Abstract
In this chapter I first sketch Douglas Walton’s account of argument schemes for presumptive reasoning in his eponymous 1996 book. Then I outline some of what is missing from the account as presented by Walton. I argue that the relation between argumentation and reasoning as it relates to schemes needs to be explained; the problems of classification of schemes within broad types needs to be addressed; a distinction is needed between descriptive and prescriptive schemes; the prescriptive force of prescriptive schemes needs to be accounted for; and the identification of schemes and the “degree of abstraction” problems needs to be addressed. Last, I propose ways of filling in some of the missing pieces. Although I think Walton’s 1966 account is incomplete, and I disagree with some details, I believe it is important, and on the right track.
Reprinted, with permission, from Argumentation, 15(4) (2001), (pp. 365–379).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beardsley, M. C. (1976). Writing with reason, logic for composition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Evanston, IL, Northwestern University.
Kienpointner, M. (1992b). Alltagslogik, Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l’Argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (Trans by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, as The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.)
Pinto, R. C. (1995). The relation of argument to inference. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches, proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. I, pp. 271–286). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Walton, D. N. (1996b). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blair, J.A. (2012). Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. In: Tindale, C. (eds) Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2362-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2363-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)