THE PROBLEM IN THE THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION: IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE THE INTERLOCUTOR? (A COMMUNICATIVE-PRAGMATIC SOLUTION)
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2020-4-9-40
The paper propose a variant of a communicative-pragmatic approach to determining the meaning of proposition, expressed by agents in the discussion. We intend to: 1) to offer an interpretation of the process of persuasion, according to which it can be recognized as successful – even if it pays tribute to the fundamental problem of sign communication and admits that agents in the process of communication transmit only signs to each other, and the meanings of these are inaccessible to the interlocutor; 2) to show that popular contemporary approaches (Pragma-dialectical approach, AGM-approach, DBR-approach, etc.) to the process of persuasion do not offer this kind of interpretation the process of persuasion; 3) to establish precise and verifiable conditions which are necessary and sufficient to admit the process of persuasion in our interpretation as successful. Our approach uses contemporary approaches to the interpretation of the meaning of the proposition (first of all, the mental holism – M. Harrell, N. Blok, etc.), and also extrapolates actual structuralist approaches to the understanding of mathematical objects in the philosophy of mathematics (D. Hilbert, M. Resnik, S. Shapiro) on sign communication in a situation of persuasive argumentation. We reject the solution to the problem of sign communication, which in fact consists that it is quite possible to transfer visual images regardless of their content or meaning, which implies that the communication of agents is still possible through the transmission of such images. This solution, in fact, suggests discussing unsigned rather than signed communication, but, first, the transfer of beliefs as linguistically expressed objects is not possible in this case, and, second, there are strong arguments in favor of the fact that even the content-free objects of different agents are different, which also makes transfer impossible. We determine the rhetorical meaning of the proposition expressed by agents in the discussion. Such a meaning is also a proposition, the antecedent of which is a complete description of the agent's belief system, and the consequent is the original proposition. We also admit the persuasion process as rhetorically successful if, at the end of this process, the audience cannot object to the persuader's thesis, on the assumption that the persuader attaches some (at least rhetorical) significance to his or her suggestions and those of the audience. The fact that the rhetorical meaning does not depend on the meaning attributed to their words by the interlocutors themselves, allows us to show that, despite of the problem of sign communication the persuader can have a rhetorical success. Since our approach is focused solely on rhetorical success in the process of persuasion through sign communication, our interpretation of the process of persuasion has a communicative and pragmatic character. As befits a pragmatic approach to the persuasion process, our approach does not require the persuader to express only those proposition that he himself understands and considers to be true, and those arguments that he himself understands, considers its as correct and acceptable.
Keywords: argumentation theory, argumentative belief, change of beliefs, meaning of beliefs, communication, pragmatics, mental holism, structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics, formalism in the philosophy of mathematics
References:
Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the Logic of Theory of Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2), 510–531.
Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (2013). On the Logic of Theory of Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. Translated from English by D. Tiskin. In E. N. Lisanyuk (Ed.), “Normativnye sistemy” i drugie raboty po filosofii prava i logike norm [“Normative Systems” and Other Works on the Philosophy of Law and the Logic of Norms] (pp. 318–343). Saint Petersburg State University. (In Russian).
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Pierre Mardaga. (Coll. “Philosophie et langage”).
Aristoteles. (1831). De Xenophane, de Zenone, de Gorgia. In I. Bekker (Ed.), Aristotelis opera (Vol. 2, pp. 202–206). Reimer.
Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., & Bélanger, M. (2010). A Taxonomy of Argumentation Models Used for Knowledge Representation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33(3), 211–259.
Benthem, J. van. (2003). Rational Dynamics of Information. Minds and Machines, 13(4), 503–519.
Benthem, J. van. (2011). Logic and reasoning: Do the facts matter? Voprosy Filosofii – Problems of Philosophy, 12, 63–76. (In Russian).
Berestov, I. V. (2012). Application of Walter Edelberg’s Perspectivalist Semantics in the Methodology of the History of Philosophy. Part I: A Statement of the Problem. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal. 436, 69–81. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/436/8
Berestov, I. V. (2019). Application of Walter Edelberg’s Perspectivalist Semantics in the Methodology of the History of Philosophy. Part II: Types of Term Meanings. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal, 438, 62–73. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/438/8
Block, N. (1986). Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10(1), 615–678.
Block, N. (1993). Holism, hyper-analyticity and hyper-compositionality. Philosophical Issues, 3, 37–72.
Block, N. (1994). An Argument for Holism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New series), 94, 151–69.
Bondarenko, A., Dung, Ph. M, Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract argumentation-theoretical approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101.
Crosswhite, J., Fox, J., Reed, Ch., Scaltsas, Th., & Stumpf, S. (2004). Computational Models of Rhetorical Argument. In Ch. Reed and T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation (pp. 175–210). Springer Science+Business Media.
