In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 39–56
Chapter 2Connection premises
Their character, criticism, and defence
Published online: 2 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.03van
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.03van
Abstract
By presenting an argument, a proponent commits himself or herself to the adequacy of the connection between the argument’s premises and its conclusion. What is this connection, and when is it adequate? I deal with these questions by using insights and techniques from dialectical approaches to argumentation. First, I show that by advancing an argument, the proponent commits himself or herself to its connection proposition, which dose not generalize upon the conclusion and premises. When a challenge turns this connection proposition into a connection premise, there may be a particularist defence available, so that the proponent need not commit himself or herself to any generalization of it. Second, I pay attention to situations where the proponent does choose to support the connection premise by means of a general argumentation scheme, showing there to be a variety of ways to justify that scheme.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
-
2.The character of connection propositions
- 2.1Connection propositions
- 2.2Connection premises
- 3.Justifying argumentation schemes
- 3.1The dismissive response
- 3.2The argumentative response
- 4.Conclusion
Notes References
References (22)
Barth, E., & Krabbe E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Bermejo-Luque, L. (2004). Toulmin’s model of argument and the question of relativism. Informal Logic 24, 169–181.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: cambridge university press.
Freeman, J. B. (2005). Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants: An epistemic approach. In D. Hitchcock, & D. Farr (Eds), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University. Hamilton: OSSA.
Govier, T. (2011). Conductive arguments: Overview of the symposium. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning (pp. 262–276). London: College Publications.
Hitchcock, D. (2007). ‘On the Generality of Warrants’. [URL].
van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe E. C. W. (2013). The burden of criticism: Consequences of taking a critical stance. Argumentation 27, 201–224.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation 6, 271–283.
(2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 127, 141–159.
Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2007). About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies. Informal Logic 27, 27–58.
Leon, M. (2013). House Speaker’s Commitment to the Party of Stupid. MAL Contends …, March 17, 2013 (MAL Contends: [URL]).
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). commitment in dialogue basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.