devices.2 This paper focuses on the opening of the Theaetetus, one of the most peculiar and paradoxical of the Platonic proemia.3 Two friends, the Megarians Euclides and Terpsion, acci- 1 Proclus In Prm. 658–659 (I 46 Steel); for comments see G. R. Morrow and J. M. Dillon, Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides (Princeton 1987) 11 and 47 n.40. For ancient views on the importance of Plato’s prologues in general see H. Tarrant, Plato’s First Interpreters (Cornell 2000) 39–40. 2 See e.g. D. Clay, “Plato’s First Words,” in F. M. Dunn and T. Cole (eds.), Beginnings in Classical Literature (Cambridge 1992) 115: “to write com- petently about the beginning of [any] Platonic Dialogue is to understand the other extremity of the dialogue, its middle, and the unity of the dialogue as a whole.” For further bibliography see W.
    [Show full text]
  • In Praise of Eristics
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 4 May 17th, 9:00 AM - May 19th, 5:00 PM In Praise of Eristics Pedro Reygadas Col. Santa María La Ribera Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Reygadas, Pedro, "In Praise of Eristics" (2001). OSSA Conference Archive. 102. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA4/papersandcommentaries/102 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]. Title: In Praise of Eristics Author: Pedro Reygadas Response to this paper by: Mark Weinstein © 2001 Pedro Reygadas The international field of argumentation theory is dominated by the logical-dialectical approach. This approach is centered in a linear logical dimension: propositions and schemes of argument. The argumentative discourse is defined in terms of the ancient tradition: a dialogue game developed according to rational rules. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst describe this latter aspect in the principle of dialectification: If a language user advances a constellation of statements calculated either to justify or to refute an expressed opinion. ...The language user addresses another language user who is supposed to adopt the position of a rational judge and who reacts to the argumentation critically, so that a critical discussion ensues (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, p. 15). The logical-dialectical approach is exemplified in several theories: Pragma-dialectics in Holland, Informal Logic and Critical Thinking in the United States and Canada, Logical Propaedeutic from the Erlangen School, Barth and Krabbe's Formal Dialectics, and Habermas' Communicative Action Theory in Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer
    The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER: THE ART OF CONTROVERSY TRANSLATED BY T. BAILEY SAUNDERS, M.A. CONTENTS. THE ART OF CONTROVERSY-- 1. PRELIMINARY: LOGIC AND DIALECTIC 2. THE BASIS OF ALL DIALECTIC 3. STRATAGEMS ON THE COMPARATIVE PLACE OF INTEREST AND BEAUTY IN WORKS OF ART PSYCHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE WISDOM OF LIFE: APHORISMS GENIUS AND VIRTUE page 1 / 120 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. The volume now before the reader is a tardy addition to a series in which I have endeavoured to present Schopenhauer's minor writings in an adequate form. Its contents are drawn entirely from his posthumous papers. A selection of them was given to the world some three of four years after his death by his friend and literary executor, Julius Frauenstaedt, who for this and other offices of piety, has received less recognition than he deserves. The papers then published have recently been issued afresh, with considerable additions and corrections, by Dr. Eduard Grisebach, who is also entitled to gratitude for the care with which he has followed the text of the manuscripts, now in the Royal Library at Berlin, and for having drawn attention--although in terms that are unnecessarily severe--to a number of faults and failings on the part of the previous editor. The fact that all Schopenhauer's works, together with a volume of his correspondence, may now be obtained in a certain cheap collection of the best national and foreign literature displayed in almost every bookshop in Germany, is sufficient evidence that in his own country the writer's popularity is still very great; nor does the demand for translations indicate that his fame has at all diminished abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sophistic Method?: Dialectic and Eristic in Legal Pedagogy
