Instruments to Evaluate Pragmatic Argumentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Abstract

The paper sets out instruments for the evaluation of pragmatic argumentation, i.e. of argumentation that seeks to support a recommendation (not) to carry out an action by highlighting its (un)desirable consequences. The theoretical starting point is the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The evaluative instruments proposed consist of an argument scheme and two dialectical profiles, one specifying the inter-subjective identification procedure (IIP) and another outlining the inter-subjective testing procedure (ITP) for pragmatic argumentation. The argument scheme represents those elements of pragmatic argumentation that are directly relevant to its evaluation: the type of propositions involved – one causal and another evaluative – and the type of justificatory relationship connecting those propositions to the standpoint. The dialectical profile representing the IIP outlines the moves the parties to the discussion can carry out to establish the acceptability of the causal and evaluative propositions. The dialectical profile representing the ITP sets out the argumentative moves the parties can perform to assess the justificatory function of pragmatic argumentation. The latter profile comprises a general question on whether the pragmatic argument scheme is within the discussants shared procedural starting points and a set of critical questions to examine whether the argument scheme has been correctly applied. The author elaborates on and supplements contributions made within (Garssen B, Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek (Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical examination). With a summary in English. IFOTT, Amsterdam, 1997; Feteris ET, Pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. In: van Eemeren FH (ed) Advances in pragma-dialectics. Sic-Sat, Amsterdam, pp 423–259, 2002) and outside the pragma-dialectical paradigm (Clarke DS Jr, Practical inferences, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1985; Schellens JP, Types of argument and the critical reader. In: (van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard ChA (eds) Argumentation: analysis and practice. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, 1987; Walton D, Synthese 157:197–240, 2007) to the study of pragmatic argumentation. As regards the argument scheme for pragmatic argumentation, she distinguishes a material and a connection premise in the argument scheme, defines the connection premise of the argumentation as a complex premise, and analyses it into two propositions, one causal and another evaluative (Sect. 3.1). Together with outlining a dialectical profile for the IIP, the author discusses some of the complexities involved in establishing the acceptability of these two propositions (Sect. 3.2.1). Concerning the ITP for pragmatic argumentation, the author gives a rationale for the relevance of each the critical question proposed and situates them in a dialectical profile in order to make clear that certain critical questions have priority over other and that sometimes there is more than one reasonable type of response to the same critical question (Sect. 3.2.2). Finally, the author discusses in which ways the critical questions outlined in the profile also account for situations in which there is an objective that is both more desirable and in some way incompatible with the desirable consequences mentioned in a pragmatic argument (Sect. 3.2.3).KeywordsCritical QuestionArgument SchemeDesirable ConsequencePragmatic ArgumentationCausal GeneralisationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.