25 May - 06 June, 2009

“Current Issues in Argumentation Theory”

Course Syllabus

1. University of Windsor Course Calendar Description

2. Course Contents Outline

3. Course Requirements (attendance, essays, exams)

4. Daily Schedule

5. Pre-course Recommended Background Readings

1. University of Windsor Course Calendar Description

01-500. Current Issues in Argumentation Theory. This course will introduce students to the current leading theories and theoretical controversies in argumentation theory. It will do so from a variety of perspectives, including the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical. It will cover such topics as rhetorical vs. epistemic uses of argument, the use of ideal models in argumentation analysis, the current state of fallacy theory, relations of argumentation theory to other fields, such as law, computer science, philosophy.

2. Course Contents Outline

·         It carries forward a tradition of teaching and theorizing stretching back to the rhetorical handbooks of ancient Greece and Rome;

·         It supports the teaching of the skills of making arguments, and in particular, of debate.

·         It takes disagreement as central.

·         It highlights argument as an ordinary activity—something people do.

·         It focuses on "large-scale" arguments—that is, on the building of cases.

·         It is concerned primarily with argument in civic settings.

·         It tends to proceed by case studies of controversies.

Pre-seminar assignments

Lomborg, B. (2007). Cool It:  The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, at least the Preface & Chapters 1-2.

Assignment 1:  Select some portion or aspect of Lomborg's text, and in two pages comment on it, using whatever tools, theories, and methods from your discipline's approach to argument that seem appropriate.

Assignment 2:  Read these three essays (below):  Goodwin (2002), Olson & Goodnight (1994), or Craig & Tracy (2005).  Select one of the essays, and use some aspect of the theory the essay proposes to analyze Lomborg, again in two pages.

Don't worry—there is no "right answer" to either of these tasks.  Email both papers to me (goodwin@iastate.edu) by midnight Friday, 22 May.

Programme:

[G1]      "Argument":  What is out there to be interested in?

O'Keefe, D. J. (1982). The Concepts of Argument and Arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

            Plato, Gorgias, 461b-466a

 [G2]      Tools for issue analysis from the pedagogical traditions.

            Selections from textbooks, ancient to modern:

            Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.3

            Cicero, de Inventione, 1.10-19

Corbett, E.P.J. (1971)."Formulating a thesis," in Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 45-49.

Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963), "Issues in a Proposition of Policy," in Decision By Debate. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., pp. 223-228.

Visit the YouTube site for "Debate Team:  The Documentary"

            <http://www.youtube.com/user/debateteamdoc> and watch the following:

                        "Trailer", "Berkeley v. Harvard at USC", "Calum on The Turn"

 [G3]        How are issues made?  One view.

Goodwin, J. (2002). Designing Issues. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric:  The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 81-96). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

 [G4]        Social controversy.

Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T. (1994). Entanglements of Consumption, Cruelty, Privacy, and Fashion: The Social Controversy Over Fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249-276

 [G5]        Issues in practice.

Ceccarelli, L. (2008). Manufactroversy:  The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/.

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2005). "The issue" in argumentation practice and theory. In F. H. v. Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in Practice (pp. 11-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

-------

INFORMAL LOGIC SECTION

Dr. David Hitchcock                                                                     <hitchckd@univmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Department of Philosophy
McMaster University

This section will begin by reviewing three classic post-war contributions to the philosophy of argument, those by Chaim Perelman, Stephen Toulmin and Charles Hamblin. Attention will be paid to the subsequent influence of these contributions. We then turn to an influential set of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, the triad of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency developed by J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson in their textbook Logical Self-Defense. Finally, we look at a recent discussion of what exactly an argument is.

Sessions in this section will combine some lecturing with discussion. Those registered for credit are required to submit to Dr. Hitchcock in advance of each session a “reflective summary” of the reading assigned for the session. For instructions on how and when to do so, as well as an example of a reflective summary, click on the following link:

http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/reflectivesummaries.htm

Reading materials for the Informal Logic component

 [1] Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver), The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969; French-language original first published 1958), Part I (“The Framework of Argumentation”), pp. 13-62.

 [2] Stephen Edelston Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, updated edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), Chapter  III (“The Layout of Arguments”), pp. 87-109. [In previous editions, the identical content occurred on pp. 94-118.]

 [3] C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies (London: Methuen, 1970), Chapter 7 (“The Concept of Argument”), pp. 224-252.

 [4] Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), Chapter 7 (“What Makes a Good Argument? Toward a Theory of Evaluation”), pp. 180-216.

 [5] David Hitchcock, “Informal logic and the concept of argument”, in Dale Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of Logic, volume 5 of Dov M. Gabbay, Paul Thagard and John Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (Elsevier, 2006), pp. 101-121 (= pp. 1-20 of the online pre-print posted at http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/informal.pdf)

 [6] G. C. Goddu, “Refining Hitchcock’s Definition of ‘Argument’”, paper submitted for the OSSA 2009 conference on the culture of arguments, 15 pages. Available online at: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/GodduOSSA09.pdf .

