ISSA Proceedings 2002 – Retransmittability And Empirical Propositions

• by: Antoni Diller - University of Birmingham

1. Introduction
The standard dictionary definition of a formally valid argument in classical, bivalent, deductive logic proceeds as follows: An argument is valid if it is impossible for all its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. A valid argument, unlike a sound one, can have false premises or it can have a mixture of true and false premises, but if all of its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true as well. This can also be expressed by saying that truth is transmitted from all of the premises of a valid argument to its conclusion and that falsity is retransmitted from the conclusion of a valid argument to at least one of its premises. The terminology of transmittability and retransmittability has its origins in the work of Popper and Lakatos. That truth is transmitted and that falsity is retransmitted are both mentioned in (Popper, 1974, 64), though Popper sees these as being properties of valid rules of inference rather than of arguments. Lakatos, in the course of developing his mathematical methodology of proofs and refutations, formulates a principle of the retransmission of falsity which states ‘that global counterexamples be also local: falsehood should be retransmitted from the naive conjecture to the lemmas, from the consequent of the theorem to its antecedent’ (Lakatos, 1976, 47).

Two interesting questions to ask of valid arguments are whether anything other than truth is transmittable and whether anything other than falsity is retransmittable. Concerning transmittability, some unusual contenders have been proposed. For example, in (Gjertsen, 1989, 127) it is suggested that if the premises of a valid argument are ambiguous, obscure, uncertain or bland, then so must be its conclusion! In this paper I am interested in the questions whether the property of being an empirical proposition is transmittable and, especially, whether this property is retransmittable. I show that a valid deductive argument with consistent premises, all of which are empirical, can have a non-empirical conclusion which is not logically true. I also show that it is possible for a valid deductive argument with consistent premises to have an empirical conclusion and yet to have no empirical premises. (Note that in this paper I do not, as some philosophers do, distinguish between propositions and statements. These terms are used interchangeably.) Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2002 – Communicative Components Of Imperatives As Speech Acts

• by: Inga B. Dolinina - McMaster University

1. Introduction
Speech act theory brought in a diversity of communicative components associated with the Imperative (viewed as an actualization of a Directive) and initiated debates about the importance of these components for defining Imperative meaning (see the review of these debates in Hamblin, 1987).
I propose a systematization of the communicative (speech-act related) components associated with Imperative meaning. My approach to this systematization is based on separating the (variable) “pragmatic” components which reflect the meaning of an imperative utterance in context from the (invariant) “basic” components which constitute the meaning of an imperative construction independent of context and should be regarded as the grammatical meaning of the Imperative. Furthermore, I propose to interpret the basic imperative meaning by treating the Imperative as a speech-act category rather than a verbal Mood.
I claim a) that the basic imperative meaning is a speaker-oriented entity and not just a relation between the Sb and Pr of a content proposition, and b) that this meaning is not a semantic primitive, but a highly complex entity. I argue that it includes three situations (appellative, causation/volition, and content/proposition), where each situation in turn contains a specific predicate with its sets of arguments, and also a ‘framing-framed’ relation reflecting that the content proposition is not an actual one.
Finally I claim that my approach allows us to present the meaning of an imperative utterance not as a chaos of communicative components, but as an organized system. This system gives ground for defining the “logical form” of any imperative utterance. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2002 – Topos In Rhetorical Argumentation: From Enthymeme To Figure

• by: E. F. Dyck - Independent Scholar, Grande Cache, Alberta, Canada

James J. Murphy some ten years ago raised the question, “[W]hat is the relation between Topos and . . . Figura?” (Murphy, 1990, 240), a question he understood as one of an historical development yet but dimly known, and whose answer would require long and difficult scholarship. No doubt he was right, but one might equally well ask a related, equally important, and perhaps more manageable question: “What are the intrinsic (structural) relations between topos and figura?”, relations which are presupposed by the historical developments which Murphy rightly insisted need to be investigated.

It is the latter question that this paper proposes to engage – I say engage, not answer, because a full answer relies also on historical developments, though not as profoundly as the answer to Murphy’s question above. This paper investigates in a preliminary way the historic relations between topos and figure, and, using recent developments in the theory of topos, argues that the figures are enthymemes constructed from particular topoi. The paper proceeds in three steps:
1. What are the (historically constituted) intrinsic relations between topos and figure?
2. What does recent scholarship say about the relation between topos and enthymeme?
3. To what extent does the notion of the figure as an enthymeme constructed from a topos explicate the extrinsic relationship between topos and figure? Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2002 – A Normative And Empirical Approach To Petty And Cacioppo’s ‘Strong’ And ‘Weak’ Arguments

• by: Renske van Dijk, Lettica Hustinx & Hans Hoeken(i) - University of Nijmegen

What makes a persuasive message persuasive? According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo 1986), argument quality plays an important role in the answer to this question. The present study takes a close look at this factor. First, background information will be given about the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). Subsequently, the role of argument quality in the ELM will be discussed.  After that, the results will be presented of a normative and empirical study of Petty and Cacioppo’s research material containing strong and weak arguments. These results will provide insight into the role of argument quality in the persuasion process [i].

