Page 48 - 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. 48
What Do We Know about the World?
In order to be able to remove asterisks from utterances (3’) and (4’) (i.e.
make them discursively and argumentatively acceptable), we would have
to bring in argumentatively oriented modifiers, for example but neverthe-
less in (3’) = (But nevertheless, he might be able to advise you), or only in
(4’) = (Marko read only some of the UN resolutions).
2. To Propose an Argument, to Demonstrate,
to Deduce
We said that it was language (as a system) that didn’t permit argu-
mentative strings (3’) and (4’). What precisely does this mean?
Above all it means that to propose an argument is not to demon-
strate or infer something in a logical manner, and that argumentation in
general (and TAL in particular) is not based on the rules of logical de-
duction.3 The mechanism to arrive at a conclusion in examples (3) and
(4) is not the same as the one involved in (5).
(5) a. All Slovenians are nationalists
b. Janez is Slovenian
---------------------------------------
c. Janez is a nationalist
While example (5) represents a logically (deductively) supported
conclusion, a syllogism, where the conclusion c is a necessary consequence
of the premises a and b, the conclusions in examples (3) and (4) are in
no way necessary consequences of the arguments that actually introduce
them. Someone could use the utterance Janez did not read all the UN
resolutions as an argument for a completely different conclusions, for ex-
ample, Janez is a very wise person, or Janez is an asshole, and these (con-
clusions) would, obviously, represent completely different argumenta-
tion frames from the one actually employed in argumentative string (3).
However, these hypothetical conclusions would be no less grounded or
justified. In contrast to (logical) demonstration or deduction, which is
based on the laws of logic, argumentation in everyday life and conversa-
tion is based on (our) knowledge and judgment of the world, reality, and
the concrete situation of the speaker and the addressee. And especially
on the assessment of the position that an utterance has (or can have) in
a concrete situation, and an assessment of (possible) conclusions an utter-
ance-argument might lead to.
3 We are, of course, referring to the (so called) “classical,” bivalent logic.
In order to be able to remove asterisks from utterances (3’) and (4’) (i.e.
make them discursively and argumentatively acceptable), we would have
to bring in argumentatively oriented modifiers, for example but neverthe-
less in (3’) = (But nevertheless, he might be able to advise you), or only in
(4’) = (Marko read only some of the UN resolutions).
2. To Propose an Argument, to Demonstrate,
to Deduce
We said that it was language (as a system) that didn’t permit argu-
mentative strings (3’) and (4’). What precisely does this mean?
Above all it means that to propose an argument is not to demon-
strate or infer something in a logical manner, and that argumentation in
general (and TAL in particular) is not based on the rules of logical de-
duction.3 The mechanism to arrive at a conclusion in examples (3) and
(4) is not the same as the one involved in (5).
(5) a. All Slovenians are nationalists
b. Janez is Slovenian
---------------------------------------
c. Janez is a nationalist
While example (5) represents a logically (deductively) supported
conclusion, a syllogism, where the conclusion c is a necessary consequence
of the premises a and b, the conclusions in examples (3) and (4) are in
no way necessary consequences of the arguments that actually introduce
them. Someone could use the utterance Janez did not read all the UN
resolutions as an argument for a completely different conclusions, for ex-
ample, Janez is a very wise person, or Janez is an asshole, and these (con-
clusions) would, obviously, represent completely different argumenta-
tion frames from the one actually employed in argumentative string (3).
However, these hypothetical conclusions would be no less grounded or
justified. In contrast to (logical) demonstration or deduction, which is
based on the laws of logic, argumentation in everyday life and conversa-
tion is based on (our) knowledge and judgment of the world, reality, and
the concrete situation of the speaker and the addressee. And especially
on the assessment of the position that an utterance has (or can have) in
a concrete situation, and an assessment of (possible) conclusions an utter-
ance-argument might lead to.
3 We are, of course, referring to the (so called) “classical,” bivalent logic.
