Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plausible Argumentation in Eikotic Arguments: The Ancient Weak Versus Strong Man Example

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 shared common knowledge. The paper extends previous work on this example by using three new multiagent argumentation schemes closely related to the scheme for argument from negative consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Plausible reasoning was attacked by Plato, as part of his general denunciation of the Sophists. This attack created a strong prejudice against plausible reasoning throughout the history of philosophy (Kraus 2007, 3–4).

  2. See (Cole 1991) for a discussion of the controversy on whether it should be attributed to Corax or Tisias, or even whether they may be the same person.

  3. Two kinds of argument attack (defeaters) are recognized in the literature that will be distinguished in Sect. 7. A rebutting defeater (also often called a conclusion attack) attacks the conclusion of the target argument. An undercutting defeater attacks the inferential link joining the premises to the conclusion by citing circumstances in which the inferential link fails to hold, even though it may hold generally.

  4. Carneades is open source software, available at http://carneades.github.com/.

References

  • Aristotle. 1926. Rhetoric (trans. John Henry Freese). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Bex, F., H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. 2003. Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2–3): 125–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat, M.F. 1994. Enthymeme: Aristotle on the logic of persuasion. In Aristotle’s rhetoric: Philosophical essays, ed. D.J. Furley, and A. Nehamas, 3–55. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L.J. 1979. Rescher’s theory of plausible reasoning. In The philosophy of nicholas rescher: Discussions and replies, ed. E. Sosa. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, T. 1991. Who was corax? Illinois Classical Studies 16 (1&2): 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J.B. 1995. The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 263–273. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagarin, M. 1990. The nature of proofs in antiphon. Classical Philology 85 (1): 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagarin, M. 1994. Probability and persuasion: Plato and early Greek rhetoric. In Persuasion: Greek rhetoric in action, ed. I. Worthington, 46–68. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 2010. The carneades argumentation support system, dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, London: College Publications.

  • Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards, Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari. Berlin: Springer, 239–260.

  • Govier, T. 1992. A practical study of argument, 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. 1874. Lectures on logic. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harary, F. 1972. Graph theory. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, David C. 2003. Reversing perceptions of probability through self-referential argument: interpretation and analysis of protagoras’ stronger/weaker fragment. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 503–507. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohmann, H. 1989. The dynamics of stasis: Classical rhetorical theory and modern legal argumentation. American Journal of Jurisprudence 34 (1): 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini, S.A., S. Modgil, and O.T. Rodrigues. 2014. Enthymeme construction in dialogues using shared knowledge. In Computational models of argument, ed. S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed, and F. Cerutti, 325–332. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, H.W.B. 1916. An introduction to logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, M. 2007. Early greek probability arguments and common ground in dissensus, (2007). OSSA Conference Archive. 92. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=ossaarchive.

  • Kraus, M. 2010. Perelman’s interpretation of reverse probability arguments as a dialectical mise en abyme. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4): 362–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., and S. Bigi. 2017. Understanding misunderstandings: presuppositions and presumptions in doctor–patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., D. Walton, and C. Reed. 2017. Argumentation schemes, history, classifications and computational applications. IFColog Journal of Logics and Their Applications 4 (8): 2493–2556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge, reprinted In The psychology of computer vision, ed. P. Winston, New York: McGraw Hill, 1975: available at http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html.

  • Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D.L., and A.K. Macworth. 2011. Artificial intelligence: Foundations of computational agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. 1976. Plausible reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. 2009. Aporetics: Rational deliberation in the face of inconsistency. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, E. 2005. Classical rhetorics and rhetoricians: Critical studies and sources. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E., Lim, G., Perkins, T., and W. Li Zhu 2002. Open mind common sense: Knowledge acquisition from the general public, Proceedings of the first international conference on ontologies, databases, and applications of semantics for large scale information systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Slomkowski, P. 1997. Aristotle’s topics. Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. 2010. Reason’s dark champions: Constructive strategies of sophistic argument. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. 2015. The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Upshur, R.E.G., and E. Colak. 2003. Argumentation and evidence. Theoretical Medicine 24 (4): 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vega Renon, L. 1998. Aristotle’s Endoxa and plausible argumentation. Argumentation 12 (1998): 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B. 1999. Logic, context and valid inference or: Can there be a logic of law? In: Legal knowledge based systems, JURIX1999, The twelfth conference. eds. H. Jaap van den Herik et al. Nijmegen. 109–121. http://jurix.nl/pdf/j99-10.pdf .

  • Walker, V.R., N. Carie, C. DeWitt, and E. Lesh. 2011. A framework for the extraction and modeling of fact-finding reasoning from legal decisions. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (4): 291–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2002. Are some Modus Ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic 22 (1): 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2001. Enthymemes, common knowledge and plausible inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2008. The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic 6: 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and C. Reed. 2005. Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145 (2005): 339–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2015. Formalizing informal logic. Informal Logic 35 (4): 508–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C.W. Tindale, and T.F. Gordon. 2014. Applying recent argumentation methods to some ancient examples of plausible reasoning. Argumentation 28 (1): 85–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. 2010. A system of argumentation forms in aristotle. Argumentation 24 (1): 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, M. 2002. An introduction to multiagent systems. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRRAR, University of Windsor, 2171 Chrysler Hall, Windsor, ON, Canada

    Douglas Walton

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walton, D. Plausible Argumentation in Eikotic Arguments: The Ancient Weak Versus Strong Man Example. Argumentation 33, 45–74 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9460-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9460-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation