Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
3-6-2009 9:00 AM
End Date
6-6-2009 5:00 PM
Abstract
David Hitchcock, in his recent “Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument” (2007), defends a recursive definition of ‘argument.’ I present and discuss several problems that arise for his definition. I argue that refining Hitchcock’s definition in order to resolve these problems reveals a crucial, but minimally explicated, relation that was, at best, playing an obscured role in the original definition or, at worst, completely absent from the original definition.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
James B. Freeman, Commentary on Goddu
Reader's Reactions
James B. Freeman, Commentary on Goddu (June 2009)
David Hitchcock, Commentary on Goddu (June 2009)
Included in
Refining Hitchcock’s Definition of ‘Argument’
University of Windsor
David Hitchcock, in his recent “Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument” (2007), defends a recursive definition of ‘argument.’ I present and discuss several problems that arise for his definition. I argue that refining Hitchcock’s definition in order to resolve these problems reveals a crucial, but minimally explicated, relation that was, at best, playing an obscured role in the original definition or, at worst, completely absent from the original definition.
