Talk:Argumentation theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Where, oh where is the argumentation??

why is there no argument going on about the argumentation page? Rexroad 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

argumentation theory vs. argumentation

Why "argumentation theory" and not just "argumentation"? There may be some part of the community referring to the field this way, but it's not reflected in conference or organization titles: Alta Conference on Argumentation, International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Beeker4747 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Internal Structure of Arguments

Whoever added the following passage should rewrite it to meet the following writer's leriness and to make it conform to an encyclopedia entry. Right now it reads like a journal article sort of argument Rexroad2 (talk)

I'm leery of the following passage in the Internal Structure of Arguments section:

"What is an argument that is void of reason ? Is it not just opinion - theory ? One may leap to a conclusion but it must be traced back to the premise and the initial problem by building a bridge of justification else it is just a castle in the sky - an idea, not an argument. The idea may be true or false and may even get common acceptance because it 'feels' right or appeals to expectations. BUT it is not an argument."

First, why is an 'argument that is void of reason' not an argument? Isn't that self-contradictory? (It might be a proof by contradiction that arguments cannot be void of reason, but if so, I think it needs to be stated more clearly.)

Second, if the idea gains common acceptance because it feels right or appeals to expectations, are we not smuggling into the matter an assumption that it is in fact an argument?

"I believe X." "Why?" "Well, because it feels right."

We may not like that argument, but there we have a clear resolution (Resolve that X is to be believed) a claim (I believe X) a piece of evidence (It feels right for me to believe X) and an inference (The right-feeling causes my belief in X). It could very well be an unsound argument; but it seems like a bit of a stretch to say that it's an argument void of reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.59.54 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)