Walton Chap. 1 “What is an Argument?
The standard definitions of argument are too narrow.
The fact that arguments are often used to refute to refute or question a claim is ignored.
Hypothetical arguments are ignored
Indirect proofs are not considered
Context is ignored
Distinctions are not made among “inference”, “reasoning”, and “argument”
“Quarrel” is typically excluded
1.Textbook Definitions
A variety of textbook definitions of argument are examined.
a. Copi and Cohen
A group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as
providing support or grounds for the truth of that one
b. Govier
An argument is a set of claims that a person puts forward in an attempt to show that some further
claim is rationally acceptable. Typically, people present arguments to try to persuade others to
accept claims. The evidence or reasons put forward in defense of a claim are called the premises
of an argument. An argument may have several premises, or it may have only one. The claim
being defended in the argument is called its conclusion. An argument, then, is composed of one
or more premises and a conclusion.
c.
Casullo
A group of statements, some of which purportedly provide support for another. The statements
which purportedly provide the support are the premises while the statement purportedly
supported is the conclusion. Arguments are typically divided into two categories depending on
the degree of support they purportedly provide. Deductive arguments purportedly provide
conclusive support for their conclusions while inductive arguments purportedly provide only
probable support. Some, but not all, arguments succeed in providing support for their
conclusions.
d. Freeman
When we use the word argument in this book, we mean a message which attempts to establish a
statement as true or worthy of belief on the basis of other statements. Persons putting forward
arguments present certain claims, make certain assertions, which they hope their audience will
simply accept. They also put forward some further statement as being supported by these
accepted claims.. There is, thus, a further claim that because we accept the first statements, we
should accept the latter. The former give evidence, justification, support for the later. There are
thus two radically different roles which a statement may play in an argument. A reason for some
other statement is a premise. A statement defended by some other statement or statements is a
conclusion. Arguments, then, involve these three factors: premises, conclusions, and a claim that
the premises support the conclusions.
e. Soccio and Barry
As used in the study of logic, an argument is any of a group of propositions (truth claims), one of
which is claimed to follow logically from the others. The key phrase is ‘follow logically from.’ For
a group of propositions to be an argument, one of them must be claimed to follow logically from
the others.
f.
Carney and Scheer
Logic is primarily concerned with arguments; it attempts to provide methods to distinguish
between correct and incorrect arguments. An argument consists of a set of statements offered as
reasons for another statement. The set of statements offered as reasons is called the premises
of the argument. The statement for which the reasons are offered is called the conclusion of the
argument.
g. Gustason and Ulrich
For our purposes an argument may be characterized as a sequence of sentences of which one -the conclusion of the argument – is marked off as following from the others – which are the
premises of the argument.
h. Packard and Falconer
An argument (in standard form) is defined as a sequence of statements, called assumptions,
followed by the word so and a statement called the conclusion.
i.
Kahane
An argument consists of one or more sentences, called premises of the argument, offered in
support of another sentence, called the argument’s conclusion.
j.
Hurley
An argument, as it occurs in logic, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises)
are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion).
2.Reasoning in Argument
The Amsterdam School offers a definition of argument that permits both the justification and
refutation of opinions. This definition is also more explicitly dialectical than those considered
previously.
(1) The speaker has advanced an opinion O.
(2) The speaker has put forward a series of assertions S1, S2,…., Sn.
(3) Advancing S1, S2,…., Sn counts as an attempt by the speaker to convince the hearer O is
acceptable.
(4) The speaker believes that the hearer does not already accept O, but will accept S1,
S2,…., Sn as justification for O.
(5) The speaker believes that O and S1, S2,…., Sn are acceptable, and that S1, S2,…., Sn
justify O.
Brief consideration is given to the relationship between argument and reasoning
3.Hypothetical Arguments
There is hypothetical reasoning. Are there hypothetical arguments? One position is that there is
hypothetical reasoning and inference, but not hypothetical arguments. For anyone who accepts
that there are hypothetical arguments the definitions of sections 1 and 2 need to be broadened.
4.Reductio Ad Absurdum
In a reductio or indirect proof arguments the negation of the conclusion is assumed and shown to
imply a contradiction. This presents problems for the definitions considered.
Walton proposes a new definition:
a. An argument is a sequence of reasoning, that is, a set of propositions, in which some
propositions (conclusions) are inferred from others (premises).
b. There is an issue (determined by the context of dialogue in which the argument was
used) to be settled.
c.
The reasoning is being used (or can later be used, in the case of hypothetical arguments)
to contribute to the settling of an issue.
The unsettledness can take six basic forms:
1.
conflict of opinions
2.
conflict of interests
3.
lack of definitive determination of truth
4.
choice with insufficient evidence
5.
lack of information
6.
grievance between individuals that has not been articulated into words
Contrast between argument and explanation is whether the claim under discussion is regarded as
settled or not. If settled—explanation. If not – argument. Both involve inferences and reasoning.
5.The Probative Function
One of the most important uses of an argument is the probative function, whereby the premises
are used to give evidence that will shift forward and transfer to the conclusion, making the
conclusion acceptable or evident to the respondent, in a way or to a level that it was not before.
However, this is not the only function of argument.
6.The Dialectical Context
What we should be looking for, when we are seeking to identify an argument is a proposition that
is unsettled, that is, open to contention or discussion, so that considerations can be brought for or
against it in a dialogue.
There are numerous types of dialogues.
a. critical discussion or persuasion
b. negotiation
c.
mixed dialogues
d. inquiry
e. deliberation
f.
eristic or quarrel
g. information seeking
7.The Concepts of Argument and Explanation
There are no generally agreed upon definitions for either argument or explanation.
Argument
Logicians look at argument from a semantic point of view that sees as an argument as consisting
of propositions having truth-values (or probabilities) and relationships that depend on these
values.
In speech communication argument is a social or verbal activity governed by rules of politeness
appropriate for a particular type of conversation.
Walton is proposing a functional view that attempts to do justice to both of the previous
viewpoints.
Explanation
There is little agreement about the proper definition for explanation. Scientific and everyday
explanations are different.
Distinction for our purpose
Both arguments and explanations contain reasoning, but the reasoning is used for different
purposes. The purpose of argument is to settle an open issue. The purpose of an explanation is
to take something unfamiliar and make it make sense by relating it to something familiar.
8.The Ad Populum Fallacy
A fallacy is a deceptive, erroneous, or otherwise incorrect move in argumentation. If a person is
not arguing, but doing something else, it could be inappropriate and misleading to accuse him or
her of committing a fallacy, or of arguing wrongly.
A conditional criticism could be given.
9.The Fallacy of Begging the Question
Circular reasoning is not itself fallacious, unless the circular reasoning is used in an argument that
fails to, yet is supposed to, fulfill the probative function in a context of dialogue. Thus, the fallacy
of petitio principii is a pragmatic failure relating to how an argument is used, and its evaluation
depends on what structure the argument is supposed to have.
10.Towards a Pragmatic Concept of Argument
When dealing with the identification, diagramming, and evaluation of arguments the semantic
conception is a narrow way to view the concept of argument.
There is an important distinction to be made between an argument and a successful (good,
correct, reasonable) argument. Not all arguments are correct (good, valid). Burden of proof in a
context of dialogue implements a standard for success of an argument in realizing its goal. There
is also an important distinction to be made between an argument that is effective in persuading
the respondent successfully, and an argument that is correct, meaning that it is valid or sound
(the normative criterion of correctness) or that meets the appropriate burden of proof in a context
(pragmatic criterion of correctness).