Advertisement

Topoi

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

  • Marcin LewińskiEmail author
Article

Abstract

Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Further, they assume that what we critically test can be analytically reduced to (1) individual and (2) bi-polar standpoints. I argue that these two assumptions lead to the dominant view of dialectics as a bi-partisan argumentative discussion in which the yes-side (proponent) argues against the doubter or the no-side (opponent). I scrutinise this binary orientation in understanding argumentation by drawing on the main tenets of normative pragmatic and pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. I develop my argument by showing how argumentative practice challenges these assumptions. I then lay out theoretical reasons for this challenge. This paves the way for an enhanced conceptualisation of dialectical models and their standards of rationality in terms of multi-party discussions, or argumentative polylogues.

Keywords

Argumentation Diairesis Dialectics Normative pragmatics Polylogue Pragma-dialectics Quine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mark Aakhus, Dima Mohammed, David Godden and two anonymous reviewers for, let us hope, rational polylogical discussion over earlier drafts of this paper. Work on the paper was supported by two Grants of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): SFRH/BPD/74541/2010 and PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014.

References

  1. Aakhus M (2007) Communication as design. Commun Monogr 74(1):112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aakhus M (2013) Deliberation digitized: designing disagreement space through communication information services. J Argum Context 2(1):101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aakhus M, Lewiński M (2015) Toward polylogical analysis of argumentation: disagreement space in the public controversy about fracking. In: Snoeck Henkemans AF, Garssen B, Godden D, Mitchell G (eds) The eighth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (ISSA). SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  4. Alieva O (2010) Elenchus and diairesis in Plato’s Sophist. Hermathena 189:71–91Google Scholar
  5. Apostel L (1981) Is pragmatics or praxeology the foundation of logic? Philosophica 28(2):3–45Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle (1997) Topics. Books I and VIII (trans: intr. and notes by R. Smith). Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Benhabib S (1994) Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy. Constellations 1(1):26–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biezma M, Rawlins K (2012) Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguist Philos 35(5):361–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair JA (1998) The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation 12(3):325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair JA (2012) Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic as related to argument. Philos Rhetoric 45:148–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown L (2010) Definition and division in Plato’s Sophist. In: Charles DOM (ed) Definition in Greek philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finocchiaro MA (2003) Dialectics, evaluation, and argument. Inf Logic 23(1):19–49Google Scholar
  13. Fisher A (2011) Critical thinking: an introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert MA (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  15. Ginzburg J (2011) Questions: logic and interactions. In: van Benthem J, ter Meulen A (eds) Handbook of logic and language, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1133–1146Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin J (2005) The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument. Inf Logic 25(2):151–165Google Scholar
  17. Govier T (2007) Two is a small number: false dichotomies revisited. In: Hansen HV et al (eds) Dissensus and the search for common ground, proceedings of OSSA 8, CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  18. Govier T (2009) More on dichotomization: flip-flops of two mistakes. In: Ritola J (ed) Argument cultures: proceedings of OSSA 9, CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk J, Stokhof M (2011) Questions. In: van Benthem J, ter Meulen A (eds) Handbook of logic and language, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1059–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: reason and the rationalization of society (trans: T. McCarthy). Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Habermas J (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere. (trans: T. Burger and F. Lawrence). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamblin CL (1958) Questions. Aust J Philos 36(3):159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrah D (2002) The logic of questions. In: Gabbay DM, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 8, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson S (1992) “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In: van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard CA (eds) Argumentation illuminated. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 260–269Google Scholar
  26. Jackson S (1998) Disputation by design. Argumentation 12(2):183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobs S (1992) Argumentation without advocacy: strategies for case-building by dispute mediators. In: van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard CA (eds) Argumentation illuminated. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 270–280Google Scholar
  28. Jacobs S (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14(3):261–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs S (2009) Nonfallacious rhetorical design in argumentation. In: van Eemeren FH, Garssen B (eds) Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobs S, Aakhus M (2002) What mediators do with words: implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Confl Resolut Q 20(4):177–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs S, Jackson S (1992) Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: a pragmatic approach. Argumentation 6(2):161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobs S, Jackson S (2006) Derailments of argumentation: it takes two to tango. In: Houtlosser P, van Rees MA (eds) Considering pragma-dialectics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 121–133Google Scholar
  33. Jacquette D (2007) Two sides of any issue. Argumentation 21(2):115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson R (2000) Manifest rationality. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  35. Karttunen L (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguist Philos 1(1):3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kürbis N (2015) What is wrong with classical negation? Grazer Philosophische Studien 92Google Scholar
  37. Krabbe ECW (2006) Logic and games. In: Houtlosser P, van Rees MA (eds) Considering pragma-dialectics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 185–198Google Scholar
  38. Lennox JG (1994) Aristotelian problems. Ancient Philos 14:53–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewiński M (2010) Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argum Advocacy 47(2):86–105Google Scholar
  40. Lewiński M (2013) Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: sides, positions, and cases. J Argum Context 2(1):151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewiński M (2014a) Argumentative polylogues: beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Stud Logic Gramm Rhetoric 36(1):193–218Google Scholar
  42. Lewiński M (2014b) Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 8:1–20Google Scholar
  43. Lewiński M, Aakhus M (2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: a methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28(2):161–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewiński M, Mohammed D (2015) Tweeting the Arab Spring: argumentative polylogues in digital media. In: Palczewski C (ed) Disturbing argument: selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta conference on argumentation. Routledge, New York, pp 291–297Google Scholar
  45. Maier R (1989) Argumentation: a multiplicity of regulated rational interactions. In: Maier R (ed) Norms of argumentation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 123–141Google Scholar
  46. McKeon R (1954) Dialectic and political thought and action. Ethics 65(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Keefe DJ (1977) Two concepts of argument. J Am Forensic Assoc 13(3):121–128Google Scholar
  48. Plato (1921) Theaetetus. Sophist (transl. H. N. Fowler). Loeb Classical Library, 123. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Plumer G (2011) Novels as arguments. In: van Eemeren FH, Garssen B, Godden D, Mitchell G (eds) Proceedings of the seventh conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (ISSA). SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 1547–1558Google Scholar
  50. Quine WV (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. Philos Rev 60(1):20–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quine WV, Ullian JS (1970) The web of belief. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Rahwan S, Keiff L (2005) On how to be a dialogician. In: Vanderveken D (ed) Logic, thought and action. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 359–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rehg W (2005) Assessing the cogency of arguments: three kinds of merits. Inf Logic 25(2):95–115Google Scholar
  54. Rumfitt I (2000) “Yes” and “no”. Mind 109:781–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmidtz D (1995) Rational choice and moral agency. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  56. Spranzi M (2011) The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aristotelian tradition. John Benjamins, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: a theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Foris, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1988) Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2(2):271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Jackson S, Jacobs S (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  61. Walton DN (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  62. Walton DN (2006) How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artif Intell Law 14(3):177–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  64. Wenzel JW (1979) Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. J Am Forensic Assoc 16:83–94Google Scholar
  65. Wenzel JW (1990) Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In: Schuetz J, Trapp R (eds) Perspectives on argumentation: essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede. Waveland, Prospect Heights, pp 9–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA), FCSHUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations