Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
Causal argument, conductive argument, convergent argument, conversational argument, face-to-face argument, sufficiency
Start Date
18-5-2011 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2011 5:00 PM
Abstract
In theory, flawed arguments are not individually sufficient to justify a conclusion, but several may converge to do so. This is an empirical study of how arguers respond to a series of imperfect causal arguments during a serious conversation. People became less critical of the flawed arguments as more of the arguments appeared. The study gives empirical evidence that ordinary arguers permit sufficiency to accumulate during an extended discussion.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Included in
Convergent causal arguments in conversation
University of Windsor
In theory, flawed arguments are not individually sufficient to justify a conclusion, but several may converge to do so. This is an empirical study of how arguers respond to a series of imperfect causal arguments during a serious conversation. People became less critical of the flawed arguments as more of the arguments appeared. The study gives empirical evidence that ordinary arguers permit sufficiency to accumulate during an extended discussion.
