Argumentation theory

The argumentation theory is a branch of philosophy that deals with the form and the use of arguments. In addition to philosophy and logic extends into the topic in the disciplines of psychology, law, linguistics, pedagogy and literary criticism.

After an eventful, circa 2500 -year history of argumentative speech, the concept of argument has since the mid- 20 yrs. get a new relevance for philosophy and the sciences. Try the concept of truth is often especially in normative subjects by non- normative designs, such as the validity of argumentative ( well Rapp ) or conditional approval ability of third parties ( Perelman ) to replace or to reinterpret so.

An argument is often understood as a piece of human speech, which is suitable for the validity or invalidity of a ( so far dubious ) hypothesis to prove. According to the traditional understanding, as according to Aristotle, different types of arguments have always been distinguished, including those which, for example, based on traditional Requirements and authority attributions or rhetorical devices. It was however assumed that the ideal case of an argument of such conditions and resources is free:

The ideal argument using one or more premises which are formulated so that their references or truth-makers are philosophically precise detectable, and independently plausible as premises, and from which a proposition to be proved thesis for each irrefutable because logically follows, a notion of logical consequence, it was assumed according to classical logics. Numerous especially developed in the 19th and 20th century proposals for argumentation theory go there to have that such an ideal model for too many cases is inappropriate. It detects too few plausibly held to be valid arguments and representing their structure inappropriate. Moreover, in order to distinguish cases of arguing against such of explaining or proving Erwirkens of approval of threats or enticements ( eristic ) kriteriologisch, a much more extensive theoretical framework must be developed that need above all non-classical logics.

Following ancient divisions ( logic, dialectic, rhetoric ), a distinction is made between argumentation as a product, procedure and process. For the product perspective, the transition from premises to conclusions is essential. In addition to classical logic is here with new logic systems worked especially those of the dialogical logic and various semi- formal approaches such as informal logic or the pragma - dialectics. Starting from the late Chaim Perelman so-called "new rhetoric " acceptance relevant figures are studied in theory and empiricism while Charles Leonard Hamblin 1970, a new academic sub - field that deals with fallacies opened.

For practical purposes, Stephen Toulmin has developed a highly regarded scheme: that an argument is always addressed ( self-addressing as a limiting case ), argumentierendes speeches thus linguistic communication is fundamental insight for procedural theories. Results of linguistic pragmatics on the dependence of linguistic understanding of common rules have been processed into various normative approaches, especially of discourse theory.

The notion of argument is discussed in numerous diverse disciplines, partly as object of study, partly as a framework for clarifying methodological issues.