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
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.

References (45) · 11 in this index

  1. Aijaz et al. (2013)
    Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness
    Argumentation
  2. 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  ↗
  3. Bodlović (2017)
    Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory
    Argumentation
  4. Bodlović, P. 2019a. What determines the strength of practical and cognitive presumptions? In Proceedings of t…
  5. Bodlović (2019)
    Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance
    Argumentation
Show all 45 →
  1. Bodlović, P. 2020a. Structural differences between practical and cognitive presumptions. In Proceedings of th…
  2. P Bodlović (2020)
    Bodlović, P. 2020b. On presumptions, burdens of proof, and explanations. Informal Logic 40 (2): 255–294.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  3. LJ Cohen (1992)
    An essay on belief and acceptance
  4. 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  ↗
  5. CZ Elgin (2010)
    Disagreement
     ↗
  6. JB Freeman (2005)
    Acceptable premises
  7. Freeman, J.B. 2020. Commentary on Bodlović’s Structural differences between practical and cognitive presumpti…
  8. Gama (2017)
    The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation
    Argumentation
  9. Godden (2017)
    Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing Epistemic Risk
    Argumentation
  10. D Godden (2019)
    Presumptions and burdens of proof. An anthology of argumentation and the law
  11. D Godden (2007)
    Godden, D., and D. Walton. 2007. A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition 1…
    Pragmatics & Cognition  ↗
  12. A Goldman (1994)
    Goldman, A. 1994. Argumentation and social epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 91 (1): 27–49.
    Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  13. A Goldman (2003)
    Goldman, A. 2003. An epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 23 (1): 51–63.
    Informal Logic
  14. Hansen, H.V. 2003. Theories of presumption and burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the…
  15. Kauffeld (1998)
    Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing…
    Argumentation
  16. FJ Kauffeld (2003)
    Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation
     ↗
  17. Kauffeld, F.J. 2005. Presumptions and shifting the burden of proof. Paper Presented at the IPrA conference. h…
  18. J Koplin (2015)
    Koplin, J., and M. Selgelid. 2015. Burden of proof in bioethics. Bioethics 29 (9): 597–603.
    Bioethics  ↗
  19. Krabbe et al. (2011)
    The Ways of Criticism
    Argumentation
  20. Lewiński (2017)
    Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions
    Argumentation
  21. K Petroski (2008)
    Petroski, K. 2008. The public face of presumptions. Episteme 6 (3): 388–401.
    Episteme  ↗
  22. M Pigliucci (2014)
    Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry. 2014. Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes.…
    Philosophia  ↗
  23. Pinto, R.C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic (with an introduction…
     ↗
  24. JL Pollock (1987)
    Pollock, J.L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive Science  ↗
  25. H Prakken (2009)
    Legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic
    Applied legal philosophy series
  26. Räikkä (1997)
    Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism
    Argumentation
  27. J Raz (2009)
    Reasons for action
     ↗
  28. N Rescher (1976)
    Plausible reasoning
  29. N Rescher (1977)
    Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge
  30. N Rescher (2006)
    Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition
     ↗
  31. M Rescorla (2009)
    Rescorla, M. 2009. Epistemic and dialectical regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1): 43–60.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  32. Turri, J., M. Alfano, and J. Greco. 2019. Virtue epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fa…
  33. E Ullmann-Margalit (1983)
    Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1983. On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 80 (3): 143–163.
    Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  34. FH van Eemeren (2002)
    Advances in Pragma-Dialectics
  35. Laar et al. (2013)
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance
    Argumentation
  36. Walton (1988)
    Burden of proof
    Argumentation
  37. D Walton (2008)
    Walton, D. 2008. A dialogical theory of presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2): 209–243.
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  ↗
  38. D Walton (2014)
    Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation
     ↗
  39. D Walton (2008)
    Argumentation schemes
     ↗
  40. R Whately (1963)
    Elements of rhetoric
CrossRef global citation count: 3 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Argumentation Apr 2026
    A Normative Pragmatic Inquiry into the Volatility of Norms in Argumentation ↗
    Sally Jackson
    discourse analysis argument qualitative research public rhetoric
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly Apr 2026
    Book Review: Environmental Preservation and the Grey Cliffs Conflict: Negotiating Common Narratives, Values, and Ethos PickeringK. (2024). Environmental Preservation and the Grey Cliffs Conflict: Negotiating Common Narratives, Values, and Ethos. Utah State University Press, 268 pp. ↗
    Mia Twomey
    argument book reviews
  3. Res Rhetorica Apr 2026
    Logos in ancient Greek discourse on rhetoric: An overview ↗
    Arkadiusz Sokolnicki
    classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis argument
  4. 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
  5. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine Apr 2026
    Psyche or Soma?: An Analysis of the Medical Debates Over the Diagnosis and Treatment of “Transsexualism” ↗
    Samantha Rippetoe
    rhetorical criticism argument archival research