Editing Argumentation theory (section)

== Kinds of argumentation ==

===Conversational argumentation===
{{Main article|Conversation analysis|Discourse analysis}}
The study of naturally occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called ''conversation analysis'' (CA). Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist [[Harvey Sacks]] and, among others, his close associates [[Emanuel Schegloff]] and [[Gail Jefferson]]. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.<ref>Psathas, George (1995): Conversation Analysis, Thousand Oaks: Sage Sacks, Harvey. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishing. {{ISBN|1-55786-705-4}}. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simple systematic for the organization of [[turn-taking]] for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ten Have, Paul (1999): Doing Conversation Analysis. A Practical Guide, Thousand Oaks: Sage.</ref> It is particularly influential in [[interactional sociolinguistics]], discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine [[Phonetics|phonetic]] details of speech.

Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.

===Mathematical argumentation===
{{Main article|Philosophy of mathematics}}

The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. [[Frege]] in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, [[The Foundations of Arithmetic]], 1884, and ''[[Begriffsschrift]]'', 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, [[logical truth]]s.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Boolos|first1=George|title=Logic, logic, and logic|date=1999|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge, Mass.|isbn=9780674537675|edition=2nd print.|chapter=Chapter 9: Gottlob Frege and the Foundations of Arithmetic}}</ref> The project was developed by [[Bertrand Russell|Russell]] and [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead]] in their ''[[Principia Mathematica]]''. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in [[symbolic logic]], then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This was carried out for arithmetic using [[Peano axioms]], and the foundation most commonly used for most modern mathematics is [[Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory]], with or without the [[Axiom of Choice]]. Be that as it may, an argument in mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid only if it can be shown that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

===Scientific argumentation===
{{Main article|Philosophy of science|Rhetoric of science}}

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross's ''The Rhetoric of Science'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990). Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder",<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Rhetoric of Science|last=Gross|first=Alan|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1990|isbn=978-0674768734|pages=33}}</ref> meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the [[foundationalism]] on which argumentation was first based.

===Interpretive argumentation===
{{Main article|Interpretive discussion}}

Interpretive argumentation is a dialogical process in which participants [[divergent thinking|explore]] and/or [[convergent thinking|resolve]] interpretations often of a [[text (literary theory)|text]] of any medium containing significant [[ambiguity]] in meaning.

Interpretive argumentation is pertinent to [[humanities|the humanities]], [[hermeneutics]], [[literary theory]], [[linguistics]], [[semantics]], [[pragmatics]], [[semiotics]], [[analytic philosophy]] and [[Analytic philosophy#Aesthetics|aesthetics]].  Topics in [[Interpretation (philosophy)#Conceptual interpretations|conceptual interpretation]] include [[Aesthetic interpretation|aesthetic]], [[Judicial interpretation|judicial]], [[Logical interpretation|logical]] and [[Religious interpretation|religious]] interpretation.  Topics in [[Interpretation (philosophy)#Scientific interpretation|scientific interpretation]] include [[scientific modeling]].

===Legal argumentation===
====By lawyers====
{{Main article|Oral argument|Closing argument}}

Legal arguments are spoken presentations to a [[judge]] or [[appellate court]] by a [[lawyer]], or parties when representing themselves of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument, or summation, is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the [[trier of fact]], often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.

====By judges====
{{Main articles|Judicial opinion|Legal opinion|Ratio decidendi}}
A [[judicial opinion]] or [[legal opinion]] is in certain [[jurisdiction]]s a written explanation by a [[judge]] or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case, laying out the [[Justification (epistemology)|rationale (justification)]] and [[Legal doctrine|legal principles]] for the ruling.<ref name=KerrCM>{{cite web |url=http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Courts/howtoreadv2.pdf |title=How to Read a Judicial Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students |author= Orin S. Kerr |date=August 2005 |publisher=Carnegie Mellon; Computation Organizations & Society |access-date=15 March 2016}}</ref> It cites the [[Case law|decision]] reached to [[wikt:resolve|resolve]] the dispute. A judicial opinion usually includes the [[Reason (argument)|reasons]] behind the decision.<ref name=KerrCM/> Where there are three or more judges, it may take the form of a [[majority opinion]], [[minority opinion]] or a [[concurring opinion]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judicial-opinion.html |title=judicial opinion |website=businessdictionary.com |access-date=15 March 2016 |archive-date=9 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160609075543/http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judicial-opinion.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Political argumentation===
{{Main article|Political argument}}

Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events.<ref>Michael McGee. "The 'Ideograph' as a Unit of Analysis in Political Argument." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, eds. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.</ref> The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. Political scientist [[Samuel L. Popkin]] coined the expression "[[low information voter]]s" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.

In practice, a "[[low information voter]]" may not be aware of legislation that their representative has [[Sponsor (legislative)|sponsored]] in Congress.  A low-information voter may base their [[ballot box]] decision on a media sound-bite, or a flier received in the mail.  It is possible for a media sound-bite or campaign flier to present a political position for the [[incumbent]] candidate that completely contradicts the legislative action taken in the Capitol on behalf of the constituents.  It may only take a small percentage of the overall voting group who base their decision on the inaccurate information to form a voter bloc large enough to swing an overall election result.  When this happens, the constituency at large may have been duped or fooled.  Nevertheless, the election result is legal and confirmed.  Savvy [[political consulting|Political consultants]] will take advantage of low-information voters and sway their votes with [[disinformation]] and [[fake news]] because it can be easier and sufficiently effective.  [[Fact checker]]s have come about in recent years to help counter the effects of such campaign tactics.