Advertisement

The Role of Logic in Analyzing and Evaluating Argumentation

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

What is the relationship between logic and argumentation theory? The answer to this question depends, of course, to a large extent on the way in which logic and argumentation theory are conceived and defined. Opting for different concepts of logic and argumentation theory could result in the view that there is no relationship at all, that logic and argumentation theory are the same, that logic is part of argumentation theory, that argumentation theory is part of logic, or that some more complex variant of either of these possibilities prevails. Acknowledging that other choices can be made, I start my attempt to answer the question about the relationship between logic and argumentation theory with a general indication of my understanding of logic and argumentation theory.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Propositional Content Argument Scheme Argumentation Theory Logical Minimum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andone, C. (2010). Maneuvering strategically in a political interview. Analyzing and evaluating responses to an accusation of inconsistency. Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  2. Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  3. Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, R., & Blair, J. A. (1994). Logical self-defence. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1st ed. 1977).Google Scholar
  5. Mohammed, D. (2009). The Honourable Gentleman should make up his mind. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. van Benthem, J. (2009). One logician’s perspective on argumentation. Cogency, 1(2), 13–25.Google Scholar
  7. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuverting in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Haaften, T. van, Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2012). Handbook of argumentation theory. An overview of classical and neo-classical perspectictives on argumentation and modern theoretical approaches to argumentative discourse. Dordrecht: Springer. (to be published).Google Scholar
  9. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., with Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, Ch., Walton, D. N., Willard, Ch. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations