1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority ().

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16051.kos
2019-07-05
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Araszkiewicz, Michał , and Marcin Koszowy
    2016 “Deontic Authority in Legal Argumentation: A Case Study.” InArgumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, ed. by Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński , vol.1, 1–19. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Azuelos-Atias, Sol
    2016 “Identifying the Meanings Hidden in Legal Texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency.” Semiotica209 (March): 99–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent , and Robert M. Harnish
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bocheński, Józef M.
    1974 “An Analysis of Authority.” InAuthority, ed. by F. J. Adelman , 58–65. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2031‑2_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2031-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Budzynska, Katarzyna
    2010 Argument Analysis: Components of Interpersonal Argumentation. InFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), ed. by Pietro Baroni , 135–146. Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo & Washington, D.C.: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2013 “Circularity in Ethotic Structures.” Synthese190(15): 3185–3207. doi:  10.1007/s11229‑012‑0135‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0135-6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 “Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward , 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen
    2005Introduction to Logic, 12th ed.Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De George, Richard T.
    1985The Nature and Limits of Authority. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. “Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community.” Official Journal of the European Union, 191 (1). eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX​:32008L0057&from=EN. Last accessed: 30 March 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Duschl, Richard
    2008 “Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals.” Review of Research in Education32: 268–291. doi:  10.3102/0091732X07309371
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, Jean
    1998 “Forms of Authority and the Real ‘Ad Verecundiam’.” Argumentation12: 267–80. 10.1023/A:1007756117287
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756117287 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grennan, Wayne
    1997Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hamblin, Charles L.
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hastings, A. C.
    1963 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Evanston, Illinois.
  17. Hurley, Patrick J.
    2003A Concise Introduction to Logic. 8th ed.Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair
    1983Logical Self-Defence. 2nd ed.Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1992Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, Mijung , Robert Anthony & D. Blades
    2012 Argumentation as a Tool to Understand Complexity of Knowledge Integration. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International STEM in Education Conference – Beijing, China – 24–27 November 2012 (pp.154–160). Beijing: Beijing Normal University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kline, Susan L. & Barbara Warnick
    1992 The New Rhetoric’s Argument Schemes. Argumentation and Advocacy29 (1): 1–12. 10.1080/00028533.1992.11951551
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1992.11951551 [Google Scholar]
  22. Koszowy, Marcin
    2013 “Polish Logical Studies from an Informal Logic Perspective.” InVirtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013, ed. by Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński , 1–10. Windsor, Ont.: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Koszowy, Marcin and Michał Araszkiewicz
    2014 The Lvov-Warsaw School as a source of inspiration for argumentation theory. Argumentation28(3): 283–300. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑014‑9321‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9321-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Koszowy, Marcin and Katarzyna Budzynska
    2016 “Towards a Model for Ethotic Structures in Dialogical Context.” InFoundations of the Language of Argumentation – The Workshop at the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), ed. by Manfred Stede and Patrick Saint-Dizier , 40–47. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lawrence, John and Chris Reed
    2015 “Combining Argument Mining Techniques”. InProceedings of the Second Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/v1/W15‑0516
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-0516 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lechniak, Marek
    2013 “Bocheński’s Method of Philosophical Analysis and Contemporary Applied Ontology.” Studies in East European Thought, 65, 17–26. doi:  10.1007/s11212‑013‑9180‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-013-9180-z [Google Scholar]
  27. Locke, John
    1836An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. 27th editionwith the author’s last additions and corrections. London: Balne [1817]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Moeschler, Jacques
    2006 “The Role of Explicature in Communication and in Intercultural Communication.” InExplorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Laurence Horn , 73–94, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nussbaum, E. Michael
    2011 “Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education.” Educational Psychologist46: 84–106. doi:  10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816 [Google Scholar]
  30. Parsons, Simon , Katie Atkinson , Zimi Li , Peter McBurney , Elizabeth Sklar , Munindar Singh , Karen Haigh , Karl Levitt , and Jeff Rowe
    2014 “Argument Schemes for Reasoning About Trust.” Argument & Computation5 (2–3): 160–190. doi:  10.1080/19462166.2014.913075
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2014.913075 [Google Scholar]
  31. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Petrus Hispanus
    Petrus Hispanus 1972Tractatus (Summulae logicales), V, §36: “De loco ab auctoritate”, ed. by Lambertus Marie de Rijk . Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rapanta, Chrysi , Merce Garcia-Mila , and Sandra Gilabert
    2013 “What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education.” Review of Educational Research83: 483–520. doi:  10.3102/0034654313487606
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606 [Google Scholar]
  34. Scholz, Oliver R.
    2009 “Experts: What they Are and How we Recognize them – A Discussion of Alvin Goldman’s Views.” Grazer Philosophische Studien79 (1): 187–205. 10.1163/18756735‑90000864
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-90000864 [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” InLanguage, Mind, and Knowledge, ed. by Keith Gunderson , 344–369. Minneapolis Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol.7. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2005 “What is an Institution?” Journal of Institutional Economics1: 1–22. 10.1017/S1744137405000020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000020 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2010Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wagemans J.
    2011 “The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion”. Argumentation25: 329–339. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑011‑9225‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9225-8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Walton, Douglas
    1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1997Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, Penna: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2012 “Using Argumentation Schemes for Argument Extraction: A Bottom-Up Method.” International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence6(3): 33–61. 10.4018/jcini.2012070103
    https://doi.org/10.4018/jcini.2012070103 [Google Scholar]
  43. Walton, Douglas and Chris Reed
    2002 “Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences”. InWorking Notes of the ECAI’2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, ed. byGiuseppe Carenini, Floriana Grasso, and Chris Reed, 45–55. Lyon.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Walton, Douglas , Christopher Reed and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  45. Walton, Douglas , Giovanni Sartor and Fabrizio Macagno
    2016 Contested Cases of Statutory Interpretation. Artificial Intelligence and Law24(1): 51–91. 10.1007/s10506‑016‑9179‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9179-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. Weber, Max
    1958 The Three Types of Legitimate Rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions4 (1): 1–11. Translated by Hans Gerth .
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Webster’s New World Law Dictionary
    Webster’s New World Law Dictionary 2006 Hoboken, N. J.: Wiley.
  48. Whately, Richard
    1870Elements of logic. Reprinted from the 9th Octavo edition of 1826. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, Patrick
    1983Secondhand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Witek, Maciej
    2013 “How to Establish Authority with Words: Imperative Utterances and Presupposition Accommodation.” InTheory of Imperatives from Different Points of View (2), ed. by Anna Brożek , Jacek Jadacki and Berislav Žarnić , 145–157. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science at Warsaw University, Vol.7. Warsaw: Semper.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zagzebski, Linda
    2012Epistemic Authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936472.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936472.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16051.kos
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16051.kos
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error