Argumentation theory

People use reasons to support their ideas.

This is called argumentation. It helps people talk through a problem.

Some people use talk to teach others. Other people use it to make a deal. Some even use it to win a fight.

In a court, lawyers use arguments. They show proof to help a judge. This helps them find the truth.

Arguments have a special shape. They start with a reason. Then they lead to a point.

We use these ideas every day. It helps us work together.

People use reasons to support their ideas. This is called argumentation theory. It is the study of how we use logic to prove a point.

Arguments have a special shape. They start with premises. These are the reasons or facts you use. Then, you reach a conclusion. This is the main point you want to make. For an argument to work, the reasons must lead to the point. If the reasons are messy, the argument might fail.

There are many ways to use arguments. Some people use them to teach. Others use them to make a deal through negotiation. Some people even use them to win a fight. This is called eristic dialogue.

We see arguments in many places. Lawyers use them in court to show evidence. Scientists use them to share new ideas. Even in math, people use logic to find truths. Argumentation helps us manage our disagreements. It is a tool for talking and thinking together.

Argumentation theory is the study of how people use reasons to support their ideas. It looks at how premises can either help or hurt a conclusion through logical reasoning. This field is interdisciplinary, which means it connects many different areas of study. It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, and persuasion. People use these tools to manage disagreements in a rational way. You can find argumentation in daily life, such as in science or law.

An argument has a specific internal structure. It usually starts with a set of premises, which are the assumptions or facts. Next, it uses a method of reasoning like deduction to connect them. Finally, it reaches a conclusion or a main point. For an argument to be strong, the premises must be consistent. This means they should not contradict each other. Some experts look for MINCON arguments, which are minimal and consistent.

This field has deep roots in the history of philosophy. It began with ideas like foundationalism and the study of logic. The famous philosopher Plato used a method called dialectic to question people. He used characters like Socrates to explore different ideas. Later, scholars began to move away from older ideas from Aristotle or Kant. In 1958, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced a new approach. They called it la nouvelle rhetorique to describe argument outside of strict formal rules.

There are many different ways that people engage in dialogue. Persuasion dialogue tries to resolve different points of view. Negotiation is used to make deals through cooperation. Inquiry helps people grow their knowledge to fix ignorance. Deliberation is a way to reach a decision when action is needed. Some people use eristic dialogue, which is a type of verbal fighting to win. Other types include information seeking and didactic dialogue used for teaching.

Argumentation connects to many different parts of our world. In law, judges and lawyers use it to test evidence in court. Mathematicians use logic to prove truths, such as in the work of Frege. Scientists also use it to share and verify their knowledge. Even in everyday life, sociologists study how we use conversation to interact. This includes the study of conversation analysis started by Harvey Sacks in the 1960s. Whether in a courtroom or a classroom, argumentation helps us understand how we share truth.

Argumentation theory is an interdisciplinary study of how conclusions are supported or undermined by premises. Through logical reasoning, this field examines how people use premises to reach a specific point. It encompasses the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, and persuasion. Scholars in this field study rules of inference and procedural rules. These rules apply to both artificial settings and real-world human interactions. Argumentation is a daily occurrence in public debate, science, and law.

It provides the tools to express and rationally manage disagreements.

An argument possesses a specific internal structure. It typically consists of a set of assumptions or premises. These premises are connected by a method of reasoning, such as deduction. The process results in a conclusion or a main point. An argument usually has one or more premises but only one conclusion. For an argument to be effective, the premises should be consistent. This means they do not contradict one another. Some scholars seek MINCON arguments, which are minimal consistent arguments. These are the smallest set of assumptions necessary to reach a conclusion.

There are many distinct types of dialogue used in argumentation. Persuasion dialogue aims to resolve conflicting points of view. Negotiation focuses on resolving conflicts of interest through cooperation and dealmaking. Inquiry is used to resolve general ignorance by growing knowledge. Deliberation helps groups reach a decision when action is required. Information seeking reduces ignorance by requesting data from a knowledgeable party. Some dialogue is didactic, which is used specifically for teaching. In contrast, eristic dialogue is a form of social debate where victory is the primary goal.

Argumentation theory has deep historical roots in philosophy. It originated from foundationalism, a theory of knowledge known as epistemology. Early scholars sought the grounds for claims in logic and factual laws. The dialectical method was made famous by Plato. He used the character Socrates to question others through dialogue. Over time, scholars rejected the systematic philosophy of Aristotle and the idealism of Kant. They moved away from the idea that premises get soundness from formal systems. In 1958, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced la nouvelle rhetorique. This approach described argumentation that was not limited to formal rules of inference.

In the mid-20th century, the field expanded toward everyday human interaction. Karl R. Wallace wrote a seminal essay in 1963 about "good reasons." This led to the study of "marketplace argumentation." This term describes the ordinary arguments made by ordinary people. Ray Lynn Anderson and C. David Mortensen published a key essay on this in 1967. This shift connected argumentation to the sociology of knowledge. Some thinkers also linked it to the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty referred to this shift as the "linguistic turn." These developments allowed for "non-philosophical" theories to grow in many fields.

Argumentation is vital in specialized professional fields. In law, judges and prosecutors use it to test the validity of evidence. In mathematics, scholars like Gottlob Frege sought to derive truths from logical axioms. Mathematicians use symbolic logic and proof procedures to test arguments. In science, some scholars like Alan G. Gross suggest that scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically. This means science relies on trustworthy communal methods of verification. Interpretive argumentation is also used in the humanities. This process helps people explore or resolve meanings in ambiguous texts. It is used in areas like literary theory, linguistics, and aesthetics.

Sociologists also study how argumentation functions in natural conversation. This is often called conversation analysis, or CA. It was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Harvey Sacks was a principal developer of this field. He worked alongside Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. CA is now an established force in anthropology, linguistics, and psychology. It helps researchers understand how people manage disagreements during communication. This study shows how argumentation is woven into the very fabric of human social life.