From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild (eBook)

Contents 6
Contributors 8
1 A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory 10
References 18
2 Argument Schemes: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Approach 20
2.1 The Notion of Argument Scheme 20
2.2 Intersubjective Procedures for Evaluating Argumentation 22
2.3 The Pragma-Dialectical Typology of Argument Schemes 23
2.4 Critical Questions: Pragmatic Argumentation as a Case in Point 26
2.5 Subtypes and Variants of Argumentation 28
References 31
3 In Search of a Workable Auxiliary Condition for Authority Arguments 33
3.1 Corroboration 34
3.2 Trust 37
3.3 The Layperson’s Paradox 41
3.4 Goldberg Variations 43
3.5 Discussion 46
References 48
4 Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance! Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.2 The Standard Treatment of Fallacies: Problems and Opportunities 50
4.2.1 Normative Issues 50
4.2.2 Salvaging the Standard Treatment: Rhetorical Insights 51
4.3 Why and How Fallacies Are Rhetorically Successful 53
4.3.1 Cognitive Underpinnings of Argument Evaluation 53
4.3.2 Undetected Fallacies Are Arguments That Are Non-manifest Qua Fallacies 56
4.3.3 Pragma-Linguistic Constraints on Argumentation and Rhetorical Effectiveness 58
4.4 A Fallacious and Deceptive Erotetic Tour de Force 61
4.4.1 A Double Rhetorical Trick Question Realising a False Dilemma 62
4.4.2 More Rhetorical Questions to Strengthen the Context 64
4.4.3 The Straw Man Question 65
4.5 Conclusion 68
References 69
5 Argument Evaluation in Philosophy: Fallacies as Strategic Maneuvering 71
5.1 Introduction 71
5.2 Argumentation in Philosophy: The Problems of Evaluation Standars 73
5.3 The Controversy About the Genetic Fallacy 74
5.3.1 What Is the Genetic Fallacy? 74
5.3.2 The Genetic Fallacy in Question 77
5.4 The Charge of Committing a Fallacy as Strategic Maneuvering 78
5.5 Conclusion 82
References 83
6 Dialogical Sequences, Argumentative Moves and Interrogative Burden of Proof in Philosophical Argumentation 86
6.1 The Role of Questions in Argument 86
6.2 Burden of Proof 88
6.3 Typical Moves in Philosophical Argumentation 90
6.4 Revealing Irrelevant Distinctions 91
6.5 Analytic Dilemmas 97
6.6 Pragmatic Self-refutation 99
6.7 Conclusions 100
References 102
7 Eudaimonistic Argumentation 104
7.1 Virtue Theories of Argumentation 105
7.2 Intellectual Flourishing 108
7.3 Adversariality 110
7.4 Conclusion 112
References 112
8 Worries About the Prospects for Community Argument 114
8.1 Introduction 114
8.2 The Importance of Community Argument 115
8.3 Inherent Barriers to Community Argument 116
8.3.1 Evolved Sociality 117
8.3.2 Evolved Cognitive Modularity 120
8.4 Emerging Barriers to Community Argument 123
8.4.1 Distraction 123
8.4.2 Nudges 125
8.4.3 Narratives 126
8.4.4 Visual Persuasion 128
8.4.5 Some New Horizons 130
8.5 Community Argument? Concerns and Ambitions 131
References 134
9 Assessing Connection Adequacy for Arguments with Institutional Warrants 138
9.1 Warrants, Sources of Backing, and Rules 138
9.2 From Bodies of Law to Formally Backed Warrants 139
9.3 Reliably Understood Transcripts and Speech Acts 141
9.4 Reliable Institutional Warrants, Rebuttals, and Argument Cogency 144
9.5 Recognizing Rebuttals 145
9.6 Precedents, Conclusive Versus Defeasible Warrants, and Refining Warrants 147
9.7 Defeasible Warrants and Warrant Strength 149
9.8 Warrant Strength and Argument Cogency 151
