Abstract
The goal of this essay is two-fold: to make a plea for the theoretical and methodological importance and fruitfulness of meta-argumentation in general, and for approaching from the viewpoint of meta-argumentation a particular topic that is especially relevant for reasons other than methodology and theory. The general aim is pursued by summarizing some past work which follows what I call the historical-textual approach to the study of argumentation, and describing an ongoing project which extends that approach into the new subject matter of meta-argumentation. The historical-textual approach studies actual texts that contain explicit argumentation about historically or perennially significant issues, and reaches or tests theoretical claims based thereupon. The meta-argumentation project proposes to follow the same approach with regard to meta-arguments. These are arguments about arguments, and are distinguished from ground-level arguments. Although they have been studied implicitly in many scholarly works and explicitly in some, they have not been studied systematically. Such a study would be fruitful partly because it would offer an understanding of a special class of arguments. Moreover, it would be a distinctive way of doing argumentation theory in general, since theorizing about arguments is essentially arguing about arguments. Such points are elaborated in the context of summarizing past work that provides analyses, interpretations, and evaluations of the meta-arguments advanced by various argumentation theorists on such topics as: definitions of the concept of argument, methods for the formal criticism of arguments, deep disagreements or intractable quarrels, and conductive arguments or pro-and-con arguments. The particular aim is pursued by motivating the project of a meta-argumentative analysis of a book entitled Apologia (1581), by William of Orange (“the Silent”). William was a leader of the sixteenth-century revolt of the Low Countries against Spain, which resulted in the establishment of the Netherlands as an independent country. In 1580, Philip II, King of Spain, had issued a proclamation calling for the William’s banishment and/or assassination. The Apologia attempts to justify William personally and the Dutch revolt generally against Philip’s arguments. It is significant because it is a classic document in the struggle for freedom of religion, national liberation, and the democratic ideal, and because it anticipates by two centuries the American declaration of independence. This particular “Dutch” project is motivated by conceiving it as a case study of the historical-textual approach, applied to famous meta-arguments; these are classic arguments by famous figures in history which deal with significant issues and which happen to be meta-arguments. In fact, my past studies of famous meta-arguments are encouraging. These have examined: John Stuart Mill’s plea for freedom of thought in On Liberty, chapter 2; Mill’s preliminary argument against the subjection of women and in favor of women’s liberation and equality in The Subjection of Women, chapter 1; and David Hume’s critique of the design argument for the existence of God as the intelligent designer of the universe, in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allen, D. (1990). Trudy Govier’s problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Informal Logic, 12, 43–62.
Allen, D. (1993). Relevance, conduction, and Canada’s rape-shield law. Informal Logic, 15, 105–122.
Barth, E. M. (1985). A new field: Empirical logic. Synthese, 63, 375–388.
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (Eds.). (1992). Logic and political culture. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Barth, E. M., & Martens, J. L. (Eds.). (1982). Argumentation: Approaches to theory formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.). (1980). Informal logic: The first international symposium. Inverness: Edgepress.
Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.). (2011). Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.
Ennis, R. H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy. Informal Logic, 21, 97–140.
Ennis, R. H. (2004). Applying soundness standards to qualified reasoning. Informal Logic, 24, 23–39.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (1980). Galileo and the art of reasoning: Rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method (Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 61). Dordrecht: Reidel [now Springer].
Finocchiaro, M. A. (Ed. & Trans.). (1997). Galileo on the world systems: A new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2006). Reflections on the hyper dialectical definition of argument. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 51–62). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2007a). Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation, 21, 253–268.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2007b). Famous meta-arguments: Part I. Mill and the tripartite nature of argumentation. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & D. M. Godden (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2007c). Mill on liberty of argument: A dialectical approach. In V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed (pp. 121–134). Newport News: Vale Press.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2009). Meta-argumentation in Hume’s critique of the design argument. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09. Windsor: OSSA.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical reasoning in the two affairs (Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 280). Dordrecht: Springer.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2011a). Conductive arguments: A meta-argumentation approach. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 224–261). London: College Publications.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2011b). Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition & community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, May 18–21, 2011. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Fisher, A. (1988). The logic of real arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, A. (2004). The logic of real arguments (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 7, 1–8.
Fogelin, R. J. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 25, 3–11.
Gabbay, D. V., & Ohlbach, H. J. (Eds.). (1996). Practical reasoning. Berlin: Springer.
Geyl, P. (1958). The revolt of the Netherlands, 1555–1609 (2nd ed.). London: Ernest Benn.
Govier, T. (1980). Carl Wellman’s Challenge and response. Informal Logic Newsletter, 2(2), 10–15.
Govier, T. (1985). Logical analogies. Informal Logic, 7, 27–33.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
Govier, T. (1999). The philosophy of argument. Newport News: Vale Press.
Govier, T. (2000). Critical review: Johnson’s Manifest rationality. Informal Logic, 20, 281–291.
Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. (Eds.). (2007). Reason reclaimed. Newport News: Vale Press.
Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., & Godden, D. M. (Eds.). (2007). Dissensus and the search for common ground [CD-ROM]. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. ISBN: 978-0-9683461-5-0.
