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)