Ditmarsch, H. van, Hoek, W. van der, & Kooi, B. (2008). Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer.
Dung, Ph. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–358.
Edelberg, W. (1995). A perspectivalist semantics for attitudes. Noûs, 29(3), 316–342.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Finn, V. K. (1996). Ob odnom variante logiki argumentatsii [On a variant of Argumentation logic]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Seriya 2: Informatsionnye protsessy i sistemy – Scientific and Technical Information. Series 2: Information Processes and Systems, 5–6, 3–19. (In Russian).
Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (1992). Holism: A Shoppers’ Guide. Blackwell.
Gross, A.(1999). A theory of the rhetorical audience: Reflections on Chaim Perelman. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85(2), 203–211.
Harman, G. (1973). Thought. Princeton University Press.
Harrell, M. (1996). Confirmation Holism and Semantic Holism. Synthese, 109(1), 63–101.
Heal, J. (1994). Semantic Holism: Still a Good Buy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 94, 325–339.
Hilbert, D. (1948) Foundations of Geometry. Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo tekhniko-teoreticheskoy literatury. (In Russian).
Hilbert, D., & Bernays, P. (1982). Foundations of Mathematics (Vol. 1). Trans. into Russian. Nauka. (In Russian).
Kaplan, D. (1969). Quantifying. In D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (Eds.), Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine (pp. 178–214). D. Reidel.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2018). Audience analysis and reception studies of rhetoric. In J. E. Kjeldsen (Ed.), Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric: Exploring Audiences Empirically (pp. 1–42). Palgrave Macmillan.
Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered Questions in Audience Research. The Communication Review, 9, 101–121.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and Research. 2nd edition. SAGE Publications.
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2005). Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis and C. Reed (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 78–94). Springer.
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2006). The Toulmin Test: Framing argumentation within belief revision theories (Chapter 24). In D. Hitchcock and B. Verheij, (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (pp. 359–377). Springer.
Peacocke, C. (1992). A Study of Concepts. MIT Press.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated from French by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. 2nd printing. University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in 1958)
Pollock, J. L. (2010). Defeasible reasoning and degrees of justification. Argument and Computation, 1(1), 7–22.
Prakken, H. (2011). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1(2), 93–124.
Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2002). Logic for defeasible argumentation. In D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. 4, pp. 218–319). 2nd edition. Kluwer Academic Publ.
Resnik, M. (1981). Mathematics as a science of patterns: Ontology and reference. Noûs, 15, 529–550.
Resnik, M. (2000). Mathematics as a Science of Patterns. Oxford University Press.
Russell, B. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Sainsbury, R. M. (2010). Paderewski Variations. Dialectica, 64(4), 484–502.
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1986) Basic notions of a calculus of speech acts. Translated from English by A. L. Blinov. In V. V. Petrov (Ed.), Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike [New in Foreign Linguistics] (Vol. 18, pp. 243–262). Progress. (In Russian).
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford University Press.
Stich, St. (1988). Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. Synthese, 74(3), 391–413.
Tindale, Ch. W. (2013). Rhetorical argumentation and the nature of audience: Toward an understanding of audience – Issues in argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 46(4), 508–532.
Tindale, Ch. W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, St. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Updated edition. Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1958).
Tselishchev, V. V. (2003). Ontologiya matematiki: ob”ekty i struktury [Ontology of Mathematics: Objects and Structures]. Nonparel’. (In Russian).
Tselishchev, V. V. (2007). Intuitsiya, finitizm i rekursivnoe myshlenie [Intuition, Finitism and Recursive Thinking]. Parallel’. (In Russian).
Verheij, B. (2003). Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150, 291–324.
Volf, M. N. (2014). Gorgias’ “On Not-Being or On Nature” in DE MELISSO XENOPHANE GORGIA, V–VI: Its Formal Structure and a Translation from the Greek into Russian. Schole. Filosofskoe antikovedenie i klassicheskaya traditsiya – ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole): Ancient Philosophy and Classical Tradition, 9(2), 152–169. (In Russian).
Walton, D. (2013). Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, Ch., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Weinberg, J., Nichols, Sh., & Stich, St. (2001). Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29(1/2), 429–460.
Zaytsev, D. V. (2011). Skhemy argumentatsii: igry ritoricheskogo Mind’a ili istochnik obshcheznachimosti argumentativnykh rassuzhdeniy?[Argumentation schemes: Games of the rhetorical mind or the source of general validity of argumentative reasoning?]. In V. N. Bryushinkin (Ed.),Modeli rassuzhdeniy – 4: Argumentatsiya i ritorika [Models of Reasoning—4: Argumentation and Rhetoric] (pp. 52–66). Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University. (In Russian).
( 607.02 kB ) 
( 587.28 kB )
Issue: 4, 2020
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 9 — 40
Downloads: 912