Hitchcock, D. (1980). Deductive and inductive types of validity. Informal Logic Newsletter, 2(3), 9–10.
Hitchcock, D. (1981). Deduction, induction, and conduction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3(2), 7–15.
Hitchcock, D. (1983). Critical thinking. Toronto: Methuen.
Hitchcock, D. (1994). Validity in conductive arguments. In R. H. Johnson & J. A. Blair (Eds.), New essays in informal logic (pp. 58–66). Windsor: Informal Logic Publications.
Houtlosser, P., & van Laar, J. A. (2007). Metadialogues: Krabbe’s Immanent dialectic. Argumentation, 21, 205–208.
Houtlosser, P., & van Rees, A. (Eds.). (2006). Considering pragma-dialectics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, R. H. (1987). Logic naturalized. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 47–56). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (Eds.). (1994). New essays in informal logic. Windsor: Informal Logic Publications.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1959). Philosophy and argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1978). Validity and rhetoric in philosophical argument. University Park: The Dialogue Press of Man & World.
Komlósi, L. I., Houtlosser, P., & Leezenberg, M. (Eds.). (2003). Communication and culture. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Can we ever pin one down to a formal fallacy? In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation II: Analysis and evaluation (pp. 333–344). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). The dialectic of quasi-logical arguments. In F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 464–471). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F. H. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 641–644). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E. C. W., Dalitz, R. J., & Smit, P. A. (Eds.). (1993). Empirical logic and public debate. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Motley, J. L. (1856). The rise of the Dutch republic: A history. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Motley, J. L. (1860). History of the United Netherlands from the death of William the Silent to the twelve years’ truce, 1609. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Motley, J. L. (1883). The rise of the Dutch republic: A history (3 Vols). New York: Harper & Brothers.
Ritola, J. (Ed.). (2009). Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 [CD-ROM]. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. ISBN 978-0-920233-51-1.
Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scriven, M. (1987). Probative logic. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 7–32). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Suzuki, T., Yano, Y., & Kato, T. (Eds.). (2000). Proceedings of the first Tokyo conference on argumentation. Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
Swart, K. W. (1978). William the Silent and the revolt of the Netherlands. London: Historical Association.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.). (2002). Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (Eds.). (2003). Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.). (1987). Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline: Proceedings of the conference on argumentation, 1986. Dordrecht: Foris.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.). (1995). Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.). (1999). Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 168–171). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie: A dialectical perspective. In T. Suzuki et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Tokyo conference on argumentation (pp. 37–40). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Strategic manoeuvering: William the Silent’s Apologie, a case in point. In L. I. Komlósi et al. (Eds.), Communication and culture: Argumentative, cognitive and linguistic perspectives (pp. 177–185). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wansink, H. (1969). Introduction. In H. Wansink (Ed.), The apologie of Prince William of Orange against the proclamation of the king of Spaine. Leiden: Brill.
Wedgewood, C. V. (1944). William the Silent: William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, 1533–1584. London: Cassell.
Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and response. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
William, Prince of Orange. (1581). The apologie or defence of the most noble Prince William, by the grace of God, Prince of Orange. Delft.
William, Prince of Orange. (1858). Apologie de Guillaume de Nassau, Prince d’Orange, contre l’Édit de Proscription Publié en 1580 par Philippe II, Roi d’Espagne, avec les Documents à l’Appui. Brussels: Émile Flatau.
William, Prince of Orange. (1969). In H. Wansink (Ed.), The apologie of Prince William of Orange against the proclamation of the king of Spaine. Leiden: Brill.
Wohlrapp, H. (1995). Resolving the riddle of the non-deductive argumentation schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation II: Analysis and evaluation (pp. 55–62). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Wohlrapp, H. (1998). A new light on non-deductive argumentation. Argumentation, 12, 341–350.
Wohlrapp, H. (2008). The pro- and contra-discussion (a critique of Trudy Govier’s ‘conductive argument’) (Trans. by F. Zenker from H. Wohlrapp’s Der Begriff des Arguments, chapter 6.4, pp. 316-34). Wuerzburg: Koenigshausen und Neumann. Available at: http://www.frankzenker.de/academia.html
Woods, J. (1992). Public policy and standoffs of force five. In E. M. Barth & E. C. W. Krabbe (Eds.), Logic and political culture (pp. 97–108). Amsterdam/New York: North-Holland.
Woods, J. (1996). Deep disagreements and public demoralization. In D. V. Gabbay & H. J. Ohlbach (Eds.), Practical reasoning (pp. 650–662). Berlin: Springer.
Woods, J., & Hudak, B. (1989). By parity of reasoning. Informal Logic, 11, 125–139.
Zenker, F. (2009). Complexity without insight: Ceteris paribus clauses in conductive argumentation. In S. Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument: Proceedings of the 2007 NCA/AFA conference on argumentation, Alta, Utah (pp. 810–818). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Independently paginated version available at: http://www.frankzenker.de/academia.html.
Zenker, F. (Ed.). (2011). Argumentation: Cognition & community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011 [CD-ROM]. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Finocchiaro, M.A. (2012). Meta-argumentation: Prolegomena to a Dutch Project. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4040-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4041-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)