Argument Management, Informal Logic and Critical Thinking

Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 21)

Abstract

This chapter maps the three concepts named in its title. It argues that there is reason to try to locate informal logic, critical thinking and argumentation studies in relation to one another. In general, such mapping of related concepts shares the feature of normative lexicography that it is quasi-normative, quasi-empirical. The aim is to suggest how the concepts in question ought to be seen to relate to one another, but any normative proposals should also be in touch with actual usage. The chapter first describes argument management as one way of understanding informal logic. There follows an account of the logical heart of argumentation, which identifies another way of understanding informal logic. Then critical thinking is related to those possible mappings of informal logic.

Keywords

Informal logic Critical thinking Argumentation Argument analysis Argument evaluation Conceptual mapping 

References

  1. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.). (1980). Informal logic, the first international symposium. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.Google Scholar
  2. Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (1990). Introduction to logic (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, S. (Ed.). (1991). Pragmatics, a reader. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Reprint, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1982). A rhetoric of argument. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  8. Fogelin, R. J. (1978). Understanding arguments, an introduction to informal logic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  9. Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Govier, T. (1992). A practical study of argument (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  11. Grice, P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words, Ch. 2 (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view, principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hoaglund, J. (1984). Critical thinking, an introduction to infromal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jeffrey, R. (1981). Formal logic, its scope and limits (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1993). Logical self-defense (3rd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1994a). Logical self-defense (United States ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (Eds.). (1994b). New essays in informal logic. Windsor, ON: Informal Logic.Google Scholar
  18. Kahane, H. (1995). Logic and contemporary rhetoric (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  19. Pinto, R. C. (1995). The relation of argument to inference. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches, proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. I, pp. 271–286). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  20. Ryle, G. (1954). Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Salmon, W. C. (1988). Deductivism visited and revisited. In A. Grünbaum & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), The limitations of deductivism (pp. 95–127). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Scriven, M. (1986). Probative logic: Review and preview. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation across the lines of discipline (pp. 7–32). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  24. Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Skyrms, B. (1966). Choice and chance, an introduction to inductive logic (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Dickenson.Google Scholar
  26. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  27. Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  28. Suppe, F. (1988). A non-deductivist approach to theoretical explanation. In A. Grünbaum & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), The limitations of deductivism (pp. 128–166). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, S. N. (1986). Practical reasoning in natural language (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Weddle, Perry. (1978). Argument, a guide to critical thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1982). Argument, the logic of the fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
  32. Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice. October.Google Scholar
  33. Walton, D. N. (1992a). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric, University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations