1 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyiv, Ukraine)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/fhi/15/2
Received: 13 January 2021 / Accepted: 2 March 2021 / Published: 25 April 2021
View Full-Text Review Reports Cite This Paper
Abstract
The paper is devoted to the relevance criterion of argument evaluation within argumentation theory. Argument evaluation is a tool to avoid misunderstanding and misleading in argumentation — one of the most basic forms of human communications. The purpose of the paper is to outline the generalized relevance criterion, which involves the key relevance types proposed in different approaches to argumentation. Achieving this goal helps to give a clear answer to the question, “What is to be relevant within the argumentative communication?” The author proves that the key features of logical relevance, dialectical relevance, and audience relevance. It is compared these relevant types to answer the question, “Whether is it possible to integrate them into one generalized criterion of relevance?”
Keywords: real argument, logical relevance, dialectical relevance, audience-relevance, informal consequence
References
Babiuk, Viktoriia (2020) The relevance criterion of argument evaluation: pragmatic interpretation. Humanities studies, Volume 3 (80), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.26661/hst-2019-3-80-01
Blair, Anthony (2004) Argument and its uses. Informal Logic, Volume 24, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_14
Blair, Anthony (2012) Premissary relevance. In Groundwork in the theory of argumentation. Springer Science & Business Media. Argumentation Library, 21, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154326
Bowles, George (1990) Propositional relevance. Informal Logic, Volume 12, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v12i2.2602
Finocchiaro, Maurice (2003) Dialectics, evaluation, and argument. Informal Logic, Vol. 23, No 1. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v23i1.2152
Freeman, James (2011) Argument structure representation and theory. Springer science+business media.
Johnson, Ralph and Anthony Blair (1994) Logical self–defense. New York: Mcgraw-hill.
Hitchcock, David (2011). Inference claims. Informal Logic, Volume 31 (3), 191-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_8
Hitchcock, David (2017) Non-logical consequence. In On Reasoning and Argument. Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking. Springer International Publishing AG, 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_7
Hitchcock, David (2017) On Reasoning and Argument. Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking. Springer International Publishing AG.
Khomenko, Iryna (2018) A Look at Informal Logic. Future Human Image. Volume 9, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.29202/fhi/9/5
Macagno, Fabrizio (2008) Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory. Informal Logic, Volume 28 (2), 102-128. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542
Paglieri, Fabrizio and Cristiano Castelfranchi (2014) Trust, relevance, and arguments. Argument & Computation, Volume 5 (2-3), 216-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2014.899270
Tindale, Christopher (2015) The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645
Walton, Douglas (1979) Ignoratio elenchi: the red herring fallacy. Informal Logic, Volume 2 (3), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v2i3.2823
Walton, Douglas (1999) Dialectical relevance in persuasion dialogue. Informal Logic, Volume 19 (2-3), 119-143. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v19i2.2323
Walton, Douglas (2004) Relevance in argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609441