Abstract
The thesis of the chapter is that there is less disagreement and theoretical conflict on the current argumentation scene than some have thought to exist. In order to find where opportunities for integration might be fruitful, I consider where conflict and incompatibility have been thought to exist. Some of those historical antagonisms include: different conceptions of argument, and of argumentation; formal logic vs. argumentation and informal logic; logic vs. rhetoric vs. dialectic; Pragma-Dialectics vs. informal logic; emotion, intuition and logic I will examine these antagonisms or ambitions, seeking common ground, or possibilities for coexistence. In some cases, apparently conflicting conceptions are just different; in some cases what have been taken to be conflicts between theories are disagreements, sure enough, but not clashes of deep theoretical perspective; in some cases perceived incompatibilities are compatible. I illustrate a few ways in which argument theory integration might be carried out.
Reprinted, with permission, from C.A. Willard (Ed.), Critical Problems in Argumentation. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2005. (Selected papers from the 13th Biennial Conference on Argumentation sponsored by the American Forensics Association and the National Communication Association, Alta, Utah 29 July–2 August, 2003.)
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
Audi, R. (1989). Practical reasoning. New York: Routledge.
Blair, J. A. (1998). The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation, 12(2), 325–339.
Blair, J. A. (2001). Walton’s argument schemes for presumptive reasoning: a critique and development. Argumentation, 15, 365–379.
Blair, J. A. (2003). ‘Argument’ and ‘logic’ in philosophy. In H. V. Hansen & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Proceedings of 2001 OSSA conference (pp. 1–15). Windsor, ON: Informal Logic, CD ROM.
de Sousa, R. (1987). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
Govier, T. (1999a). The philosophy of argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Govier, T. (1999b). Reasoning with pros and cons: conductive arguments revisited. In T. Govier (Ed.), The philosophy of argument (pp. 155–180). Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Groarke, L. (1995). What pragma-dialectics can learn from deductivism and what weductivism can learn from pragma-dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation, Proceedings of the 3rd ISSA conference on argumentation (pp. 138–145). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Groarke, L. (1999). Deductivism within pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 13(1), 1–16.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Johnson, R. H. (2000a). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1980). The recent development of informal logic. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Informal logic, the first international symposium (pp. 3–28). Inverness, CA: Edgepress.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13(3), 121–128.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Solomon, R. C. (1977). The passions, the myth and nature of human emotion. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996a). Argument structure, a pragmatic theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996b). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on arguments: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation, essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Blair, J. A. (1999). Presumptive reasoning/argument: An overlooked class. In D. Mans (Ed.), Protosociology, Special issue on Argumentation and Reasoning.
Random House Dictionary of the English Language. (1967). Unabridged edition. New York: Random House.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984). The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington Publishers Inc.
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). A Time for Argument Theory Integration. 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_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_15
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)