Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments
Argumentation is a crucial component of our lives. Although in the absence of rational debate our legal, political, and scientific systems would not be possible, there is still no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Furthermore, classical theories of argumentation are nor...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2014-12-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01420/full |
| _version_ | 1818984649765945344 |
|---|---|
| author | Marco eLillo-Unglaube Andres eCanales-Johnson Gorka eNavarrete Claudio eFuentes |
| author_facet | Marco eLillo-Unglaube Andres eCanales-Johnson Gorka eNavarrete Claudio eFuentes |
| author_sort | Marco eLillo-Unglaube |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Argumentation is a crucial component of our lives. Although in the absence of rational debate our legal, political, and scientific systems would not be possible, there is still no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Furthermore, classical theories of argumentation are normative (i.e. the acceptability of an argument is determined by a set of norms or logical rules), which sometimes creates a dissociation between the theories and people’s behavior. We think the current challenge for psychology is to bring together the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation. In this Perspective, we exemplify this point by analyzing two cases of argumentative structures experimentally studied in the context of cognitive psychology. Specifically, we focus on the slippery slope argument and the ad hominem argument under the frameworks of Bayesian and pragma-dialectics approaches, respectively. We think employing more descriptive and experimental accounts of argumentation would help Psychology to bring closer the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation with the final goal of establishing an integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T18:22:22Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4647e3bc989c48189a0f5ded68d705fc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T18:22:22Z |
| publishDate | 2014-12-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-4647e3bc989c48189a0f5ded68d705fc2022-12-21T19:30:13ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782014-12-01510.3389/fpsyg.2014.01420118947Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem argumentsMarco eLillo-Unglaube0Andres eCanales-Johnson1Gorka eNavarrete2Claudio eFuentes3Center of Argumentation and Reasoning Studies, Universidad Diego PortalesLaboratory of Cognitive and Social Neuroscience, UDP-INECO Foundation Core on Neuroscience (UIFCoN), Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile.Laboratory of Cognitive and Social Neuroscience, UDP-INECO Foundation Core on Neuroscience (UIFCoN), Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile.Center of Argumentation and Reasoning Studies, Universidad Diego PortalesArgumentation is a crucial component of our lives. Although in the absence of rational debate our legal, political, and scientific systems would not be possible, there is still no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Furthermore, classical theories of argumentation are normative (i.e. the acceptability of an argument is determined by a set of norms or logical rules), which sometimes creates a dissociation between the theories and people’s behavior. We think the current challenge for psychology is to bring together the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation. In this Perspective, we exemplify this point by analyzing two cases of argumentative structures experimentally studied in the context of cognitive psychology. Specifically, we focus on the slippery slope argument and the ad hominem argument under the frameworks of Bayesian and pragma-dialectics approaches, respectively. We think employing more descriptive and experimental accounts of argumentation would help Psychology to bring closer the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation with the final goal of establishing an integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01420/fullBayesian Modelssimilarity judgmentArgumentation Theoryslippery slope argumentad hominem argument |
| spellingShingle | Marco eLillo-Unglaube Andres eCanales-Johnson Gorka eNavarrete Claudio eFuentes Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments Frontiers in Psychology Bayesian Models similarity judgment Argumentation Theory slippery slope argument ad hominem argument |
| title | Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments |
| title_full | Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments |
| title_fullStr | Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments |
| title_full_unstemmed | Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments |
| title_short | Towards an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments |
| title_sort | towards an experimental account of argumentation the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments |
| topic | Bayesian Models similarity judgment Argumentation Theory slippery slope argument ad hominem argument |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01420/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marcoelillounglaube towardsanexperimentalaccountofargumentationthecaseoftheslipperyslopeandtheadhominemarguments AT andresecanalesjohnson towardsanexperimentalaccountofargumentationthecaseoftheslipperyslopeandtheadhominemarguments AT gorkaenavarrete towardsanexperimentalaccountofargumentationthecaseoftheslipperyslopeandtheadhominemarguments AT claudioefuentes towardsanexperimentalaccountofargumentationthecaseoftheslipperyslopeandtheadhominemarguments |