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 100 | Issue 1 Article 6 2011 The ophiS stic Method?: Dialectic and Eristic in Legal Pedagogy Thomas Cothran University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Legal Education Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Cothran, Thomas (2011) "The opS histic Method?: Dialectic and Eristic in Legal Pedagogy," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 100 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol100/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES The Sophistic Method?: Dialectic and Eristic in Legal Pedagogy Thomas Cothran' "And thus there seems a reason in all things, even in law."' - Herman Meliville, Moby Dick "Since the man of common sense makes his appeal to feeling, to an oracle within his breast, he is finished and done with anyone who does not agree; he only has to explain that he has nothing more to say to anyone who does not find and feel the same in himself. In other words, he tramples underfoot the roots of humanity. For it is the nature of humanity to press onward to agreement with others; human nature only really exists in an achieved community of minds. The anti-human, the merely animal, consists in staying within the sphere of feeling, and being able to communicate only at that level."3 G.W.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle-Rhetoric.Pdf
    Rhetoric Aristotle (Translated by W. Rhys Roberts) Book I 1 Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are con- cerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art. Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have cons- tructed but a small portion of that art. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is me- rely accessory. These writers, however, say nothing about en- thymemes, which are the substance of rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with non-essentials. The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts 4 Aristotle and forbid talk about non-essentials.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sceptics: the Arguments of the Philosophers
    THE SCEPTICS The Arguments of the Philosophers EDITOR: TED HONDERICH The purpose of this series is to provide a contemporary assessment and history of the entire course of philosophical thought. Each book constitutes a detailed, critical introduction to the work of a philosopher of major influence and significance. Plato J.C.B.Gosling Augustine Christopher Kirwan The Presocratic Philosophers Jonathan Barnes Plotinus Lloyd P.Gerson The Sceptics R.J.Hankinson Socrates Gerasimos Xenophon Santas Berkeley George Pitcher Descartes Margaret Dauler Wilson Hobbes Tom Sorell Locke Michael Ayers Spinoza R.J.Delahunty Bentham Ross Harrison Hume Barry Stroud Butler Terence Penelhum John Stuart Mill John Skorupski Thomas Reid Keith Lehrer Kant Ralph C.S.Walker Hegel M.J.Inwood Schopenhauer D.W.Hamlyn Kierkegaard Alastair Hannay Nietzsche Richard Schacht Karl Marx Allen W.Wood Gottlob Frege Hans D.Sluga Meinong Reinhardt Grossmann Husserl David Bell G.E.Moore Thomas Baldwin Wittgenstein Robert J.Fogelin Russell Mark Sainsbury William James Graham Bird Peirce Christopher Hookway Santayana Timothy L.S.Sprigge Dewey J.E.Tiles Bergson A.R.Lacey J.L.Austin G.J.Warnock Karl Popper Anthony O’Hear Ayer John Foster Sartre Peter Caws THE SCEPTICS The Arguments of the Philosophers R.J.Hankinson London and New York For Myles Burnyeat First published 1995 by Routledge First published in paperback 1998 Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © 1995 R.J.Hankinson All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Integrated Theory of Argumentation
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Towards an integrated theory of argumentation Julieta Haidar Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Pedro Reygadas Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Haidar, Julieta and Reygadas, Pedro, "Towards an integrated theory of argumentation" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 24. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/24 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]. Title: Towards an Integrated Theory of Argumentation Author: Pedro Reygadas, Julieta Haidar Response to this paper by: Michael A. Gilbert (c) 2000 Pedro Reygadas & Julieta Haidar The purpose of this paper is to establish some main characteristics of the argumentation field and to link argumentation theory and Discourse Analysis to contribute to its project with a systematic consideration of power, ideology and culture functioning. After a brief initial summary about the diversity of this field, we consider some central issues of analytical theories (in this case, we leave practically aside argument formation theories) in order to establish contact between
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of Being Right Selected Sections
    The Art of Being Right Selected Sections PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:54:14 UTC Contents Articles The Art of Being Right/prelim 1 The Art of Being Right/basis 2 The Art of Being Right 3 References Article Sources and Contributors 16 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 17 Article Licenses License 18 The Art of Being Right/prelim 1 The Art of Being Right/prelim The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer, translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders Preliminary: Logic and Dialectic I. BY the ancients, Logic and Dialectic were used as synonymous terms; although logizesthai, "to think over, to consider, to calculate," and dialegesthai, "to converse," are two very different things. The name Dialectic was, as we are informed by Diogenes Laertius, first used by Plato; and in the Phaedrus, Sophist, Republic, bk. vii., and elsewhere, we find that by Dialectic he means the regular employment of the reason, and skill in the practice of it. Aristotle also uses the word in this sense; but, according to Laurentius Valla, he was the first to use Logic too in a similar way.[1] Dialectic, therefore, seems to be an older word than Logic. Cicero and Quintilian use the words in the same general signification.[2] This use of the words as synonymous terms lasted through the Middle Ages into modern times; in fact, until the present day. But more recently, and in particular by Kant, Dialectic has often been employed in a bad sense, as meaning "the art of sophistical controversy"; and hence Logic has been preferred, as of the two the more innocent designation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation Into the Use of Logical and Rhetorical Tactics Within Eristic Argumentation on the Social Web
    An Investigation into the Use of Logical and Rhetorical Tactics within Eristic Argumentation on the Social Web Tom Blount David E. Millard Mark J. Weal Web and Internet Science Web and Internet Science Web and Internet Science ECS ECS ECS University of Southampton University of Southampton University of Southampton [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT the participants are quarrelling with the aim of being seen to win Argumentation is a key aspect of communications and can broadly [7]. Orthogonally to this, there are the notions of logic and rhetoric. be broken down into problem solving (dialectic) and quarrelling While often used in modern parlance as a pejorative term, rhetoric (eristic). Techniques used within argumentation can likewise be is the art of discourse and convincing an audience based on one’s classified as fact-based (logical), or emotion/audience-based (rhetor- knowledge of the topic at hand and of the audience themselves. ical). Modelling arguments on the social web is a challenge for Logical argumentation uses the facts of a case to draw conclusions those studying computational argumentation as formal models of but, it is important to note that the “facts” do not necessarily need to argumentation tend to assume a logical argument, whereas argu- be correct: they may be warped to fit a particular purpose, or even mentation on the social web is often largely rhetorical. To inves- outright fabricated. The key element is that the argument relies on tigate the application of logical versus rhetorical techniques on the these facts and the reasoning between them, even if fallacious.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Logic, Rhetoric and Eristic for Expert Witnesses Giving Oral Opinions at Court Hearings
    Psychiatr. Pol. 2018; 52(5): 929–941 PL ISSN 0033­2674 (PRINT), ISSN 2391­5854 (ONLINE) www.psychiatriapolska.pl DOI: https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/68768 Elements of logic, rhetoric and eristic for expert witnesses giving oral opinions at court hearings Wojciech Kosmowski NZOZ PZP Stawowa, Bydgoszcz Summary The aim of this article is to provide expert witnesses, especially psychiatrists, other physi­ cians, as well as psychologists, with basic information on logic, rhetoric and eristic, useful in their professional practice. The reason is that these skills, undoubtedly belonging to the classical education, are not standard elements of teaching professionals in the fields mentioned above. Having the expert knowledge, ability to diagnose, to conduct a therapy and to prognosticate does not indicate the ability to conduct effective arguments. This work is based on Cardijin’s method (See – Judge – Act). It sometimes happens that a well­prepared expert opinion (psychiatric and psychological) is discredited for non­substantive reasons due to some eristic and rhetorical tricks. Having such experiences, some expert witnesses resign from giving opinions. To help avoid such situations, this work presents the most important definitions of logic, rhetoric and eristic. Examples of propositional calculus, selected models of reasoning, rhetorical figures and eristic tricks can be used in presenting professional expertise. These examples are accompanied by propositions of responses to arguments used by persons willing to discredit expert witnesses’ opinions. Furthermore, this work offers a scheme of answering questions and doubts of the parties in court hearings. Key words: logic, rhetoric, forensic psychiatry Introduction Appearing at the court hearing is often extremely stressful, especially for beginner expert witnesses.
    [Show full text]