1. Petty & Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model
According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, people can be persuaded into adopting a claim by walking two different routes. The first route is called the central route. At this route, people systematically examine the quality of the given arguments. If they agree with these arguments, they adopt the claim. If they disagree with the arguments, they reject the claim. The second route is called the peripheral route. At this route, people are persuaded by peripheral cues. Peripheral cues are all non-argumentative features of a message that are capable of influencing the formation or change of the receiver’s attitude. Commonly used peripheral cues are rules of thumb, such as ‘If this authority says so, it must be true’ or ‘If hundreds of people used this product before me, it must be a good product.’
Which route is being taken is determined by two factors: motivation and ability. Motivation is about wanting to process the persuasive message. If people want to be very sure of the correctness of their attitude, they will be very motivated to examine the given arguments carefully. So, for example, motivation is higher when a house is to be bought than a detergent. The second factor is about being able to process the message. The easier it is for people to examine the given arguments, the quicker they will perform this task. Motivation as well as ability is required in order to follow the central route. If these conditions are not met, the peripheral route will be taken. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2002 – Mobile Argument: An Investigation Of Bumper Stickers In The United States

• by: Libby Eddleman Spears & Millie Crews - University of North Texas, Denton, Texas

What does an argument look like and how does one define argument? At first glance, these two questions appear manageable. Arguments after all, are what occur around the family dinner table or between politicians on the floor of Congress. In today’s rapidly changing environment, however, the look of an argument and how one defines this particular rhetorical device is not so clean-cut. In the United States, for example, the average citizen is bombarded every day with a healthy diet of mediated messages ranging from television advertisements to the Internet. Conversations (and instances of argument) have even gone virtual with a number of Americans maintaining their relationships in a virtual environment.
Given the complexity of how we find information and ultimately engage in argument, this paper explores one dimension of argument: the automobile bumper sticker. This paper suggests that Americans use bumper stickers to put forth arguments that otherwise would go unheard or noticed by others. Bumper stickers represent a medium available to any automobile owner who wishes to have his/her voice heard.  To demonstrate this phenomenon, we illustrate the point with the “most pro-life car in the U.S.A”, according to its owner, Pirate Pete. Furthermore, we draw distinctions between verbal arguments and visual arguments and contend that this particular vehicle is both argumentative and a moving piece of art. We begin with a review of the literature surrounding both verbal and visual argument, as well as previous scholarship on bumper stickers as a communicative form. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2002 – I Don’t Have Anything To Prove Here – The (Un)Reasonableness Of Evading The Burden Of Proof

• by: F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels - University of Amsterdam

1. Those who affirm must prove
Critical decision making, be it about future plans and policies or facts and theories often takes place in the context of on argumentative discussion in which two parties try to reach a decision. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, the various moves made in argumentative discourse are seen as part of critical discussion aimed ad resolving a difference of opinion concerning the acceptability of a claim or standpoint. The moves made by the parties involved, are regarded reasonable only if these are a contribution to the resolution of the difference. In an ideal model of a critical discussion the rules are specified that an exchange of discussion moves has to comply with to further the resolution. The soundness of the pragma-dialectical rules is based on their problem validity: the fact that they are instrumental in resolving a conflict. To resolve a difference of opinion however, the rules must also be acceptable to the parties involved. That means they should be intersubjectively approved.
That is why it is important to know what ordinary language users think of discussion moves that are deemed fallacious by the pragma-dialectical theory. In a comprehensive research project, we systematically try to find out if the theoretical norms are in accordance with the norms ordinary language (claim to) apply when judging argumentation. In this paper we would like to present the results of a study on the rule concerning the burden of proof.
In everyday discussions many things can go wrong. Some discussions hardly start, and others derail totally. Sometimes it goes wrong before the arguers put forward only one argument. For example, when one participant openly tries to disqualify his opponent by calling him stupid, untrustworthy or biased. An early obstruction of a discussion is also possible when the opponents cannot decide who has to defend his of her position. In principle the rule that ever since antiquity is supposed to be valid is pretty clear: who asserts must prove.
By virtue of this rule, the party who puts forward a standpoint has to defend that standpoint by means of argumentation. In spite of the relative simplicity of the rule, in practice all kinds of things can go wrong with the distribution of the burden of proof. Read more