Top Banner

Click here to load reader

ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY · PDF file 2013-12-18 · A&P ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY International Multidisciplinary Journal Editor in Chief MARIANO L. BIANCA...

May 10, 2020

ReportDownload

Documents

others

  • ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY International Multidisciplinary Journal

    Questo fascicolo è stato pubblicato con un contributo parziale del Dipartimento di Studi Storico-Sociali e Filosofici

    dell’Università di Siena

  • A&P ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY

    International Multidisciplinary Journal

    Editor in Chief MARIANO L. BIANCA

    Scientific Committee: Evandro Agazzi (Università di Genova) - Remo Bodei (University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles) - Nicola Grana (Università di Napoli “Federico II”) - Luigi Lombardi Satriani (Università di Roma "La Sapienza") - Maria Imma- colata Macioti (Università di Roma "La Sapienza" ) - Luca Malatesti (University of Hull) - Michele Marsonet (Università di Genova) – Fabio Mi- nazzi (Università del Salento) - Alberto Oliverio (Università di Roma "La Sapienza") - Marc Piault (C.N.R.S. Paris) - Paolo Piccari (Università di Siena) - Paolo Aldo Rossi (Università di Genova) - Mario Ruggenini (Università di Venezia) - Alessandro Salvini (Università di Padova) - Tullio Seppilli (Università di Perugia) – Simone Zacchini (Università di Siena)

    Editor Assistant:

    Lucia Foglia (Università di Siena)

    Editorial Board

    Beatrice Baldi (Università di Siena) - Lucia Foglia (Università di Siena) - Stefano Gonnella (Università di Siena) - Paolo Piccari (Università di Sie- na) - Simone Zacchini (Università di Siena)

    Editorial Address:

    Università di Siena - Dipartimento di Studi Storico-Sociali e Filosofici – Viale L. Cittadini, 33 - 52100 Arezzo (Italy) – Ph. +39-0575-9261 - Fax +39-0575-926312 - e-mail: [email protected]

    A&P is published as one volume divided in 2 issues

    Subscription Rates:

    Institutional Subscription: 35 euro Personal Subscription: 25 euro To subscribe please write to:

    A & P – Università di Siena - Dipartimento di Studi Storico-Sociali e Fi- losofici, Viale L. Cittadini, 33 – 52100 Arezzo (Italy)

    Registrazione presso il Tribunale di Firenze n. 4822 del 6/8/1998

  • ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY International Multidisciplinary Journal Volume 8 (1-2) 2007

    Special Issue on

    Informal Logic and Theory of Argumentation

    Edited by Mariano L. Bianca and Paolo Piccari

    CONTENTS

    Foreword ......................................................................... p. 7

    Mariano L. Bianca Paolo Piccari Inherent Logic: Isotopic and Inherent Bonds in Argumentation ............................................ p. 9

    J. Anthony Blair Relevance, Acceptability, and Sufficiency Today .............................................................. p. 33

    Frans H. van Eemeren Peter Houtlosser Recconnecting Dialectic and Rhetoric: Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring in

    Argumentative Discourse ................................. p. 49

    Ralph H. Johnson Informal Logic and Epistemology ................... p. 69

    Marina Sbisà On Argumentative Rationality ........................ p. 89

    Douglas N. Walton Fabrizio Macagno Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity............................................ p. 101

    lucia Underline

    lucia Underline

    lucia Underline

    lucia Underline

    lucia Underline

    lucia Underline

    lucia Underline

  • ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY Vol. 8 - N. 1-2 - 2007

    Foreword

    Language disguises thought

    L.Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus, 4.002

    In the last years studies on argumentation have been approached from differ- ent points of view, for instance, informal logic, pragma-dialectic and theory of fallacy. As we know, there have been suggested different hypotheses, whose main goals are, on the one hand, to explain the nature of argumentation and its structure; on the other hand, to debate the controversial point of the relationship among the linguistic-propositional level, the semiotic level, and the mental level. So far, informal logic, pragma-dialectic and theory of fallacy have given some relevant contributions, but we claim that there is the need to analyse carefully the deep structure of argumentation.

    This Special Issue of Anthropology and Philosophy, devoted to Informal Logic and Theory of Argumentation, attempts to offer some contributions to the contemporary researches and discussions presenting different perspectives which make use of different methods and tools of survey. Actually, these ap- proaches point out that the issue of argumentation can be analysed in different ways and they highlight specific aspects of it.

    In Inherent Logic: Isotopic and Inherent Bonds in Argumentation Mariano L. Bianca and Paolo Piccari focus on argumentation as sequence of idemes that, from a neurophisiological point of view, are neuromental configurations corre- lated by inherent bonds, which, in turn, are encoded into a sequence of argu- ments on the basis of bonds among sememes. So, the linguistic-propositional structure reflects the semiotic structure, and the latter reflects the idetic structure of argumentation. Bianca and Piccari suggest to analyse the argumentative structure from different perspectives: the linguistic-propositional perspective, which concerns syntactic bonds among propositions, the semiotic perspective regarding sememes’ nature and their function within the arguments, and the idetic-inherent perspective which refers to bonds among idemes involved in ar- gumentation.

    In Relevance, Acceptability, and Sufficiency Today J. Anthony Blair explains the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency (ARS), which have been introduced (with Ralph H. Johnson) in Logical Self-Defense (1978). He consid- ers such criteria as adequate to evaluate arguments supporting a claim. He shows how these criteria, which have been widely adopted, even though subjected to a number of critics, stand up today; he also argues that these criteria play a rele- vant role in analysing and evaluating argumentations.

    In Reconnecting dialectic and rhetoric: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse Frans H. van Eemeren e Peter Hout- losser deal with a fundamental topic in the study of argumentation: fallacies in argumentative exchanges. According to the Authors fallacies can be considered as the “acid test” for any normative theory of argumentation. Hamblin in Falla-

  • 8 FOREWORD

    cies (1970) has shown the inadequacy of the Logical Standard Treatment and the pragma-dialectic approach has been considered as one of the alternative treatments; according to this approach fallacies are violations of rules for critical discussion. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser develop further this approach arguing that argumentative moves are "strategic manoeuvering" aimed at realizing at the same time a dialectical and a rhetorical aim.

    In Informal Logic and Epistemology Ralph H. Johnson highlights the relation- ship between informal logic and epistemology. Many scholars have adopted the view that informal logic is importantly dependent on epistemology (Siegel, 1988; Weinstein, 1994; Pinto, 1994, 2001; Freeman 2000), while Johnson ex- presses reservations on this thesis and argues that there are reasons for skepti- cism regarding the Received View (informal logic is importantly dependent on epistemology) that have not been taken into consideration and fully appreciated by those who support some form of this view.

    In On argumentative rationality Marina Sbisà claims that the received picture of rationality contrasts with the “argumentative” conception, inspired by Paul Grice, who proposes to define rationality as an agent’s desire that his or her moves are supported by reasons and a capacity to satisfy that desire at least to some extent. Sbisà argues that the attribution of argumentative rationality to a human being does not follow from final evidence, but coincides with the ac- knowledgement of personhood. Therefore the argumentative conception of ra- tionality may help us to clarify why it still make sense to think of man as a ra- tional being.

    In Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance, and Textual Congruity Doug- las N. Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, analyses various examples of everyday conversational ar- gumentations where determination of relevance and irrelevance can be assisted by means of adopting a new dialectical approach. They show how such dialecti- cal models of reasonable argumentation can be applied to a determination of whether an argument in a specific case is relevant. Their approach is based on a linguistic account of dialogue and text from congruity theory, and on the notion of a dialectical shift. Such a shift occurs where an argument starts out as fitting into one type of dialogue, but then it only continues to make sense as a coherent argument if it is taken to be a part of a different type of dialogue.

    We believe that these papers can effectively contribute to develop further studies on this matter.

    We wish to thank the Authors of the papers, who accepted our proposal to take part in this project and so contributing to the realization of the Special Issue on Informal Logic and Theory of Argumentation.

    Mariano L. Bianca - Paolo Piccari

  • ANTHROPOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY Vol. 8 - N. 1-2 - 2007

    Mariano L. Bianca - Paolo Piccari

    University of Siena

    Inherent Logic:

    Isotopic and Inherent Bonds in Argumentation

    Abstract In this paper we f

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.