The “define argument” thread originated in Bob Ennis’ reply to Jim Freeman’s
RFC, “What would you like to see AILACT promote?” Bob wrote, “Perhaps the
members of AILACT might be polled to see which sense of ‘argument’ we feel
is the basic one to use (or that we use) in critical thinking.” I agree.
Suggestion: At the risk of reliving Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” in
this thread, consider separating the fundamental definition of “argument”
from the several secondary uses to which an argument may be put, e.g.,
charging one pound for five minutes of arguing <g>. So, if Bob’s poll were
taken, I’d line up with the traditional definition of an argument found in
various CT and logic textbooks.
Recommendation: AILACT should formulate a standard definition of “argument”
suitable for citation. (This assumes that the results of Bob E.’s poll
support standardization.)
A PDF of my argument hand-out for my informal logic course is available at
http://userpages.bright.net/~dclose/ctargdef.pdf. Nothing new to see there,
of course, but I find it very useful in my CT classes as well as my symbolic
logic course. The hand-out includes definitions from my graduate school
professors (Beardsley, and Leblanc and Wisdom) as well as colleagues and
AILACT authors. It’s no surprise that the definitions are all basically the
same, so if AILACT were to proceed with the recommendation above, it
shouldn’t be very difficult.
FWIW,
Daryl
N. B. I understand that reaching consensus on basic definitions is not
always politically simple, especially in philosophy. Sometimes a basic
disciplinary concept is unsettled—or even arguably inchoate—e.g., the
concept of construct validity in the social sciences. Perhaps “argument” is
in this category, but I don’t think so.
______________________________________
Daryl Close, Ph.D.
Professor of Computer Science and Philosophy
Heidelberg University
Tiffin, OH 44883
419-448-2281 (office)
E-mail: dclose [at] heidelberg [dot] edu
Web Site: http://bright.net/~dclose
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to
the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases
where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease,
with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting
the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities
of the situation, is mastery.
--George Pólya, How To Solve It (1945)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the AILACTD-L list, click the following link:
https://hunter.listserv.cuny.edu/Scripts/wa-hc.exe?SUBED1=AILACTD-L
|
