Going Around in Circles

IF 1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1007/s10503-024-09640-1
Barteld Kooi
{"title":"Going Around in Circles","authors":"Barteld Kooi","doi":"10.1007/s10503-024-09640-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper tries to reconcile the clash between argumentation theory and formal logic regarding circular arguments, which are regarded as the fallacy of <i>begging the question</i> by the former, and a benign and useful inference pattern by the latter. This paper provides a formal system which can represent circular arguments found in the literature. The formal system makes it possible to distinguish two ways in which arguments can be circular. The first type of circularity, which is vicious, is when an argument is based on an inference step which is (indirectly) supported by that inference step itself. The second kind of circularity, which is benign, occurs when one of the premises is the same proposition as the conclusion. The first type of circularity implies the second type of circularity, but not the other way round. This distinction is in line with other approaches to circular arguments. Analyzing selected examples from the literature shows the value of the formal system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"38 4","pages":"477 - 497"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-024-09640-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-024-09640-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper tries to reconcile the clash between argumentation theory and formal logic regarding circular arguments, which are regarded as the fallacy of begging the question by the former, and a benign and useful inference pattern by the latter. This paper provides a formal system which can represent circular arguments found in the literature. The formal system makes it possible to distinguish two ways in which arguments can be circular. The first type of circularity, which is vicious, is when an argument is based on an inference step which is (indirectly) supported by that inference step itself. The second kind of circularity, which is benign, occurs when one of the premises is the same proposition as the conclusion. The first type of circularity implies the second type of circularity, but not the other way round. This distinction is in line with other approaches to circular arguments. Analyzing selected examples from the literature shows the value of the formal system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在原地打转
本文试图调和论证理论与形式逻辑在循环论证问题上的冲突,前者认为循环论证是一种回避问题的谬论,后者则认为循环论证是一种有益的推理模式。本文提供了一个可以表示文献中发现的循环论证的形式化系统。形式系统使得区分论证循环的两种方式成为可能。第一种循环是恶性的,当一个论点建立在一个推理步骤的基础上,而这个推理步骤又(间接地)得到了这个推理步骤本身的支持。第二种循环是良性的,当其中一个前提与结论是同一个命题时就会出现。第一种类型的圆意味着第二种类型的圆,而不是相反。这种区别与其他循环论证的方法是一致的。从文献中选取的例子分析显示了形式系统的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
期刊最新文献
Going Around in Circles Multimodal Argument as Dialogue Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Sara Greco, Ton Van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal, and Peng Wu. Argumentative Style. A pragma-Dialectical Study of Functional Variety in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2022. 9789027211354 ‘Argumentative Disobedience’ as a Strategy to Confront Hate Speech Wittgenstein and Toulmin’s Model of Argument: The Riddle Explained Away
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1