Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength
Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Li...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sciendo
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2023-0007 |
| _version_ | 1797258325042135040 |
|---|---|
| author | Zenker Frank Dębowska-Kozłowska Kamila Godden David Selinger Marcin Wells Simon |
| author_facet | Zenker Frank Dębowska-Kozłowska Kamila Godden David Selinger Marcin Wells Simon |
| author_sort | Zenker Frank |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T13:48:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c70582aed5ee487da9790cd1f56758ed |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2199-6059 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:51:44Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Sciendo |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| spelling | doaj.art-c70582aed5ee487da9790cd1f56758ed2024-03-18T10:29:37ZengSciendoStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric2199-60592023-12-0168113316710.2478/slgr-2023-0007Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument StrengthZenker Frank0Dębowska-Kozłowska Kamila1Godden David2Selinger Marcin3Wells Simon41College of Philosophy, Nankai University, Tianjin, P.R. China2Faculty of English, Department of Pragmatics of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland3Philosophy Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA4Department of Logic and Methodology of Sciences, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland5School of Computing, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, ScotlandDifferent approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2023-0007argument structurebayesiancomputationdiagramdialecticempiricalevaluationperceived argument strengththought listing |
| spellingShingle | Zenker Frank Dębowska-Kozłowska Kamila Godden David Selinger Marcin Wells Simon Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric argument structure bayesian computation diagram dialectic empirical evaluation perceived argument strength thought listing |
| title | Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength |
| title_full | Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength |
| title_fullStr | Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength |
| title_full_unstemmed | Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength |
| title_short | Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength |
| title_sort | thou shalt not squander life comparing five approaches to argument strength |
| topic | argument structure bayesian computation diagram dialectic empirical evaluation perceived argument strength thought listing |
| url | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2023-0007 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zenkerfrank thoushaltnotsquanderlifecomparingfiveapproachestoargumentstrength AT debowskakozłowskakamila thoushaltnotsquanderlifecomparingfiveapproachestoargumentstrength AT goddendavid thoushaltnotsquanderlifecomparingfiveapproachestoargumentstrength AT selingermarcin thoushaltnotsquanderlifecomparingfiveapproachestoargumentstrength AT wellssimon thoushaltnotsquanderlifecomparingfiveapproachestoargumentstrength |