Topical Relevance in Argumentation

PaperbackAvailable
ISBN 9789027225245 | EUR 65.00 | USD 98.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027280572 | EUR 65.00 | USD 98.00
 
It is a longstanding if not altogether coherent tradition of logic and rhetorical studies that an argument can be incorrect or fallacious in virtue of some proposition in it being “irrelevant”. This monograph clarifies that tradition. Non-classical propositional calculi, including relevance logics and relatedness logics, are juxtaposed against conversational criticisms of irrelevance in natural argumentation, e.g. in parliamentary debates. The object is to see if there is a reasonable way of evaluating criticisms like “That’s beside the point!” or “That’s irrelevant!”.
[Pragmatics & Beyond, III:8]  1982.  viii, 81 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
1. Conversational Allegations of Irrelevance
1
1.0 Objective of Study
1
1.1 Dual Nature of Pragmatic Analysis
1
1.2 Disputation Theory
3
1.3 Standard Preconceptions of Irrelevance
4
1.4 Fallacies of Emotional Distraction
6
1.5 Ad Misericordiam Arguments
7
1.6 A Contrastive Case Study
8
1.7 The Ad Hominem Fallacy
10
1.8 Relevant Answers to Questions
11
1.9 A Second Case Study of Question-Relevance
16
1.10 Function of Questioning in Parliamentary Debate
18
2. Propositional Inferences in Disputation
20
2.0 Relevance in Games of Dialogue
20
2.1 Refutation and Propositional Structure
21
2.2 Classical Propositional Logic: Basic Elements
23
2.3 Valid Arguments in Classical Logic
25
2.4 Astounding Inferences in Classical Logic
26
2.5 Relatedness Propositional Logic: Basic Elements
28
2.6 Valid Arguments in Relatedness Logic
29
2.7 The Astounding Inferences Revisited
31
2.8 The Propositional Core of Disputation
32
3. Paradoxes, Sophisms and Relatedness
35
3.0 The Meaning of Relatedness
35
3.1 Act-Sequences and Relatedness
35
3.2 Subject-Matter Contents of Propositions
38
3.3 Paradoxes and Astounding Inferences
41
3.4 Missing Factors
44
3.5 Needed Premisses in Inferences
46
3.6 Irrelevant Premisses
48
3.7 Pluralism of Concepts of Relevance
51
3.8 Information Inclusion
53
4. Criticisms of Irrelevance in Games of Dialogue
56
4.0 Six Types of Criticisms of Irrelevance
56
4.1 Varieties of Games
56
4.2 Strong and Weak Refutation
58
4.3 Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Games
59
4.4 Misconception of Refutation
60
4.5 Pertinence
63
4.6 Question-Answer Relevance
65
4.7 Types of Questions and Answers
66
4.8 Rules for Responding
67
4.9 Types of Relevance Compared
70
4.10 Conditionals in Disputation
73
Notes
75
References
76
Index
80
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Blair, J. Anthony
1992. Premissary relevance. Argumentation 6:2  pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo
Blair, J. Anthony
2012.  In Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 21],  pp. 61 ff. Crossref logo
Boger, George
2005. Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?. Argumentation 19:2  pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Gabbay, Dov M. & John Woods
2010.  In Approaches to Legal Rationality,  pp. 239 ff. Crossref logo
Hitchcock, David
1992. Relevance. Argumentation 6:2  pp. 251 ff. Crossref logo
Hitchcock, David
2017.  In On Reasoning and Argument [Argumentation Library, 30],  pp. 349 ff. Crossref logo
Jacobs, Scott & Sally Jackson
1992. Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation 6:2  pp. 161 ff. Crossref logo
Kienpointner, Manfred
1993. The empirical relevance of Perelman's New Rhetoric. Argumentation 7:4  pp. 419 ff. Crossref logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2017.  In Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 14],  pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
1992. Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation 6:2  pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
1995.  In Handbook of Pragmatics,  pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo
Walton, Douglas
2001.  In Informal Logic, Crossref logo
Walton, Douglas N.
1989. Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 3:2  pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Walton, Douglas N.
1992. Which of the fallacies are fallacies of relevance?. Argumentation 6:2  pp. 237 ff. Crossref logo
Woods, John
2007. Agendas, Relevance and Dialogic Ascent. Argumentation 21:3  pp. 209 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CF – Linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2003541667 | Marc record