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
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Philosophy & Rhetoric

References (43) · 5 in this index

  1. Billig, Michael. 1996. “Rhetoric.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, ed. Anthony Manstead a…
  2. Blair, J. Anthony. 2007. “Relevance, Acceptability, and Sufficiency Today.”Anthropology and Philosophy 8 (1–2…
  3. Blair, J. Anthony. 2009. “Informal Logic and Logic.”Studies in Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric 16 (29): 47–67.
  4. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  5. Conley, Thomas M. 1990. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Show all 43 →
  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. 2000. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. Johnson, Ralph H. 2008. “Responding to Objections.” In Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy An…
  9. Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1983. Logical Self-Defense. 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw Hill-Ryerson.
  10. Jørgensen, Charlotte, Christian Kock, and Lone Rørbech. 1998. “Rhetoric That Shifts Votes: An Explorative Stu…
  11. Argumentation
  12. Lumer, Christoph, ed. 2005. “The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.” Pt. 1. Special issue, Informal L…
  13. Lumer, Christoph, ed. 2006. “The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.” Pt. 2. Special issue, Informal L…
  14. Meyer, Michel. 2010. “The Brussels School of Rhetoric: From the New Rhetoric to Problematology.”Philosophy an…
  15. Murray, James S. 1988. “Disputation, Deception, and Dialectic: Plato on the True Rhetoric (Phaedrus 261–266).…
  16. O'Keefe, Daniel J. 2001. “Persuasion.” In Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, ed. Thomas O. Sloane, 575–83. Oxford: Oxf…
  17. O'Keefe, Daniel J. 2009. “Persuasion.” In The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, ed. Robin L. Nabi…
  18. Rapp, Christof. 2010. “Aristotle's Rhetoric.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta…
  19. Rescorla, Michael. 2009. “Shifting the Burden of Proof.”Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234): 86–109.
  20. Scott, Robert L. 1967. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.”Central States Speech Journal 18 (1): 9–17.
  21. Scott, Robert L. 1976. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later.”Central States Speech Journal 27 (…
  22. Scott, Robert L. 1993. “Rhetoric as Epistemic: What Difference Does that Make?” In Defining the New Rhetoric,…
  23. Seiboldt, David R., and Renee A. Meyers. 2007. “Group Argument: A Structuration Perspective and Research Prog…
  24. Argumentation
  25. Argumentation
  26. Sloane, Thomas O. 2001. Preface to Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, ed. Thomas O. Sloane, ix–xii. Oxford: Oxford Uni…
  27. Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.”Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–95.
  28. Tindale, Christopher W. 1999. Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: State University of Ne…
  29. Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  30. van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectica…
  31. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectic…
  32. Argumentation
  33. Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi…
  34. Wenzel, Joseph. 1990. “Three Perspectives on Argument.” In Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of …
  35. Zenker, Frank. 2007. “Changes in Conduct-Rules and Ten Commandments: Pragma-Dialectics 1984 vs. 2004.” In Pro…
  36. Zenker, Frank. 2010. “Analyzing Social Policy Argumentation: A Case Study of the 2007 Majority Opinion of the…
  37. Zenker, Frank. 2013. “In Support of the Weak Rhetoric as Epistemic Thesis: On the Generality and Reliability …
  38. Zhao, Shanyang. 1991. “Rhetoric as Praxis: An Alternative to the Epistemic Approach.”Philosophy and Rhetoric …