Résumés
Abstract
In this essay, I make a plea for a wide-ranging, open perspective on the evaluation of arguments. This involves a more flexible understanding of what fallacies are and for what arguments may be used. I acknowledge the great wealth of argumentation theory, but bemoan the lack of systematic, repeatable, and explainable evaluation procedures. I then go on to introduce the works which contribute to this special issue and explain how they assist in the fulfilment of my hopes.
Résumé
Dans cet essai, je plaide en faveur d’une perspective large et ouverte sur l’évaluation des arguments. Cela implique une compréhension plus flexible de ce que sont les sophismes et des arguments qui peuvent être utilisés. Je reconnais la grande richesse de la théorie de l’argumentation, mais je déplore le manque de procédures d’évaluation systématiques, reproductibles et explicables. Je présente ensuite les travaux qui contribuent à ce numéro spécial et explique comment ils contribuent à la réalisation de mes espoirs.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Asen, Robert. (2005). Pluralism, Disagreement, and the Status of Argu-ment in the Public Sphere. Informal Logic 25 (2): 117–137.
- Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. (2011). Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic ap-proach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Blair, J. Anthony. (2005). Norms and Functions in Public Sphere Argumen-tation. Informal Logic 25 (2): 139–150.
- Carroll, Lewis. (1974). The Hunting of the Snark, in: M. Gardner (ed.), The Annotated Snark. London: Penguin.
- van Eemeren, Frans H., & Rob Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
- Goodwin, Jean. (2007). Argument Has No Function. Informal Logic 27 (1): 69–90.
- Govier, Trudy. (2010). A Practical Study of Argument (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Hample, Dale, & Irions, Amanda. (2015). Arguing to Display Identity. Ar-gumentation 29: 389–416.
- Hinton, Martin. (2020). Towards a Theory of Informal Argument Seman-tics. In: Dutilh Novaes, C., Jansen, H., van Laar, J.A., & Verheij, B. (eds.). Reason to Dissent –Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Volume II, 279-392. London: College Publications.
- Hinton, Martin. (2021). Evaluating the Language of Argument. Cham: Springer.
- Hinton, Martin, & Wagemans, Jean H.M. (2022). Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural Approach. Argumentation, 36, 61-84.
- Johnson, Ralph H., & Blair, J. Anthony. (2006). Logical Self-Defense. New York: Idebate Press.
- Wagemans, Jean H.M. (2023). How to identify an argument type? On the hermeneutics of persuasive discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 203, 117-129.
- Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris, & Macagno, Fabrizio. (2008). Argumenta-tion Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Woods, John. (2007). The Concept of Fallacy is Empty – A Resource-Bound Approach to Error, Studies in Computational Intelligence (SCI) 64, 69–90.
- Zenker, Frank, van Laar, Jan Albert, Cepollaro, B., Gata, A., Hinton, M., King, C.G., Larson, B., Lewiński, M., Lumer, Ch., Oswald, S., Pichlak, M., Scott, B., Urbański, M., Wagemans, J.H.M. (2024). Norms of pub-lic argumentation and the ideals of correctness and participation. Argumentation. 38, 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09598-6.