Page 31 - 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. 31
the elements of argument: six steps to a thick theory 31
posing points of view. Considered from this perspective, arguments are
embedded in a context which typically includes an exchange between
opposing points of view and the opposing arguments they produce. The
construction of opposing arguments is an iterative process, making one
argument a move in a broader dialectical exchange between arguers and
their opponents (in some cases, arguers may be their own opponent, ar-
guing ‘with themselves,’ defending opposing points of view). The dia-
lectical view of argument this implies has an impressive lineage that is
evident in Plato’s dialogues, where interlocutors (usually Socrates and
his antagonists) develop arguments and counterarguments for opposing
points of view.
Like rhetoric, dialectics underscores the extent to which logic has
traditionally treated arguments in a manner that removes them from
the contexts in which they are embedded. In contrast, dialectics ana-
lyzes an argument by asking whether it is a reasonable move in an ex-
change between the proponents and opponents of the view that it de-
fends. This approach suggests that a good argument must, among oth-
er things, successfully answer (and anticipate) opposing points of view.
Johnson (2000) endorses a dialectical approach when he maintains that
arguments have a “dialectical tier” beyond the “illiative” core that log-
ic recognizes; and that arguers have “dialectical obligations” requiring
them to address competing arguments and points of view. A good argu-
ment for the conclusion that homosexual marriage is a right must, this
suggests, include acceptable premises, a strong inference and an answer
to the objections of those who think otherwise.
Johnson concludes that the conception of argument that character-
izes the history of logic – the giving of premises for a conclusion – is,
without elaboration, only a “proto-argument.” In the building of a thick
theory, the dialectical view suggests that a complete account of premise
and conclusion arguments needs to be a “dialectically enhanced” version
of logic’s account of argument. The resulting theory must recognize dia-
lectical considerations as a key component of argument analysis. Doing
so adds a fourth element to our thick theory of argument: which must
recognize premises, conclusions, audience and dialectical context as cen-
tral ingredients of successful argument. I shall take this rhetorically and
dialectically enhanced account of argument as our third step in the de-
velopment of a thick theory.
posing points of view. Considered from this perspective, arguments are
embedded in a context which typically includes an exchange between
opposing points of view and the opposing arguments they produce. The
construction of opposing arguments is an iterative process, making one
argument a move in a broader dialectical exchange between arguers and
their opponents (in some cases, arguers may be their own opponent, ar-
guing ‘with themselves,’ defending opposing points of view). The dia-
lectical view of argument this implies has an impressive lineage that is
evident in Plato’s dialogues, where interlocutors (usually Socrates and
his antagonists) develop arguments and counterarguments for opposing
points of view.
Like rhetoric, dialectics underscores the extent to which logic has
traditionally treated arguments in a manner that removes them from
the contexts in which they are embedded. In contrast, dialectics ana-
lyzes an argument by asking whether it is a reasonable move in an ex-
change between the proponents and opponents of the view that it de-
fends. This approach suggests that a good argument must, among oth-
er things, successfully answer (and anticipate) opposing points of view.
Johnson (2000) endorses a dialectical approach when he maintains that
arguments have a “dialectical tier” beyond the “illiative” core that log-
ic recognizes; and that arguers have “dialectical obligations” requiring
them to address competing arguments and points of view. A good argu-
ment for the conclusion that homosexual marriage is a right must, this
suggests, include acceptable premises, a strong inference and an answer
to the objections of those who think otherwise.
Johnson concludes that the conception of argument that character-
izes the history of logic – the giving of premises for a conclusion – is,
without elaboration, only a “proto-argument.” In the building of a thick
theory, the dialectical view suggests that a complete account of premise
and conclusion arguments needs to be a “dialectically enhanced” version
of logic’s account of argument. The resulting theory must recognize dia-
lectical considerations as a key component of argument analysis. Doing
so adds a fourth element to our thick theory of argument: which must
recognize premises, conclusions, audience and dialectical context as cen-
tral ingredients of successful argument. I shall take this rhetorically and
dialectically enhanced account of argument as our third step in the de-
velopment of a thick theory.
