Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map

  title={Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map},
  author={Christoph Lumer},
  journal={Informal Logic},
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 theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation. 

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

Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation

This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested

Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing

Why do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to

A Modal Criterion for Epistemic Argumentation critère modal pour l’argumentation épistémique

In this paper, I spell out and argue for a new epistemic theory of argumentation. Contrary to extant views, this theory is compatible with a pluralistic framework on argumentation, where the norms

Positive discourse analysis and latent euphemisation

  • M. Radulović
  • Philosophy
    Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature
  • 2021
The article examines some epistemic aspects of latent euphemisation in argumentative discourse. The purpose of the work is to show that, by focusing on the notion of voice which links talk and

Truth and the virtue of arguments

In a 2006 paper I claimed that the virtue arguments or inferences must have is not that they be truth-preserving, but that they be entitlement-preserving (in Brandom's sense of that phrase). I

Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments

Argumentation theorists are beginning to think of ad hominem arguments as generally legitimate. Virtue argumentation theorists argue that a character trait approach to argument appraisal can explain

Knowledge and Inquiry

Scientific reasoning of the kind used to collect evidence and bring it to bear on a scientific hypothesis, has to be seen as defeasible according to the previous six chapters of this book. This is

The epistemic norm of inference and non-epistemic reasons for belief

This paper shows that the existence of non-epistemic reasons for belief are compatible with epistemic standards for inference and with a deliberative guidance constraint on normative reasons, and sketches an epistemic framework for the assessment of inferences and arguments.

Teoría de la Argumentación como Epistemología Aplicada

En este articulo se discute la vision de la teoria de la argumentacion como una forma de epistemologia aplicada. El punto de partida es la descripcion de cuatro perspectivas que se consideran



The Epistemological Theory of Argument--How and Why?

The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. After

Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument

Contents: Preface. Introduction. Part I: The Historical Context. Context: Argumentation as a Cultural Practice. Context: The Study of Argumentation. Paradigm Abandoned: Critique of Deductivism.

Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies

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

Argumentation and Social Epistemology

L'A. examine le sens social ou interpersonnel de l'argument qu'il appelle argumentation. Il s'interesse a l'argumentation theorique, i.e. celle qui est a la base des croyances et des incredulites.

Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem

Part I. Acceptability: Dialectical and Epistemological Considerations: 1. Why do we need a theory of acceptability? 2. Acceptability and presumption 3. Factors determining presumption: basic

Knowledge in a Social World


Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen

  • R. Pinto
  • Philosophy
    Argumentation Library
  • 2001
This chapter discusses Logic, Dialectic and the Practice of Rational Criticism, as well as Logic, Coherence and Psychology Revisited, as a whole, and its applications to Cognitive Science and the Future of RationalCriticism.

Argument Quality and Cultural Difference

Central to argumentation theory is a concern with normativity. Argumentation theorists are concerned, among other things, with explaining why some arguments are good (or at least better than others)

Argumentation and Interpersonal Justification

There are distinct but legitimate notions of both personal justification and interpersonal justification. Interpersonal justification is definable in terms of personal justification. A connection is

Reductionism in Fallacy Theory

Abstract(1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and