A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Standard

A dialectical view on conduction : Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations. / Yu, Shiyang; Zenker, Frank.

In: Informal Logic, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2019, p. 32-69.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Harvard

Yu, S & Zenker, F 2019, 'A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations', Informal Logic, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 32-69. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

APA

Yu, S., & Zenker, F. (2019). A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations. Informal Logic, 39(1), 32-69. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

CBE

Yu S, Zenker F. 2019. A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations. Informal Logic. 39(1):32-69. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

MLA

Yu, Shiyang and Frank Zenker. "A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations". Informal Logic. 2019, 39(1). 32-69. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

Vancouver

Yu S, Zenker F. A dialectical view on conduction: Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations. Informal Logic. 2019;39(1):32-69. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

Author

Yu, Shiyang ; Zenker, Frank. / A dialectical view on conduction : Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations. In: Informal Logic. 2019 ; Vol. 39, No. 1. pp. 32-69.

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A dialectical view on conduction

T2 - Reasons, warrants, and normal suasory inclinations

AU - Yu, Shiyang

AU - Zenker, Frank

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Claim-to-validity

KW - Conductive argument

KW - Degrees of importance

KW - Dialectical view

KW - Pro and con reasons

KW - Product view

KW - Value hierarchy

U2 - 10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

DO - 10.22329/il.v39i1.5080

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85064720846

VL - 39

SP - 32

EP - 69

JO - Informal Logic

JF - Informal Logic

SN - 0824-2577

IS - 1

ER -