 [7] James B. Freeman, Commentary on: G. C. Goddu’s “Refining Hitchcock’s Definition of “Argument‟” Online at: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/CommentaryFreemanOSSA09.pdf .

 Programme:

[H1]      Perelman’s theory of argumentation. Reading: [1].

[H2]      The Toulmin model. Reading: [2].

[H3]      Alethic, epistemic and dialectical criteria for the evaluation of arguments. Reading: [3]

[H4]      Acceptability, relevance and sufficiency as criteria for the evaluation of arguments. Reading: [4].

DIALECTICAL THEORY SECTION

Prof Erik C. W. Krabbe                                                                          <E.C.W.Krabbe@philos.rug.nl>
Faculty of Philosophy
University of Groningen

 1. Contents

 This section will be concerned with the resolution of disagreements by means of argumentative discussion. We shall start with a crash course in pragma-dialectics, one of the leading theories in the field of argumentation studies, which combines the dialectical point of view (that is: putting discussion up front) with speech act theory (a theory about the use of language) in a model of critical discussion. In doing so our focus will be on the pragma-dialectical theory of fallacies. Next we shall have a brief look at the models of formal dialectic, which link up with logical theory. We shall do so without presupposing familiarity with logic. Finally we turn to the theory of strategic maneuvering in which one tries to integrate rhetorical insights into a pragma-dialectical framework. We shall study the notorious case of the 1995 Shell advertorial and then turn to applications in mathematical proofs. Again, no special knowledge of mathematics will be presupposed.

 2. Reading Material

 [1] Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002 (ISBN 0-8058-3952-6, pbk). Chapters 1 thru 8.

 [2] Erik C. W. Krabbe, ‘Logic and Games’. In: Peter Houtlosser & Agnès van Rees (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the Occasion of his 60^th Birthday (pp. 185-198), Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006 (ISBN 0-8058-5816-4, cloth; 0-8058-6026-6, pbk).

 [3] Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser, ‘Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance’. In: Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp.131-159), Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

 [4] Erik C. W. Krabbe, ‘Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs’, Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning 22 (3), 453-468.

[5] Erik C.W. Krabbe, LECTURE NOTES ON ARGUMENTATION to accompany the reading of: Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002: Click here for PDF document.

 3. Programme

 Reading suggestion, before the course begins: Theory (not the exercises) of Part I of [1] (Chapters 1 thru 5). 

[K1]      Disagreement and Discussion:

Types of differences of opinion, models of discussion, discussion stages, identification of standpoints and argumentation, implicitness and indirectness.

[K2]      Persuasiveness and Criticism:

Argumentation structures and critical reactions in discussion, argument schemes and critical questioning. Reading:[1], completing Ch.6.

[K3]      Rules of Dialogue and Fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem, evading the burden of proof, straw man, ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad verecundiam, many questions, and many other fallacies. Reading: [1], completing Ch.8.

[K4]      Winning Strategies and Formal Dialectic:

Formal models of dialogue, shifts between more permissive and more rigorous styles. Reading: [2].

            [K5] Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Contexts:

Fitting in rhetorical insights, case study, applications to mathematical proofs. Reading: [3].

--------------

 3. Course Requirements (attendance, essays, exams)

--

Course requirements for those enrolling in 01-500 “Current Issues in Argumentation Theory” for graduate-course credit.

A. The major paper is a research paper based on the topics explored during the CSIA and it is the chief item upon which a student’s grade will be based.  Major paper topics will be decided by the CSIA Instructors and students must write on one of them, or propose a topic approved by at least two of the instructors.  The topics will be designed so that students will need to involve at least two of the approaches studied in the course (i.e., two of:  informal logic, dialectic, rhetoric/communication).  The major paper will be graded by two of the CSIA’s instructors, and the mark will be based upon the average of their evaluations.  The paper is to be between 4000 and 5000 words, and must be submitted to Dr. Hansen no later than June 27, 2009.  (They will be forwarded to the relevant instructors.)

B. Some in class assignments will be made during the course of the CSIA.  10% is allotted for each of the course segments (dialectical theory, informal logic theory, and rhetoric/ communication theory).  These will be submitted to the relevant instructor during the CSIA.

C. Attending the OSSA conference is a requirement for those attending CSIA for course credit.  CSIA students are required to submit a summary report on each of the three keynote addresses (approximately 500 words per address) by June 13, 2009 – one week after the end of the conference.  These should be sent to Dr. Hansen, and they will be graded by Dr. Hansen and Dr. Christopher W Tindale of CRRAR.

Here are the important dates that both students and instructors should bear in mind:

June 13 – conference reports due (send to Dr. Hansen)

June 27 – major papers due (send to Dr. Hansen)

June 30 – Hansen sends papers to instructors

July 24 – (or before) Instructors send grades to Hansen, and comments to students

July 31 – Dr. Hansen sends grades to students.

4. Daily Schedule

TEACHING SCHEDULE, CRRAR SUMMER INSTITUTE ON ARGUMENTATION

 Course: Current Issues in Argumentation Theory

5. Pre-course Recommended Background Readings