Abstract
Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction while en-dorsing a dialectical view on natural lan-guage argumentation. Contemporary schol-arship, by contrast, treats conductive argu-ment predominantly on a product view. Not only did Wellman's reasons for a dialectical view thereby fall into disregard; a product-treatment of conduction also flouts the standard semantics of 'argument'. This pa-per traces why Wellman held a dialectical view regarding the role of defeasible war-rants. These act as stand-ins for (parts of) value hierarchies that arguers of normal suasory inclination find acceptable. We also improve on how to diagram conduction and distinguish two of its structural variants.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 32-69 |
Number of pages | 38 |
Journal | Informal Logic |
Volume | 39 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2019 |
Subject classification (UKÄ)
- Philosophy
Free keywords
- Claim-to-validity
- Conductive argument
- Degrees of importance
- Dialectical view
- Pro and con reasons
- Product view
- Value hierarchy