, 22:437

Black Box Arguments



“Black box argument” is a metaphor for modular components of argumentative discussion that are, within a particular discussion, not open to expansion. In public policy debate such as the controversy over abstinence-only sex education, scientific conclusions enter the discourse as black boxes consisting of a result returned from an external and largely impenetrable process. In one way of looking at black box arguments, there is nothing fundamentally new for the argumentation theorist: A black box argument is very like any other appeal to authority, and what might be said about any particular form of black box will turn out to be a particularized version of what might be said about evaluating arguments based on authority. But in another way of looking at black box arguments, they are a constantly evolving technology for coming to conclusions and making these conclusions broadly acceptable. Black boxes are to argumentation what material inventions are to engineering and related sciences. They are anchored in and constrained by fundamental natural processes, but they are also new things that require theoretical explication and practical assessment.


Politicization of science Controversy Abstinence-only sex education 


  1. Jackson, S. 1989. Method as argument. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. B. Gronbeck, 1–8. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  2. Jackson, S. 1992. “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argumentation Illuminated, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and Ch.A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  3. Jackson, S., and D. Brashers. 2002. Assessing the problem validity of argumentation templates: Statistical rules of thumb. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of The International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 547–552. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  4. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 2006. Designing countermoves to questionable argumentative tactics. In Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: Views from the Venice Argumentation Conference. ed. F.H. van Eemeren, M.D. Hazen, P. Houtlosser, and D.C. Williams, 83–100. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  6. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 1982. Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J.R. Cox and Ch.A. Willard, 205–237. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 1989. Building a model of conversational argument. In Rethinking communication: Paradigm exemplars, ed. B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe, and E. Wartella, 153–171. Beverly Hills/Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McCloskey, D.N. 1985. The rhetoric of economics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  11. Underhill, K., P. Montgomery, and D. Operario. 2007. Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: a systematic review. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 335: 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.Google Scholar
  13. Walton, D.N. 1989. Appeals to authority. In Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation (Chap. 7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Willard, Ch.A. 1990. On authority. Informal Logic, 12: 11–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignILUSA

Personalised recommendations