Document Type
Paper
Start Date
15-5-1999 9:00 AM
End Date
17-5-1999 5:00 PM
Abstract
The last half of this century witnessed a proliferation of competing and complimentary theories of argumentation, initiated by the methodological shift from the "product" to the "process" of argument. This paper considers the effect of that shift by c omparing the different logical and epistemic status various theories assign to the standards of argument analysis and evaluation. In view of such differences, I argue that the systematic study of argumentation must clearly demarcate the normative and emp irical study of argumentation with sensitivity to both the limit and significance of each.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Christina Slade, Commentary on Godden
Reader's Reactions
Richard Fulkerson, Commentary on Gilbert (May 1999)
Included in
Psychologism in contemporary argumentation theory
The last half of this century witnessed a proliferation of competing and complimentary theories of argumentation, initiated by the methodological shift from the "product" to the "process" of argument. This paper considers the effect of that shift by c omparing the different logical and epistemic status various theories assign to the standards of argument analysis and evaluation. In view of such differences, I argue that the systematic study of argumentation must clearly demarcate the normative and emp irical study of argumentation with sensitivity to both the limit and significance of each.
