Argumentation theory in the context of "Logic"

⭐ In the context of Logic, argumentation theory is most directly associated with which branch of logical study?

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings.

Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialogue, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Argumentation theory in the context of Logic

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.

Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" leading to the conclusion "I don't have to work." Premises and conclusions express propositions or claims that can be true or false. An important feature of propositions is their internal structure. For example, complex propositions are made up of simpler propositions linked by logical vocabulary like (and) or (if...then). Simple propositions also have parts, like "Sunday" or "work" in the example. The truth of a proposition usually depends on the meanings of all of its parts. However, this is not the case for logically true propositions. They are true only because of their logical structure independent of the specific meanings of the individual parts.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Argumentation theory in the context of Informal logic

Informal logic encompasses the principles of logic and logical thought outside of a formal setting (characterized by the usage of particular statements). However, the precise definition of "informal logic" is a matter of some dispute. Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation." This definition reflects what had been implicit in their practice and what others were doing in their informal logic texts.

Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, the thinking skills movement and the interdisciplinary inquiry known as argumentation theory. Frans H. van Eemeren writes that the label "informal logic" covers a "collection of normative approaches to the study of reasoning in ordinary language that remain closer to the practice of argumentation than formal logic."

↑ Return to Menu

Argumentation theory in the context of Description

Description is any type of communication that aims to make vivid a place, object, person, group, or other physical entity. It is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, argumentation, and narration.

↑ Return to Menu

Argumentation theory in the context of J. Anthony Blair

John Anthony Blair (August 12, 1941 – March 7, 2024) was a Canadian philosopher.

Along with his colleague Ralph Johnson, he has been credited as one of the founding members of the informal logic movement in North America. The two co-published one of the movement's most influential texts, "Logical Self-Defense". Blair is also co-founder of the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric, co-founder of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), and a founding board member of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA).

↑ Return to Menu

Argumentation theory in the context of Frans H. van Eemeren

Frans Hendrik van Eemeren (born 7 April 1946, Helmond) is a Dutch scholar, professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. He is noted for his Pragma-dialectics theory, an argumentation theory which he developed with Rob Grootendorst from the early 1980s onwards. He has published numerous books and papers, including Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse.

↑ Return to Menu
LINKED FROM (PARENTS)
← Logic ← Logician ← Informal logic ← Formal logic ← Logically ← Description ← Logical ← J. Anthony Blair ← Frans H. van Eemeren ← Objection (argument)
LINKS TO (CHILDREN)
Argument map → Richard Whately → Interdisciplinary → Premise → Logical reasoning → Logic → Dialectic → Rhetoric → Dialogue → Conversation → Persuasion → Inference → Artificial intelligence → Deliberation → Negotiation → Decision-making → Eristic → Didactic →