Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:04:33.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exemplification and Argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

G.C. Goddu
G.C. Goddu*
Affiliation:
University of Richmond, Richmond, VA23173, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Grass is red’ is the only premise and is obviously false, so (X) should convince you that there are arguments with merely obviously false premises. On the face of it, there is nothing irrational about being so convinced by (X). But then (X) is a rationally persuasive argument with merely obviously false premises.

A cheap trick you say? Not so, say I — a trick yes, but, I shall argue, far from cheap. In ‘ ‘P, Therefore, P’ Without Circularity,’ Roy Sorensen uses numerous examples like these to suggest, among other things, that there is a missing parameter to argument evaluation, viz. exemplification. I shall argue, however, that understanding these sorts of cases in the way that motivates Sorensen to recommend adding the extra parameter has extremely unpalatable consequences. I shall propose an alternative account that avoids these consequences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue 3-4 , December 2012 , pp. 235 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, F. 2000. ‘The Weapon.’ In From These Ashes: The Complete Short SF of Frederic Brown. Yalow, B. ed. Farmingham, MA: The NESFA Press.Google Scholar
Burleson, B. 1981. ‘The Senses of Argument Revisited.’ In Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Argumentation. Ziegmuller, G. & Rhodes, J. eds. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2003. ‘But why call it an argument?: In Defense of the Linguistically Inexplicable.’ In Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Blair, J.A. et al., eds. CD-ROM, Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Govier, T. 1987. Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, D. 2007. ‘Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument.’ In Philosophy of Logic. Jacquette, Dale ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. 1999. ‘An Empathic Theory of Circularity.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77: 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. 1996. ‘Unbeggable Questions.’ Analysis 56: 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. 1991. ‘“P, Therefore, P” Without Circularity.’ Journal of Philosophy 88: 245–66.Google Scholar