Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Book Panel
Keywords
The Concept of Argument
Start Date
21-5-2016 3:15 PM
End Date
21-5-2016 3:25 PM
Abstract
How to provide, in only 10 minutes, a kind of insight into the conception of argument that I have displayed in my book? This book has 500 pages and is the result of more than 25 years of work with my research group in Hamburg. Therefore it is a delicate task to give a substantive information about it in just some minutes. Despite this, I will start with something outside that task: I will deeply thank my commentators to have studied my book and have made up their minds about it. In particular I thank David Hitchcock who has initiated this panel and even takes the pain to chair it now. To all of you I gladly confess that I very much enjoy the opportunity to make our Hamburgian view a bit more understandable to the argumentation scholars of North America.
I understand my task here like this: I am confronted with comments that have three different backgrounds, namely Informal Logic, Rhetorical argumentation theory and epistemic argumentation theory. In my answer after the fourth comment I will try to make the differences between those and my view visible and show why I keep being convinced of my own theories. As an entrance I will now very shortly deploy some of the specific concepts and distinctions which are essential for our approach and I will do that in a way which should be informative in particular for these three schools.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Included in
The Concept of Argument: Introductory Statement
University of Windsor
How to provide, in only 10 minutes, a kind of insight into the conception of argument that I have displayed in my book? This book has 500 pages and is the result of more than 25 years of work with my research group in Hamburg. Therefore it is a delicate task to give a substantive information about it in just some minutes. Despite this, I will start with something outside that task: I will deeply thank my commentators to have studied my book and have made up their minds about it. In particular I thank David Hitchcock who has initiated this panel and even takes the pain to chair it now. To all of you I gladly confess that I very much enjoy the opportunity to make our Hamburgian view a bit more understandable to the argumentation scholars of North America.
I understand my task here like this: I am confronted with comments that have three different backgrounds, namely Informal Logic, Rhetorical argumentation theory and epistemic argumentation theory. In my answer after the fourth comment I will try to make the differences between those and my view visible and show why I keep being convinced of my own theories. As an entrance I will now very shortly deploy some of the specific concepts and distinctions which are essential for our approach and I will do that in a way which should be informative in particular for these three schools.
