Dialectics, Evaluation, and Argument

Abstract

A critical examination of the dialectical approach, focusing on a comparison ofthe illative and the dialectical definitions of argument. I distinguish a moderate, a strong and a hyper dialectical conception of argument. I critique Goldman's argument for the moderate conception and Johnson's argument for the strong conception, and argue that the moderate conception is correct.Resume: Un interrogatoire critique sur l'approche dialectical, qui concentre sur une comparaison des definitions d'argument illatives et dialecticales. Je distingue trois conceptions de I' argument: la moden!e, la forte, et la hyper. Je critique l'argument de Goldman qui supporte la conception moderee et celui de Johnson qui support la conception forte, et je pretends que la conception moderee est exact.

Revisitando o Triunvirato lógica/dialética/retórica

“…Finocchiaro (2003, p. 13) afirma que "a abordagem dialética se tornou a dominante na teoria da argumentação". Uma lista parcial de autores que fizeram uso essencial do termo dialética/dialético para caracterizar uma abordagem argumentativa incluiria os seguintes nomes: Hamblin (1970); Wenzel (1980;; Barth & Krabbe (1982); van Eemeren & Grootendorst (1984;1988;1992); Blair & Johnson (1987); Finocchiaro (1987;2003); Blair (1998;2003); Johnson (2000); Walton & Godden (2007).…”

“…Tenho a impressão de que a maioria dos teóricos seguiu esse conselho. 11 A caracterização deLeff (2002) não é abarcada, nem o queFinocchiaro (2003) chama de contraste dialético-monolético.…”

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

“…Yet many logicians do take the relations with dialectic as relevant (Finocchiaro 2003;Johnson 2000;Rahwan and Keiff 2005), and here they have two basic options regarding the sources of argumentative rationality 12 :…”

Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory

“…While plausible, I am not sure that all argumentation theorists agree. Finocchiaro (2003), argues that in at least some instances an argument is merely a defense of its conclusion from objections even if no reasons are given for that conclusion. Others allow the possibility of zero-premise arguments.…”