Page 261 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 261
taking judges seriously 261
plex operation which can be accomplished in accordance with either, or
even partially both, of the parties’ proposals, in a way that I am going to
consider shortly. At this point in his/her decisional process, the judge’s
choice depends on a series of logical moves that I will try to summarize
as follows (supposing the judge asking him/herself a progressive set of
questions):
1. plausibility check: to what extent are the standpoints of the parties
really authoritative?
To establish its standpoint each party has adopted one or more start-
ing points validated by common or expert beliefs, based on shared
values, arranged in a certain order of importance, assisted by a cer-
tain degree of evidence etc. It is clear that points like these aim at
being more than simple opinions (doxai): they aspire to be the most
plausible ones (endoxa) (Cavalla, 1992). So the task of the judge will
be to check if in fact they are so (are they really shared? by whom?
still today? in the way specified by the arguer? etc.).
2. coherence check: are the starting points in each party’s discourse logi-
cally connected with one another? Is the conclusion of the discourse
consistent with its starting points?
It might be the case that the standpoint is predicated upon solid
opinions (endoxa), but that these opinions are linked together in a
wrong or questionable way, so that the conclusion is not correct or at
least not the only one possible.
3. dialectical check: which discourse, compared to the other, is more
consistent?
As I have noted previously, this argumentative stage is the most com-
plex of all. The judge, having previously ascertained the consistency
of each party’s argument (plausibility and coherence checks), must
now compare their force. It is clear that every discourse has been con-
structed upon constant reciprocal confrontation; every opinion has
been submitted to the opponent’s objections. The simultaneous pres-
ence of opposing arguments obliges the judge to ask him/herself a
number of questions: how many points in the opposing discourses
(S1 vs S2) are authoritative and how authoritative are they? Which
of them is more pertinent to the case under discussion? Are the con-
clusions in S1 and S2 clearly connected to their own starting points?
Are they coherent with all the starting points or only with some of
them? Are there any common points in S1 and S2? Would it be pos-
sible to connect the points in each party’s argument in a different
plex operation which can be accomplished in accordance with either, or
even partially both, of the parties’ proposals, in a way that I am going to
consider shortly. At this point in his/her decisional process, the judge’s
choice depends on a series of logical moves that I will try to summarize
as follows (supposing the judge asking him/herself a progressive set of
questions):
1. plausibility check: to what extent are the standpoints of the parties
really authoritative?
To establish its standpoint each party has adopted one or more start-
ing points validated by common or expert beliefs, based on shared
values, arranged in a certain order of importance, assisted by a cer-
tain degree of evidence etc. It is clear that points like these aim at
being more than simple opinions (doxai): they aspire to be the most
plausible ones (endoxa) (Cavalla, 1992). So the task of the judge will
be to check if in fact they are so (are they really shared? by whom?
still today? in the way specified by the arguer? etc.).
2. coherence check: are the starting points in each party’s discourse logi-
cally connected with one another? Is the conclusion of the discourse
consistent with its starting points?
It might be the case that the standpoint is predicated upon solid
opinions (endoxa), but that these opinions are linked together in a
wrong or questionable way, so that the conclusion is not correct or at
least not the only one possible.
3. dialectical check: which discourse, compared to the other, is more
consistent?
As I have noted previously, this argumentative stage is the most com-
plex of all. The judge, having previously ascertained the consistency
of each party’s argument (plausibility and coherence checks), must
now compare their force. It is clear that every discourse has been con-
structed upon constant reciprocal confrontation; every opinion has
been submitted to the opponent’s objections. The simultaneous pres-
ence of opposing arguments obliges the judge to ask him/herself a
number of questions: how many points in the opposing discourses
(S1 vs S2) are authoritative and how authoritative are they? Which
of them is more pertinent to the case under discussion? Are the con-
clusions in S1 and S2 clearly connected to their own starting points?
Are they coherent with all the starting points or only with some of
them? Are there any common points in S1 and S2? Would it be pos-
sible to connect the points in each party’s argument in a different
