Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article appropriates Thomas Conley's (1990) four classical positions on the nature and function of rhetoric, and assesses their relevance vis-à-vis three contemporary normative approaches to argumentation: the epistemological approach, pragma-dialectical theory, and informal logic. In each case, the room for the integration of rhetorical insights into argument evaluation is found to be restricted by dialectical and logico-epistemic norms endorsed in these approaches. Moreover, when rhetorical insights could fit the so restricted room, then the reliability and the specificity of such insights remain inversely related, with methodologically well-hardened knowledge of what persuades remaining too general. The trade-off between reliability and specificity of suasory knowledge, or so is our thesis, undermines the claim that rhetorical insights can presently inform the evaluation of natural language arguments in these three normative approaches.

Journal
Philosophy & Rhetoric
Published
2013-11-01
DOI
10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0415
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Philosophy & Rhetoric

Cites in this index (1)

  1. Philosophy & Rhetoric
Also cites 24 works outside this index ↓
  1. Garssen, Bart, and Jan Albert van Laar. 2010. “Pragma-Dialectical Response to Objectivist Epistemic Challenge…
  2. Goldman, Alvin I. 1994. “Argumentation and Social Epistemology.”Journal of Philosophy 91 (1): 27–49.
  3. Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Goldman, Alvin I. 2003. “An Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.”Informal Logic 23 (1): 51–63.
  5. Harpine, William D. 2004. “What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 37 (4): 335–52.
  6. Hitchcock, David. 2000. “The Significance of Informal Logic for Philosophy.”Informal Logic 20 (2): 129–38.
  7. Johnson, Ralph H. 2008. “Responding to Objections.” In Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy An…
  8. Jørgensen, Charlotte, Christian Kock, and Lone Rørbech. 1998. “Rhetoric That Shifts Votes: An Explorative Stu…
  9. Kock, Christian. 2009. “Choice Is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation.”Argumentation 23…
  10. Lumer, Christoph, ed. 2005. “The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.” Pt. 1. Special issue, Informal L…
  11. Meyer, Michel. 2010. “The Brussels School of Rhetoric: From the New Rhetoric to Problematology.”Philosophy an…
  12. Rescorla, Michael. 2009. “Shifting the Burden of Proof.”Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234): 86–109.
  13. Scott, Robert L. 1967. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.”Central States Speech Journal 18 (1): 9–17.
  14. Scott, Robert L. 1976. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later.”Central States Speech Journal 27 (…
  15. Seiboldt, David R., and Renee A. Meyers. 2007. “Group Argument: A Structuration Perspective and Research Prog…
  16. Siegel, Harvey, and John Biro. 1997. “Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies.”Argumentation 11 (…
  17. Siegel, Harvey, and John Biro. 2008. “Rationality, Reasonableness, and Critical Rationalism: Problems with th…
  18. Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.”Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–95.
  19. Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  20. van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectica…
  21. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectic…
  22. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2003. “The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Arg…
  23. Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi…
  24. Zenker, Frank. 2010. “Analyzing Social Policy Argumentation: A Case Study of the 2007 Majority Opinion of the…
CrossRef global citation count: 1 View in citation network →