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