Talk:Argumentation theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Where, oh where is the argumentation??
Ehm. "Tony Blair", is that correct? The related wiki entry (informal logic) refers to a J. Anthony Blair. I doubt that Tony was the other Blair's first name and I have the strong reason, just presented, to doubt that any Tony Blair plays a major role in this article, evidently since one instance of a Blair is already presented. /Sophisticato --81.226.194.107 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no argument going on about the argumentation page? Rexroad 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree.--Newheroicideal 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
[edit] Expand, source and edit Stephen Toulmin's role here
The brief and marginalizing reference to Stephen Toulmin in this article should at least be sourced, and in my opinion changed to reflect his influential contributions to the modeling of arguments (structural and functional theories) as well as to the history of argumentation. His credentials and works as a philosopher on this topic are broad, deep, and central to a growing field of computerized argumentation and argument analysis.
- -- dsleeter 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure whoever wrote the references to Toulmin didn't mean to marginalize him. But I agree that the discussion of Toulmin should be expanded. `````
[edit] Internal Structure of Arguments
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)
