Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome | |||
| |||
Argumentation: Argumentation is the process of presenting and evaluating reasons or evidence to support or refute a claim or position. It aims to establish rational conclusions through logical analysis._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
James Bohman on Argumentation - Dictionary of Arguments
Gaus I 161 Argumentation/discourse theories/Bohman: Is argumentation really a formal mode of discourse? If discourse is to be distinguished from acts of communication as a second-order and reflective activity, then argumentation in a general sense is the mode of critical self-reflection, of making claims and justifications explicit. Furthermore, if utterances make validity claims and these claims are supported by reasons, then argumentation is precisely the process by which speakers' claims can be tested and made explicit (Habermas, 1984(1): 42). Even here, however, there remains an irreducible empirical diversity of types of argumentation, from the strict arguments made in the context of scientific disciplines or the regulated context of a court with rules of evidence, to arguments that attempt to conVince 'anyone'. Rather than being merely formal, argumentation can be seen rhetorically as a way to settle conflicts over reasons and assumptions that inform practices, although less than in the conception of persuasion through oratory favoured by some critics of deliberative democracy (Remer, 1999)(2). As opposed to both formal and rhetorical models, such an account conceives of arguments dialogically, as the giving of reasons and the answering of objections raised by one's fellow citizens. Rather than as a means of reaching a conclusive agreement, argumentation is better seen as an ongoing means of resolving conflict that is suc- cessful only if each perspective is taken into account and each objection given a hearing (Crosswhite, 1996(3): 102ff). >Argumentation/Crosswhite. 1. Habermas, Jürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. I. Boston: Beacon. 2. Remer, Gary (1999) 'Political oratory and conversation: Cicero versus deliberative democracy'. Political Theory, 27: 39-64. 3. Crosswhite, James (1996) The Rhetoric of Reason. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bohman, James 2004. „Discourse Theory“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Bohman, James Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |