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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
Michael D. Kurak, Commentary on "Walton's Argumentation Schemes" (May 2016)
Included in
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.
