Open AccessJustification of Argumentation Schemes
Author(s) -
Douglas Walton
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
australasian journal of logic
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1448-5052
DOI - 10.26686/ajl.v3i0.1769
Subject(s) - argumentation theory , argument (complex analysis) , defeasible estate , inference , epistemology , computer science , scheme (mathematics) , key (lock) , argumentation framework , artificial intelligence , mathematics , philosophy , computer security , mathematical analysis , chemistry , biochemistry
Argumentation schemes are forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, especially defeasible ones like argument from expert opinion, that have proved troublesome to view deductively or inductively. Much practical work has already been done on argumentation schemes, proving their worth in A1 [19], but more precise investigations are needed to formalize their structures. The problemposed in this paper is what form justification of a given scheme, as having a certain precise structure of inference, should take. It is argued that defeasible argumentation schemes require both a systematic and a pragmatic justification, of a kind that can only be provided by the case study method of collecting key examples of arguments of the types traditionally classified as fallacies, and subjecting them to comparative examination and analysis. By this method, postulated structures for schemes can be formulated as hypotheses to solve three kinds of problems: (1) how to classify such arguments into different types, (2) how to identify their premises and conclusions, and (3) how to formulate the critical questions used to evaluate each type of argument.