Abstract
AbstractCritical questions have been understood in the framework of argument schemes from their conception. This understanding has influenced the process of evaluating arguments and the development of classifications. This paper argues that relating these two notions is detrimental to research on argument schemes and critical questions, and that it is possible to have critical questions without relying on argument schemes. Two objections are raised against the classical understanding of critical questions based on theoretical and analytical grounds. The theoretical objection presents the assumptions that are embedded in the idea of argument schemes delivering questions to evaluate arguments. The analytical objection, on the other hand, exposes the shortcomings of the theory when critical questions are used to evaluate real-life argumentation. After presenting these criticisms, a new theory of critical questions is sketched. This theory takes into account the dynamics of dialectical discussions to describe the function of critical questions and their implications for evaluating arguments.
Funder
Università della Svizzera italiana
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Philosophy
Reference28 articles.
1. Anonymized
2. Aristotle. 1926. The art of rhetoric (trans. Freese, J.H.). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
3. Aristotle. 1960. Topics (trans. Forster, E.S.). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
4. Baumtrog, M. 2021. Designing critical questions for argumentation schemes. Argumentation 35(4): 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09549-z.
5. Bush, G.W. 2003. President George Bush discusses Iraq in national press conference. The White House. President Gorge W. Bush. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献