Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies

  title={Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies},
  author={Harvey Siegel and John Biro},
In Biro and Siegel (1992) we argued that a theory of argumentation mustfully engage the normativity of judgments about arguments, and we developedsuch a theory. In this paper we further develop and defend our theory. 

Three Objections to the Epistemic Theory of Argument Rebutted

Abstract Three objections to epistemic theories of argument are briefly presented and rebutted. In light of this reply, a case for argumentative epistemic eclecticism is made.

Limits of Truth: Exploring Epistemological Approaches to Argumentation

Some proponents of epistemological approaches to argumentation (Biro, Siegel, Lumer, Goldman) assume that it should be possible to develop non-relative criteria of argument evaluation. By contrast,

Argumentation, Arguing, and Arguments: Comments on Giving Reasons

While we applaud several aspects of Lilian Bermejo-Luque's novel theory of argumentation and especial- ly welcome its epistemological dimensions, in this discussion we raise doubts about her

What should a normative theory of argumentation look like

Even if we identify the goals of normative theories of argumentation with the goals of a theory of justification, we can either focus on the conditions for considering that a target-claim is

Procedural Reasonableness and Normativity of Argumentation

Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory has received criticism from epistemological argumentation theorists. While the former emphasizes argumentation as aimed at resolving differences of opinion

A normative theory of argument strength

In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We also provide some evidence based on our recent work on the fallacies as to why Bayesian probability

The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation

I will have to fulfill two tasks: on the one hand, showing that any type of argumentation, whether dialogical or monological, involves such a dialectical dimension, and on the other hand showing that dialectical normativity cannot be reduced to argumentative normativity tout court.

Some axioms underlying argumentation theory

This paper examines whether philosophers of argument, in spite of their disavowing ‘timeless principles’, nevertheless embrace a set of principles, or axioms, to underlie argumentation theory. First,

Rationality, Reasonableness, and Critical Rationalism: Problems with the Pragma-dialectical View

A major virtue of the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation is its commitment to reasonableness and rationality as central criteria of argumentative quality. However, the account of these key

Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map

An overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation, explaining what it is, justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach. systematizing the main directions and



Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective

Contents: Part I:Argumentation and Communication. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Standpoints and Differences of Opinion. Argumentation as a Complex Speech Act. Speech Acts in a Critical Discussion.

Critique of an epistemic account of fallacies

An epistemic account of fallacies is one which takes it as a necessary condition for a fallacy that it has a tendency to produce false or unwarranted beliefs. The most sophisticated form of this

Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy

Douglas N. Walton considers the question of whether the conventions of informal conversation can be articulated more precisely than they are at present. Specifically, he addresses the problem of the

Plato's Socrates

Socrates, as he is portrayed in Plato's early dialogues, remains one of the most controversial figures in the history of philosophy. This book concerns six of the most vexing and often discussed

The Socratic Elenchus