9.9 Application to Institutional Warrants in General 152
References 155
10 On the Logical Ways to Counter an Argument: A Typology and Some Theoretical Consequences 156
10.1 Introduction 156
10.2 Main Kinds of Counterarguments 157
10.3 Dismissal 157
10.4 Objection 158
10.5 Rebuttal 159
10.6 Refutation 162
10.7 Weighing 164
10.8 Rebuttals, Refutations and Standards of Proof 165
10.9 Counterargument Structures 166
10.10 Other Classifications 168
10.11 The Order of Counterargumentation 170
10.12 Conclusions 171
References 172
11 Arguing for Questions 174
11.1 Introduction 174
11.2 Arguments for Questions? 175
11.3 The Formal Logic of Inferences to Questions 177
11.4 Inferences to Open-Ended Questions 180
11.4.1 Why Questions 180
11.4.2 How Questions 182
11.4.3 What Questions 183
11.5 Inferences from Questions to Questions 186
11.6 Summary 189
References 190
12 Expressives in Argumentation: The Case of Apprehensive Straks (‘Shortly’) in Dutch 192
12.1 Introduction 192
12.2 Form and Meaning of the Apprehensive Straks-Construction 194
12.2.1 Apprehensive Straks as a Construction 194
12.2.2 Argumentative Semantics 198
12.3 Apprehensive Straks in Argumentative Discourse 199
12.3.1 Pragmatic Argumentation: Warnings and Slippery Slope 200
12.3.2 Reductio ad Absurdum 202
12.4 Expressives Between Reasonableness and Effectiveness 203
12.4.1 The Expressive Dimension 204
12.4.2 Overt Unreasonableness 206
12.5 Conclusion 208
References 209
13 Argumentative Abduction in the Interpretation Process: A Pragma-Dialectical Study of an Ironic Utterance 212
13.1 Introduction 212
13.2 Abduction 213
13.3 Conversational Implicature and Irony 216
13.4 Irony from Extended Pragma-Dialectics 220
13.4.1 Irony: Standpoint or Conclusion? 220
13.4.2 Irony as Strategic Maneuvering 222
13.4.3 Interpreting Irony by Argumentative Abduction 223
13.5 Conclusion 226
References 227
14 Is “Conductive Argument” a Single Argument? 229
14.1 Introduction 229
14.2 The Current Consensus: Representing “Conductive Argument” as a Single Argument 232
14.3 My Proposal: Representing Pro/Con Argumentation as Deliberative Process 233
14.4 Conclusion 241
References 242
15 On the Logical Reconstruction of Conductive Arguments 244
15.1 Introduction 244
15.2 The Logical Reconstruction of Conductive Arguments 245
15.2.1 The Supplementation of On-balance Premise Approach 245
15.2.2 The Warrant-Reformulation Approach 247
15.3 The Linguistic Feature of Conductive Arguments 248
15.4 The Metaphor of Outweighing 251
15.5 The Role of Counter-Considerations in Conductive Arguments 253
15.6 Conclusion 257
References 258
16 The Legitimacy of Conductive Arguments: What Are the Logical Roles of Negative Considerations? 260
16.1 Introduction 260
16.2 “Adler’s Problem” and Its Variant 262
16.3 The Rhetorical Solution Versus the Logical Solution 265
16.4 The Perspective of Argument Evaluation 268
16.5 Conclusion 271
References 272
17 Deploying Machine Learning Classifiers for Argumentative Relations “in the Wild” 273
17.1 Introduction 273
17.2 Related Work 274
17.3 Training Classifiers for RbAM 275
17.3.1 Training Dataset 275
17.3.2 Argument Mining Experiments 276
17.4 First Experiment: Mining BAFs from a Dialogue Excerpt 276
17.4.1 Dialogue Excerpt 276
17.4.2 Annotation Results 278
17.4.3 Mining Argumentative Relations “in the wild” 281
17.5 Mining Argumentative Relations from a Short Text 282
17.5.1 Merged Arguments 282
17.5.2 Unmerged Arguments 285
17.6 Conclusion 285
References 288
Index 290