Presuming and Presumption in Everyday Argumentation: A response to Godden and Walton

Abstract

In response to critique by Godden and Walton, this essay delineates the role of moral motivation in the commitment structure of ordinary presumptive inferences. It defends the capacity of ordinary presumptions to support discursive structures within which everyday argumentation can address defeasible claims and enable alignments and realignments in probative obligations, i.e., burdens of proof.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

The epistemic relevance of social considerations in ordinary day-to-day presumptions.Fred J. Kauffeld - unknown
Presumptions in argument: Epistemic versus social approaches.David Godden & Harvey Siegel - unknown
Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. [REVIEW]J. Anthony Blair - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.Fred J. Kauffeld - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):245-266.
Is Practical Reasoning Presumptive?Christian Kock - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):91-108.
Ad Hominem Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University Alabama Press.
Corroborative evidence.David Godden - 2010 - In Chris Reed & Christopher W. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications. pp. 201-212.
Nature and Reason: Inertia and Argumentation.James Crosswhite - unknown
Alternatives to suspicion and trust as conditions for challenge in argumentative dialogues.Douglas Walton & David Godden - 2006 - In P. Riley (ed.), Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation. National Communication Association. pp. 438-444.
A dialogical theory of presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - unknown
Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes.Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):291-316.
Presumption in legal argumentation: from antiquity to the middle ages.Hanns Hohmann - unknown
Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions.David Godden & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
D. N. Walton, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.J. Anthony Blair - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (3):338-343.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
21 (#737,611)

6 months
5 (#639,460)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Fred Kauffeld
Edgewood College

Citations of this work

Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions.Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):591-613.
Presumptions in Speech Acts.Cristina Corredor - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):573-589.
Presumptions in Communication.Andrei Moldovan - 2016 - Studia Humana 5 (3):104-117.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

How to do things with words.John Langshaw Austin - 1962 - Oxford [Eng.]: Clarendon Press. Edited by Marina Sbisá & J. O. Urmson.
What we owe to each other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 2002 - Mind 111 (442):323-354.
Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions.H. Paul Grice - 1969 - Philosophical Review 78 (2):147-177.
The ascription of responsibility and rights.H. L. A. Hart - 1951 - In Gilbert Ryle & Antony Flew (eds.), Logic and language (first series): essays. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 171 - 194.

View all 19 references / Add more references