Advanced

A dialectical view on conduction : Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations

Yu, Shiyang and Zenker, Frank LU (2019) In Informal Logic 39(1). p.32-69
Abstract

Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction while en-dorsing a dialectical view on natural lan-guage argumentation. Contemporary schol-arship, by contrast, treats conductive argu-ment predominantly on a product view. Not only did Wellman's reasons for a dialectical view thereby fall into disregard; a product-treatment of conduction also flouts the standard semantics of 'argument'. This pa-per traces why Wellman held a dialectical view regarding the role of defeasible war-rants. These act as stand-ins for (parts of) value hierarchies that arguers of normal suasory inclination find acceptable. We also improve on how to diagram conduction and distinguish two of its structural variants.

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Claim-to-validity, Conductive argument, Degrees of importance, Dialectical view, Pro and con reasons, Product view, Value hierarchy
in
Informal Logic
volume
39
issue
1
pages
38 pages
publisher
Informal Logic, University of Windsor, ON, Canada
external identifiers
  • scopus:85064720846
ISSN
0824-2577
DOI
10.22329/il.v39i1.5080
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
caa6aee6-e5c1-4dd0-a923-283f10597f0a
date added to LUP
2019-05-07 09:16:49
date last changed
2019-05-28 03:57:54
@article{caa6aee6-e5c1-4dd0-a923-283f10597f0a,
  abstract     = {<p>Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction while en-dorsing a dialectical view on natural lan-guage argumentation. Contemporary schol-arship, by contrast, treats conductive argu-ment predominantly on a product view. Not only did Wellman's reasons for a dialectical view thereby fall into disregard; a product-treatment of conduction also flouts the standard semantics of 'argument'. This pa-per traces why Wellman held a dialectical view regarding the role of defeasible war-rants. These act as stand-ins for (parts of) value hierarchies that arguers of normal suasory inclination find acceptable. We also improve on how to diagram conduction and distinguish two of its structural variants.</p>},
  author       = {Yu, Shiyang and Zenker, Frank},
  issn         = {0824-2577},
  keyword      = {Claim-to-validity,Conductive argument,Degrees of importance,Dialectical view,Pro and con reasons,Product view,Value hierarchy},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {32--69},
  publisher    = {Informal Logic, University of Windsor, ON, Canada},
  series       = {Informal Logic},
  title        = {A dialectical view on conduction : Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080},
  volume       = {39},
  year         = {2019},
}