Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 301–307 | Cite as

Douglas Walton: Argument Evaluation and Evidence

Springer, 2016, 286 pp
  • Marcello Di Bello
  • Bart Verheij
Book review

Introduction

Douglas Walton’s Argument Evaluation and Evidence (2016) is an ambitious book. It explores the nature of explanation, expert opinion, knowledge and evidence. Walton makes the case that contemporary methods developed in argumentation theory can help us shed light on these difficult topics. This review summarizes the main themes of the book (Sect. 2) and offers some comments, mostly on the relationship between argumentation theory and contemporary analytic epistemology (Sect. 3).

Summary

Chapter 1 introduces basic concepts from argumentation theory. An argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion, where the premises can support the conclusion (pro arguments) or attack it (con arguments). Arguments can be convergent (i.e. different premises support the same conclusion), divergent (i.e. the same premise supports different conclusions) or serial (i.e. the conclusion of an argument functions as the premise of another argument).

One goal of argumentation theory is to...

References

  1. Austin, J.L. 1946. Other minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 20: 59–69.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L. 1962. Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baltag, A., and B. Renne. 2016. Dynamic epistemic logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  4. Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D.N. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ichikawa, J.J., and M. Steup. 2012. The analysis of knowledge. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  6. Pollock, J.L. 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2): 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Rescher, N. 2003. Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rescher, N. 2005. Epistemic Logic: A Survey of the Logic of Knowledge. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steup, M. 2005. Epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  13. Verheij, B. 2005. Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.Google Scholar
  14. Walton, D.N. 2005. Pragmatic and idealized models of knowledge and ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 42: 59–69.Google Scholar
  15. Walton, D.N., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Lehman CollegeCity University of New YorkBronxUnited States
  2. 2.Artificial IntelligenceRijksuniversiteit GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations