"Any such definition would depart from
the lexical meaning (and the current use of the term in AI) unless
it allows that there can be pro and con arguments": That is
unquestionably so, but I do not understand why the possibility of
counterarguments has to be part of the definition itself. I have
seen definitions that make it so. For example, Sinnott-Armstrong
and Fogelin in the 9th edition of Understanding Arguments
define an argument as "giving reasons for or against some
claim" (my emphasis). In the current edition they have a different
definition that contains nothing corresponding to the "or against"
part, and quite rightly so in my view, because it is redundant. If
I argue against a claim or position or argument, I must be
trying to establish some claim about that claim or
position or argument--that it is false, confused, misleading,
unwarranted, or whatever.
So to define an argument as, e.g., "an attempt to prove or
establish a conclusion" (Robert Ennis's definition in Daryl
Close's collection), does not in any way exclude the possibility
of an argument being directed against a claim or a position or an
argument, as far as I can see.
Miles Rind
Douglas Walton wrote:
[log in to unmask]">
I think you should feel free to define argument in a way
that best suits the needs of your field or your project. All I
was trying to say is that any such definition would depart
from the lexical meaning (and the current use of the term in
AI) unless it allows that there can be pro and con arguments.
Doug Walton