Begrippen Flashcards
argumentative discussion
- aimed at coming to a reasonable agreement
- to make use of argumentation as a means to achieve a resolution of a difference of opinion
a difference of opinion
- when two parties do not fully agree on a standpoint
- not necessarily an opposing standpoint; doubt is enough
explicit difference of opinion
Both the standpoint and the rejection of it are cleary expressed
implicit difference of opinion
- only one party puts forward its views, the other party’s speticism or doubt is anticipated
- especially in written text
proposition
- the content of a statement in which a certain property or quality is ascribed to the person or thing referred to
- description, prediction, judgement, advice
standpoint
- the position one takes with respect to a proposition
- positive standpoint, negative standpoint, neutral standpoint
single difference of opinion
- only one standpoint is adopted (whether positive or negative)
multiple difference of opinion
the standpoint relates to more than one proposition
non-mixed difference of opinion
there is only one party who is committed to defending a standpoint ( the other party is only doubting)
mixed difference of opinion
opposing standpoints are adopted with respect to the same proposition
the elementary form
a single, non-mixed difference of opinion
main difference of opinion
the main disagreement
subordinate difference
disagreements that may arise during the discussion about the main disagreement
resolving a difference of opinion versus settling a difference of opinion
uncivilized: threatening
civilized 3rd party
critical discussion
an ideal argumentative discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion
- takes place between a protagonist and an antagonis
protagonist
a party who defends a standpoint
antagonist
a party that callenges the standpoint of the protagonist
discussion stages
confrontation stage, opening stage, argumentation stage, concluding stage
confrontation stage
the parties establish that they have a difference of opinion
opening stage
- the parties decide to resolve the difference of opinion
- they assign the roles
- they agree on the rules
- they agree on starting points
argumentation stage
the protagonist defends the standpoint by putting forward arguments
concluding
the parties asses to which extent the difference has been resolved and in whose favor
progressive presentation
the standpoint follows the argument, thus/therefore
retrogressive presentation
the standpoint is given before the argument, because/since
‘because’
is often used for explanations, elaborations or clarifications. Is not used as argumentation sinve it is already accepted, “the pudding didn’t stiff because, i didn’t put enough gelatin in it.
maximally argumentative interpretation
- everything is interpreted as argumentation, minimizes the risk of overlooking timportant utterances for your analysis
unexpressed premises
when certain elements of argumentation are intenionally left out/implicitly present
unexpressed standpoints
when a standpoint is unexpressed.
the communication principle
be clear
be sincere
be efficient
keep to the point
the clarity rule
whatever is said should be as easy to understand as possible
the sincerity rule
whatever is said must not be insincere
the efficiency rule
whatever is said should not be redundant or pountless
the relevancy rule
whatever is said must connect with what has gone before
recognizing indirectness
- by violating one or more of the communication rules, yet at the same time not abandoning the communication principle
- the listener tries to be the speaker’s words in such a way that the violation acquires a plausible meaning
- listeners know it is happening because it is the only way to make sense of an obvious violation of the communication rules
correctnessconditions
- conditions that mus be fulfilled for a speech act to be correct
- prepatory conditions
- responisbility conditions
prepatory conditions
state what the speaker must do in order to follow the efficiency rule
responsibility conditions
describe what the speaker must believe in order to follow the sincerity rule
making unexpressed standpoints explicit
- by using logic
- if there is more than one possibility, choose the standpoint that is most fitting in the light of context and background information
making unexpressed premises explicit
“if…then…” statement
modus ponens
if p then q
p
therefore q
modus tollens
If p, then q
not q
therefore, not P
multiple argumentation
- alternative defenses of the same standpoint, presented one after another
- do not depend on each other
- are of equal weight
coordinative argumentation
- a combination of argument that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defense
- sometimes each argument by itself is too weak
- sometimes the second argument rules out possible objections to the first argument
subordinative argumentation
- arguments are given for arguments
- the weakest link determines the strength of the whole
single argumentation
one argument as defense for a standpoint, consists of two premises of which one is unexpresed
maximally argumentative analysis
when ther is just as much reason to choose the coordinative as the multiple analysis it is preferable to opt for multiple argumentatio
- this ensures that each part of the argumentation is judged on it’s own merits
logical inconsistency
when statements cannot possibly both be true because they contradict each other
pragmatic inconsistency
when argumentation contains two statements that are not logically inconsistent, but have consquences in the real world
a sound argument
- each of the statements that make up the argument must be acceptable
- the reasoning underlying the argument must be valid
- the argument scheme must be appropriate and correctly used
argumentation based on a symptomatic relation
- y is true of x, because z is true of x and z is symptomatic of y
- aren’t there non-y’s that have characteristic x?
- aren’t there also other y’s that have characteristic x?
argumentation based on a relation of analogy
- y is true of x, because y is true of z and z is comparable to x.
- are there any significant differences between z and x?
argumentation based on a causal relation
- Y is true of x, because z is true of x and z leads to x.
- does z always lead to x?
