How to identify an argument type? On the hermeneutics of persuasive discourse

This paper proposes a theory of interpreting argument types as an integral part of a systematic and comprehensive ‘hermeneutics of persuasive discourse’. It first explains how such a hermeneutics can be developed based on pragmatic insights about the use of language for persuasive purposes expressed in the philosophy of argument. Then, after having provided an overview of the main hermeneutical stages involved in interpreting persuasive discourse, the paper focuses on the stage of argument type identification. It formulates a ‘hermeneutics of argument type’ in terms of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA), an argument categorization framework systematizing existing accounts of arguments in the broad sense of the term (topoi, loci, argument schemes, fallacies, means of persuasion). For each of the three parameters within this framework, ‘argument form’, ‘argument substance’, and ‘argument lever’, the paper describes how to determine their value by analyzing several examples of natural arguments.</p

The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion

In this contribution, I will develop a comprehensive tool for the reconstruction and evaluation of argumentation from expert opinion. This is done by analyzing and then combining two dialectical accounts of this type of argumentation. Walton’s account of the ‘appeal to expert opinion’ provides a number of useful, but fairly unsystematic suggestions for critical questions pertaining to argumentation from expert opinion. The pragma-dialectical account of ‘argumentation from authority’ offers a clear and systematic, but fairly general framework for the reconstruction and evaluation of this type of argumentation. The tool is developed by incorporating Walton’s critical questions into a pragma-dialectical framework