Is “Argument” subject to the product/process ambiguity?

Informal Logic 31 (2):75-88 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The product/process distinction with regards to “argument” has a longstanding history and foundational role in argumentation theory. I shall argue that, regardless of one’s chosen ontology of arguments, arguments are not the product of some process of arguing. Hence, appeal to the distinction is distorting the very organizational foundations of argumentation theory and should be abandoned

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.22329/il.v31i2.3098

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Arguments as Abstract Objects.Paul L. Simard Smith & Andrei Moldovan - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (3):230-261.
The structure of argumentation in health product messages.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (3):179-198.
Seeing the anger in someone's face.Rowland Stout - 2010 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 84 (1):29-43.
Product Teleosemantics: The Next Stage in the Evolution of Product Semantics.John Takamura - 2008 - In Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research.
Creative product and creative process in science and art.Larry Briskman - 1980 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 23 (1):83 – 106.
On Making Process Practically Visible, or Moving Constructivism Beyond Philosophical Argumentation.M. Bartesaghi - 2011 - Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):22-24.
Creative product and creative process in science and art.L. Briskman - 1981 - In Denis Dutton & Michael Krausz (eds.), The Concept of creativity in science and art. Hingham, MA: Distributors for the U.S. and Canada, Kluwer Boston. pp. 83 – 106.
What a Real Argument Is.Ben Hamby - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (3):313-326.
Integrity in the corporation: The plight of corporate product advocates. [REVIEW]Christopher W. Gowans - 1984 - Journal of Business Ethics 3 (1):21 - 28.
The Influence of Corporate Environmental Ethics on Competitive Advantage: The Mediation Role of Green Innovation. [REVIEW]Ching-Hsun Chang - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 104 (3):361-370.
Exploiting abstract possibilities: A critique of the concept and practice of product patenting. [REVIEW]Hans Radder - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (3):275-291.
On the Rationale for Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations.Matthew W. McKeon - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):283-303.
What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education.Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
The process-product goals distinction: A reply.George McClure - 1966 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 4 (3):352-353.
Some Clarifications about the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. A Reply to Santibáñez Yañez (2012).Hugo Mercier - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):259-268.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-04-19

Downloads
79 (#206,954)

6 months
17 (#141,290)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

G. C. Goddu
University of Richmond

Citations of this work

Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Logic as Related to Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 2012 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 45 (2):148-164.
On Defining ‘Argument’.Jeffrey Goodman - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):589-602.
What a Real Argument Is.Ben Hamby - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (3):313-326.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The logic of deep disagreements.Robert Fogelin - 1985 - Informal Logic 7 (1):3-11.
Critical thinking.Max Black - 1946 - New York,: Prentice-Hall.

View all 11 references / Add more references