Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Argumentation theory
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{Short description|Academic field of logic and rhetoric}} [[File:Whatley.png|thumb|Example of an early [[argument map]], from [[Richard Whately]]'s ''Elements of Logic'' (1852 edition)]] '''Argumentation theory''' is the [[interdisciplinary]] study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by [[premise]]s through [[logical reasoning]]. With historical origins in [[logic]], [[dialectic]], and [[rhetoric]], argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, [[dialogue]], [[conversation]], and [[persuasion]]. It studies rules of [[inference]], [[logic]], and procedural rules in both [[Artificial intelligence|artificial]] and real-world settings.<ref>{{cite book |last1=van Eemeren |first1=Frans H. |last2=Grootendorst |first2=Rob |title=A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach |location=New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/systematictheory0000eeme/page/9 9β13] |year=2004 |isbn=0521830753 |oclc=51931118 |url=https://archive.org/details/systematictheory0000eeme/page/9 |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref name=Handbook2014/> Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as [[deliberation]] and [[negotiation]] which are concerned with collaborative [[decision-making]] procedures.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Jory |first=Constanza Ihnen |date=May 2016 |title=Negotiation and deliberation: grasping the difference |journal=Argumentation |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=145β165 [146] |doi=10.1007/s10503-014-9343-1|s2cid=189944698 }}</ref> It also encompasses [[eristic]] dialogue, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and [[didactic]] dialogue used for teaching.<ref name=Handbook2014>{{cite book |last1=van Eemeren |first1=Frans H. |author-link1=Frans H. van Eemeren |last2=Garssen |first2=Bart |last3=Krabbe |first3=Erik C. W. |last4=Snoeck Henkemans |first4=A. Francisca |last5=Verheij |first5=Bart |last6=Wagemans |first6=Jean H. M. |date=2014 |title=Handbook of argumentation theory |location=New York |publisher=[[Springer Verlag]] |pages=65β66 |isbn=9789048194728 |oclc=871004444 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 |quote=At the start of ''Topics'' VIII.5, [[Aristotle]] distinguishes three types of dialogue by their different goals: (1) the truly dialectical debate, which is concerned with training (''gumnasia''), with critical examination (''peira''), or with inquiry (''skepsis''); (2) the didactic discussion, concerned with teaching; and (3) the competitive (eristic, contentious) type of debate in which winning is the only concern.}}</ref> This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |date=1990 |title=What is Reasoning? What Is an Argument? |journal=The Journal of Philosophy |volume=87 |issue=8 |pages=399β419 |doi=10.2307/2026735|jstor=2026735 }}</ref> Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in [[public debate]], [[science]], and [[law]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Palau |first1=Raquel Mochales |last2=Moens |first2=Marie-Francine |title=Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law |chapter=Argumentation mining |date=2009-06-08 |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/1568234.1568246 |series=ICAIL '09 |location=New York, NY, USA |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=98β107 |doi=10.1145/1568234.1568246 |isbn=978-1-60558-597-0|s2cid=1788414 |url=https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/234784 }}</ref> For example in [[law]], in [[Court|courts]] by the [[judge]], the parties and the [[prosecutor]], in presenting and testing the [[Validity (logic)|validity]] of [[Evidence (law)|evidences]]. Also, argumentation scholars study the ''post hoc'' [[Rationalization (psychology)|rationalizations]] by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made [[Irrationality|irrationally]]. Argumentation is one of four [[rhetorical modes]] (also known as ''modes of discourse''), along with [[Exposition (literary technique)|exposition]], [[description]], and [[narrative mode|narration]].
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)