, Volume 172, Issue 3, pp 397–414 | Cite as

The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion

  • David M. GoddenEmail author


This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.


Acceptance Argumentation Belief Commitment Difference of opinion Resolution of a difference of opinion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barth E.M., Krabbe E.C.W. (1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logic and argumentation. Berlin and New York, Walter de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen L.J. (1992) An essay on belief and acceptance. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Davidson D. (1980) Actions, reasons and causes. In: Davidson D. (eds) Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  4. Engel P. (1998) Believing, holding true, and accepting. Philosophical Explorations 2: 141–151Google Scholar
  5. Engel P. (2000) Introduction: The varieties of belief and acceptance. In: Engel P. (eds) Believing and accepting. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  6. Foley R. (2001) Intellectual trust in oneself and others. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geach P.T. (1957) Mental acts: Their content and their objects. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodwin J. (2007) Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27: 69–90Google Scholar
  9. Hamblin, C. C. (1970). Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press (orig. pub. Methuen.)Google Scholar
  10. Hume D. (1975) Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Lorenzen, P. (1960). Logic und Agon. In Atti del XII Congresso Internazionale di Filosofia (Venezia, 12–18 Settembre 1958), IV: Logica, lionguaggio e communicazione (pp. 187–194). Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
  12. Paglieri F., Castelfranchi C. et al (2006) Belief and acceptance in argumentation: Towards an epistemological taxonomy of the uses of argument. In: Eemeren F.H. (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Argumentation, forthcoming. SicSat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Pinto R.C. (2001) Generalizing the notion of argument. In: Hansen H.V. (eds) Argument, inference and dialectic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 10–20Google Scholar
  14. Pinto, R. C. (2003). The uses of argument in communicative contexts. In J. Anthony Blair, et al. (eds). Informal Logic @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.Google Scholar
  15. Ramsey F. (1931) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Searle J. (1979) Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discourse. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma- dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscalosa, ABGoogle Scholar
  21. van Eemeren F.H. et al (1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. Walton D., Krabbe E.C.W. (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Woodfield A. (2000) Commitments defined with the help of public concepts. In: Engel P. (eds) Believing and accepting. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 221–242Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations