Argumentation Jun 2021 Open Access

On the Differences Between Practical and Cognitive Presumptions

Petar Bodlović University of Groningen

Abstract

AbstractThe study of presumptions has intensified in argumentation theory over the last years. Although scholars put forward different accounts, they mostly agree that presumptions can be studied in deliberative and epistemic contexts, have distinct contextual functions (guiding decisions vs. acquiring information), and promote different kinds of goals (non-epistemic vs. epistemic). Accordingly, there are “practical” and “cognitive” presumptions. In this paper, I show that the differences between practical and cognitive presumptions go far beyond contextual considerations. The central aim is to explore Nicholas Rescher’s contention that both types of presumptions have a closely analogous pragmatic function, i.e., that practical and cognitive presumptions are made to avoid greater harm in circumstances of epistemic uncertainty. By comparing schemes of practical and cognitive reasoning, I show that Rescher’s contention requires qualifications. Moreover, not only do practical and cognitive presumptions have distinct pragmatic functions, but they also perform different dialogical functions (enabling progress vs. preventing regress) and, in some circumstances, cannot be defeated by the same kinds of evidence. Hence, I conclude that the two classes of presumptions merit distinct treatment in argumentation theory.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2021-06-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-020-09536-w
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
argument
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (11)

  1. Bodlović (2019)
    Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance
    Argumentation
  2. Bodlović (2017)
    Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory
    Argumentation
  3. Gama (2017)
    The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation
    Argumentation
  4. Godden (2017)
    Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing Epistemic Risk
    Argumentation
  5. Lewiński (2017)
    Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions
    Argumentation
Show all 11 →
  1. Aijaz et al. (2013)
    Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness
    Argumentation
  2. Laar et al. (2013)
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance
    Argumentation
  3. Krabbe et al. (2011)
    The Ways of Criticism
    Argumentation
  4. Kauffeld (1998)
    Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing…
    Argumentation
  5. Räikkä (1997)
    Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism
    Argumentation
  6. Walton (1988)
    Burden of proof
    Argumentation
Also cites 19 works outside this index ↓
  1. L Bermejo-Luque (2016)
    Bermejo-Luque, L. 2016. Being a correct presumption vs. being presumably the case. Informal Logic 36 (1): 1–25.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  2. P Bodlović (2020)
    Bodlović, P. 2020b. On presumptions, burdens of proof, and explanations. Informal Logic 40 (2): 255–294.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  3. T Dare (2008)
    Dare, T., and J. Kingsbury. 2008. Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations…
    The Southern Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  4. CZ Elgin (2010)
    Disagreement
     ↗
  5. D Godden (2007)
    Godden, D., and D. Walton. 2007. A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition 1…
    Pragmatics & Cognition  ↗
  6. A Goldman (1994)
    Goldman, A. 1994. Argumentation and social epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 91 (1): 27–49.
    Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  7. FJ Kauffeld (2003)
    Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation
     ↗
  8. J Koplin (2015)
    Koplin, J., and M. Selgelid. 2015. Burden of proof in bioethics. Bioethics 29 (9): 597–603.
    Bioethics  ↗
  9. K Petroski (2008)
    Petroski, K. 2008. The public face of presumptions. Episteme 6 (3): 388–401.
    Episteme  ↗
  10. M Pigliucci (2014)
    Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry. 2014. Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes.…
    Philosophia  ↗
  11. Pinto, R.C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic (with an introduction…
     ↗
  12. JL Pollock (1987)
    Pollock, J.L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive Science  ↗
  13. J Raz (2009)
    Reasons for action
     ↗
  14. N Rescher (2006)
    Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition
     ↗
  15. M Rescorla (2009)
    Rescorla, M. 2009. Epistemic and dialectical regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1): 43–60.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  16. E Ullmann-Margalit (1983)
    Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1983. On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 80 (3): 143–163.
    Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  17. D Walton (2008)
    Walton, D. 2008. A dialogical theory of presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2): 209–243.
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  ↗
  18. D Walton (2014)
    Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation
     ↗
  19. D Walton (2008)
    Argumentation schemes
     ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 3 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Res Rhetorica Apr 2026
    Logos in ancient Greek discourse on rhetoric: An overview ↗
    Arkadiusz Sokolnicki
    classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis argument
  2. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    Associations of adolescents’ argumentative writing scores and growth when evaluated by different human raters and artificial intelligence models ↗
    Deborah K. Reed; Sterett Mercer
    argument artificial intelligence
  3. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine Apr 2026
    Psyche or Soma? ↗
    Samantha Rippetoe
    rhetorical criticism argument archival research
  4. Argumentation Mar 2026
    The Recursive Argument Structure Reconsidered ↗
    Shiyang Yu
    argument
  5. Argumentation Mar 2026
    Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotic Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education ↗
    Eliza Rybska; Michał Klichowski; Costas P. Constantinou; Barbara Jankowiak
    writing pedagogy teacher development argument qualitative research