Argumentation

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 485–511 | Cite as

Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing Epistemic Risk

Article
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

Standards and norms for reasoning function, in part, to manage epistemic risk. Properly used, modal qualifiers like presumably have a role in systematically managing epistemic risk by flagging and tracking type-specific epistemic merits and risks of the claims they modify. Yet, argumentation-theoretic accounts of presumption often define it in terms of modalities of other kinds, thereby failing to recognize the unique risk profile of each. This paper offers a stipulative account of presumption, inspired by Ullmann-Margalit (J Philos 80:143–163, 1983), as an inferentially generated modal qualifier, “presumably, p,” distinguishing it from other, particularly epistemic modalities, e.g., standing commitments, assumptions, assertions, suppositions, hypotheses, and defeasible claims. By avoiding the tranching of inferential instruments of qualitatively different bona fides and risk profiles, this account provides a more accurate risk-rating system that better manages epistemic risk in inference, as well as contributing to the normative theory of the operation of presumption in reasoning and argument.

Keywords

Assumption Epistemic modality Epistemic norms Hypothesis Inferential norms Modal qualifier Presumption Presumptive inference Qualifier 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the international workshop, Presumptions, Presumptive Inferences, and Burdens of Proof, on April 27, 2016, at the Carmen de la Victoria, University of Granada in Granada, Spain, under the title “Towards an informal logic of presumptive inference.” Travel for that presentation was supported by Michigan State University’s College of Arts and Letters, and International Studies and Programs. I thank the workshop participants for their comments and discussion, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticisms. For all its remaining faults, the paper was markedly improved as a result of these welcome engagements. Most importantly, I offer my sincere thanks to Cristina Corredor and Lilian Bermejo-Luque, for organizing and hosting the workshop and for guest-editing this special issue of Argumentation.

References

  1. Aijaz, I., J. McKeown-Green, and A. Webster. 2013. Burdens of proof and the case for unevenness. Argumentation 27: 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bermejo-Luque, L. 2016. Being a correct presumption vs. being presumably the case. Informal Logic 36: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonjour, L. 1978. Can empirical knowledge have a foundation? American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 281–312.Google Scholar
  4. BonJour, L. 1985. The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  5. Brandom, R. 1994. Making it explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  6. Campolo, C. 2005. Treacherous ascents: On seeking common ground for conflict resolution. Informal Logic 25: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, L.J. 1992. An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dare, T., and J. Kingsbury. 2008. Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate? Southern Journal of Philosophy 46: 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, J.B. 2005. Acceptable premises. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  10. Godden, D. 2010. The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese 172: 397–414. doi: 10.1007/s11229-008-9398-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godden, D. 2015. Review of D. Walton Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 7: 91–107.Google Scholar
  12. Godden, D., and D. Walton. 2007. A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition 15: 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman, A. 1980. The internalist conception of justification. In Studies in epistemology: Midwest studies in philosophy, vol. 5, ed. P. French, et al., 27–51. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. The burden of proof and its role in argumentation. Argumentation 21: 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen, H.V. 2003. Theories of presumptions and burdens of proof. In Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, ed. J.A. Blair et al. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).Google Scholar
  16. Kauffeld, F. 1995. On the difference between assumptions and presumptions. In Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. S. Jackson, 509–514. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  17. Kauffeld, F. 2003. The ordinary practice of presuming and presumption with special attention to veracity and the burden of proof. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, et al., 133–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kauffeld, F. 2009. Presuming and presumption in everyday argumentation: A response to Godden and Walton. In Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM, ed. J. Ritola, 1–13. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
  19. Laudan, L. 2006. Truth, error and criminal law. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macagno, F. 2010. Dialectical and heuristic arguments: Presumptions and burden of proof. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning, ed. C. Reed, and C. Tindale, 45–57. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2012. Presumptions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 25: 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pinto, R.C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: collected papers on informal logic with an introduction by Hans V. Hansen. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakken, H. 2004. Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability & Risk 3: 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rescher, N. 2006. Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stalnaker, R. [1974] 1999. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  27. Toulmin, S. [1958] 2003. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  28. Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1983. On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 80: 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walton, D. 1992. The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP.Google Scholar
  30. Walton, D. 1993. The speech act of presumption. Pragmatics & Cognition 1: 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Walton, D. 2008. A dialogical theory of presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16: 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walton, D. 2014. Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whatley, R. [1846] 1963. Elements of rhetoric, 7th ed. ed. D. Ehninger. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations