NDLI: Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Author	Ficchiaro, Maurice A.
Copyright Year	2007
Abstract	Krabbe (2003, in F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644) defined a metadialogue as a dialogue about one or more dialogues, and a ground-level dialogue as a dialogue that is not a metadialogue. Similarly, I define a meta-argument as an argument about one or more arguments, and a ground-level argument as one which is not a meta-argument. Krabbe (1995, in F.H van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 333–344) showed that formal-fallacy criticism (and more generally, fallacy criticism) consists of metadialogues, and that such metadialogues can be profiled in ways that lead to their proper termination or resolution. I reconstruct Krabbe’s metadialogical account into monolectical, meta-argumentative terminology by describing three-types of meta-arguments corresponding to the three ways of proving formal invalidity he studied: the trivial logic-indifferent method; the method of counterexample situation; and the method of formal paraphrase. A fourth type of meta-argument corresponds to what Oliver (1967, Mind 76, 463–478), Govier (1985, Informal Logic 7, 27–33), and Copi (1986) call refutation by logical analogy. A fifth type of meta-argument represents my reconstruction of arguments by parity of reasoning studied by Woods and Hudak (1989, Informal Logic 11, 125–139). Other particular meta-arguments deserving future study are Hume’s critique of the argument from design in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and Mill’s initial argument in The Subjection of Women about the importance of established custom and general feeling vis-à-vis argumentation.
Starting Page	253
Ending Page	268
Page Count	16
File Format	PDF
ISSN	0920427X
Journal	Argumentation
Volume Number	21
Issue Number	3
e-ISSN	15728374
Language	English
Publisher	Springer Netherlands
Publisher Date	2007-11-10
Publisher Place	Dordrecht
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	criticism fallacy Krabbe metadialogue method of counterexample method of formal paraphrase meta-argument parity of reasoning refutation by logical analogy Social Sciences Logic
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Philosophy Linguistics and Language

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Refutation by Parallel Argument

Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments

Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments

Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool

Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool

Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool

Asymmetrical Analogical Arguments

Dialogue Protocols for Formal Fallacies

Evaluating the Meta-Slope: Is there a Slippery Slope Argument against Slippery Slope Arguments?

Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods

Similar Documents

Refutation by Parallel Argument

Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments

Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments

Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool

Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool

Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool

Asymmetrical Analogical Arguments

Dialogue Protocols for Formal Fallacies

Evaluating the Meta-Slope: Is there a Slippery Slope Argument against Slippery Slope Arguments?

Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods