Location

University of Windsor

Document Type

Paper

Keywords

argumentation schemes, argumentation schemes approach, bottom-up approach, epistemological theory of argumentation, function of argumentation, practical arguments, probabilistic arguments, validity, Walton

Start Date

2016 9:00 AM

End Date

2016 5:00 PM

Abstract

The contribution critically discusses Walton's (and Reed’s and Macagno’s) argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Reader's Reactions

Michael D. Kurak, Commentary on "Walton's Argumentation Schemes" (May 2016)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 18th, 9:00 AM May 21st, 5:00 PM

Walton’s Argumentation Schemes

University of Windsor

The contribution critically discusses Walton's (and Reed’s and Macagno’s) argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.