Argumentation

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 277–286

Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument

  • Leo Groarke
Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for both claims, and possible objections to his analysis.

deductivism formal deductive logic kisceral arguments natural language deductivism Ralph Johnson the metaphysics of argument visual arguments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Birdsell, David and Leo Groarke: 1996, ‘Toward a Theory of Visual Argument’, Argumentation and Advocacy 33.Google Scholar
  2. Gerritsen, Suzanne: 1994, ‘A Defence of Deductivism in Reconstructing Unexpressed Premises’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, pp. 00.Google Scholar
  3. Gilbert, Michael: 1997, Coalescent Argumentation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Govier, Trudy: 1987, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Groarke, Leo: 1992, ‘In Defense of Deductivism: Replying to Govier’, in Frans van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, International Society for the Study of Argument, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Groarke, Leo: 1995, ‘What Pragma-dialectics Can Learn from Deductivism, and What Deductivism Can Learn from Pragma-dialectics’, in F. H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles Willard (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation, Vol.II, International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, pp. 00.Google Scholar
  7. Groarke, Leo: 1999a, ‘The Fox and the Hedgehog: On Logic, Argument and Argumentation Theory’, ProtoSocioloty 13, 29–45.Google Scholar
  8. Groarke, Leo: 1999b, ‘Deductivism Within Pragma-Dialectics’, Argumentation 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Groarke, Louis: 2000, ‘A Deductive Account of Induction’, Science et Esprit 52 Google Scholar
  10. Russell, D. A.: 1983, Greek Declamation, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst: 1992, Agrumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  12. Willard, Charles A.: 1989, A Theory of Argumentation, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leo Groarke
    • 1
  1. 1.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityBrantfordCanada

Personalised recommendations