Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Groundwork in the Theory of ArgumentationPremise Adequacy

Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Premise Adequacy [It’s argued that some of the norms of premise adequacy vary with the context of argumentation. To begin, I set out some of the assumptions the discussion will take for granted, stipulate the senses I give to some of the terms of art which, although common, have different meanings in the hands of different authors, and explain what I mean by “premise adequacy.” A review of the various contexts for evaluating arguments shows that the question about when a premise may be undefended can have radically different motivations. If adequate premises are considered a necessary condition of a “good” argument, there will then be many different kinds of “good argument.” The classic philosophical notion that truth is a sufficient condition of premise adequacy for all argumentation does not stand up to the test of these different contexts of evaluation.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Groundwork in the Theory of ArgumentationPremise Adequacy

Part of the Argumentation Library Book Series (volume 21)
Editors: Tindale, Christopher W.
Blair, J. Anthony
Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation — Aug 29, 2011
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/groundwork-in-the-theory-of-argumentation-premise-adequacy-0nQJpUGF4x

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
ISBN
978-94-007-2362-7
Pages
75 –86
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_7
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[It’s argued that some of the norms of premise adequacy vary with the context of argumentation. To begin, I set out some of the assumptions the discussion will take for granted, stipulate the senses I give to some of the terms of art which, although common, have different meanings in the hands of different authors, and explain what I mean by “premise adequacy.” A review of the various contexts for evaluating arguments shows that the question about when a premise may be undefended can have radically different motivations. If adequate premises are considered a necessary condition of a “good” argument, there will then be many different kinds of “good argument.” The classic philosophical notion that truth is a sufficient condition of premise adequacy for all argumentation does not stand up to the test of these different contexts of evaluation.]

Published: Aug 29, 2011

Keywords: Argument; Argumentation; Acceptable premises; Argument evaluation; Premise evaluation; Good argument; Premise

There are no references for this article.