Skip to main content

The Agentive Approach to Argumentation: A Proposal

  • 893 Accesses

Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA,volume 28)

Abstract

The main goal of this paper is to outline an agent-centered theory of argumentation. Our working hypothesis is that the aim of argumentation depends upon the agenda agents are disposed to close or advance. The novelty of this idea is that our theory, unlike the main accounts of argumentation (i.e., rhetorical, dialogical and epistemological theories of argumentation), does not establish an a priori function that agents are expected to achieve when arguing. Instead, we believe that the aims of argumentation depend upon the purposes agents are disposed to achieve (i.e., their agendas).

Keywords

  • Standard Function
  • Justify Belief
  • Resolution Condition
  • Belief Formation
  • Agentive Performance

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_4
  • Chapter length: 15 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-21103-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is a remarkable difference between Gabbay and Woods’s and Niño’s approaches. While in Gabbay and Woods’s proposal, the agenda is understood as the aim plus the plan for its realization, in Niño’s account, the agenda is just the objective, and it is distinguished from its conditions of resolution. As a consequence, while in the former, if something is not planned, it is not an agenda, in the latter, everything that appears as an aim for an agent, either deliberately planned or not, is recognized as an agenda.

  2. 2.

    A previous version of these types of agendas was proposed in Niño (2013, pp. 233–236).

  3. 3.

    Here we are paraphrasing one of the main concerns that Lumer had about our proposal at the ISSA conference in 2014. We strongly appreciate his insightful ideas.

References

  • Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 85–103). Amsterdam: SicSat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, A. (2004). Arguments and its uses. Informal Logic, 24(2), 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doury. M. (2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees? Argumentation, 26(1), 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, R. (1994). Good arguments. In: F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology. The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 159–188). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, D. & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction: Insight and trial. A practical logic of cognitive systems (Vol. 2). Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, D. & Woods, J. (2003). Agenda relevance: A study of formal pragmatics. A practical logic of cognitive systems (Vol. 1). Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and other dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lumer, C. (1990). Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theoretische Grundlagen, Praktische Begründung und Regeln Wichtiger Argumentionsarten. Braunscheweig: Viewe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumer, C. (1991). Structure and function of argumentations. An epistemological approach to determining criteria for the validity and adequacy of argumentations. In F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. Blair & C. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 98–107). Amsterdam: Sicsat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumer, C. (2005). The epistemological theory of argument—how and why? Informal Logic, 25(3), 213–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niño, D. (2013). Agentes y circunstancias. Consideraciones en torno a factores epistémicos y fiduciarios en la argumentación intercultural. In C. Martinez (Ed.), Cuatro aproximaciones al dialogo argumentativo intercultural (pp. 187–246). Bogotá, Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niño, D. (2015). Elementos de semiótica agentiva. Bogotá: Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1903). The logic of abduction. In The Peirce Edition Project (Eds.) The essential Peirce (Vol. 2, pp. 226–241). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perleman, C., & Olbrecht-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, T. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H., & Biro, J. (1997). Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies. Argumentation, 11, 277–292.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Voelkel, J. (2001). The composition of Kepler’s Astronomia nova. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical approach.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J. (2013). Errors of reasoning: Naturalizing the logic inference. Milton Keynes: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Niño .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Niño, D., Marrero, D. (2015). The Agentive Approach to Argumentation: A Proposal. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_4

Download citation