ARGUMENT – CONCLUSION

1. Argument

The word argument is used in various fields, in grammar, logic, literature, and argumentation, with quite different meanings.

— In logic and mathematics, the arguments of a function f are the empty places x, y, z… that characterize the function; the independent entities (variables) organized by the function.

— By analogy, in grammar, the verb plus its subject and object(s) can be considered the counterpart of a function. For example,
to give, corresponds to the three-argument predicate “x gives y to z”;
to love corresponds to a two-argument predicate, “x loves y”.

By replacing each of these variables with an appropriate phrase (i.e., respecting the semantic relation that characterizes the verb), we form a proposition: “Adam gives Eve an apple”, see Proposition.

— In literature, the central argument of a play or a novel corresponds to the plan, the summary, or the guiding principle of the plot. In this sense, the word argument is morphologically and semantically isolated; argument as « a summary » has no relation to conclusion, nor to arguing₁, argumentation.

2. Argument and argumentation

The words argument and proof are used to translate the Greek word pistis and the Latin word argumentum.

2.1 Argument ~ argumentation

By synecdoche, argument often means argumentation: “let the best argument win!”

2.2 Premise, Data, Argument 

— In logic, the premises of the syllogism lead to a conclusion. The premises are propositions that express true or false judgments. The conclusion is a proposition that is different from the premises and that is derived solely from their combination, without the surreptitious introduction of implicit background information into the argument, see syllogism. A premise is not an argument but a component of an argument; the argument is constructed by combining the two premises.

— In argumentation, the conclusion is derived from a piece of information combined with an inferential topic. The situation is the same in Toulmin’s layout of argument, where the data becomes an argument when combined with an often implicit system justification/support « warrant / backing », see Toulmin’s model. The word argument is routinely used to refer to the data element as the head of such combinations.

— In analytic and direct inferences, the conclusion is derived directly from a single statement that is an argument in itself. The conclusion is derived from the form or the semantic content of the statement argument, S. Proposition.

Argument and conclusion are correlative terms. The relation « argument — conclusion » is expressed, more or less precisely by expressions like those listed below. If necessary, “is” can be replaced by « is presented as such by the speaker » (as in line 1, etc.).

The argument	The conclusion
— is a consensual statement, or is presented as such by the arguer)	— is a dissensual, contested, disputed statement
— is more probable than the conclusion	— is less probable than the argument
— is the cognitive starting point in deliberative argumentation — is the end point in justificatory argumentation	— is the end point of deliberative argumentation — is the starting point in justificatory argumentation
— expresses a reason	— searches for a reason
— does not bear the burden of proof	— bears the burden of proof
— is oriented towards the conclusion	— is a projection of the argument
— (in a functional perspective, from the point of view of the speaker determines, legitimates the conclusion	— — determined, legitimated by the argument
— (in a dialogical perspective) accompanies the answer given to the argumentative question	— — is the correct answer to the argumentative question

2.3 Argument: true, probable, plausible, accepted, conceded…

A statement is taken (or presented) as sufficiently true to be used as an argument on very different bases.

— The argument conveys a known fact, an intellectual self-evidence, see Self-Evidence.

The heat of the wax dilates the pores, making the pulling up less painful (Linguee)

— The partners have explicitly agreed on the statement, e.g.as part of   (quasi-) dialectical agreement:

We agree that Syldavia cannot leave the Eurozone now, so we can make further demands on them.

— The speaker has chosen his argument from those that are considered to be true by the audience, even if he or she has personal doubts about its validity, see Ex datis:

You think that Syldavia will never leave the Eurozone, so…

— A simple fact: the statement is challenged, either by the opponent or the audience.

The audience’s acceptance of stable statements, which that may serve to support the conclusion, is always precarious. The opponent’s belief in the truth of a given statement is even less stable. The choice of what will be considered a valid argument is therefore a strategic choice that will change depending on the circumstances, see Strategy.

Challenging the argument — If the argument is to be challenged, it must itself be legitimized. As part of this operation, the argument assumes the status of a claim made by the proponent and supported by a series of arguments. These new arguments serve as sub-arguments in support the overarching claim, see Linked argument; Epicheirema. If no agreement can be reached on any claim, things can, theoretically, go backwards indefinitely and the debate can continue indefinitely. The risks associated with such “deep disagreement” should not be seen as invalidating argumentation as a useful social tool for dealing with social incompatibilities, provided that third parties play their role in well-regulated settings.

3. Claim, Thesis, Conclusion, Viewpoint, Point of view, Standpoint

In argumentation, the conclusion is also called the claim, or standpoint.
A philosophical conclusion is often called a thesis, S. Dialectic.
The set of conclusions drawn from complex data at the end of an abduction process can be a full-blown theory, S. Abduction.

3.1 Point of view, viewpoint, standpoint

In the socio-political domain, a standpoint is an « opinion », possibly justified by arguments. The pragma-dialectical program aims at reducing, resolving, or eliminating differences of opinion. The corresponding expressions « resolving… differences of conclusions, claims, thesis… » are not used.
An argument as a point of view, an opinion, a perspective… expressed in a single sentence is a very special case. Points of view and opinions are usually expressed in complex discourses, supported by equally complex argumentative sub-discourses. The expression point of view can be used to refer to an entire discourse, including the point of view and the good reasons that support it.
In ordinary language, the concept of point of view organizes the speaker’s perceptual reference system:

On the other side of the hedge was a gardener.
On the other side of the hedge was a street.

In one case, the speaker is outside the garden, in the other inside the garden. The concept of point of view used in argumentation is highly metaphorical. It frames the argumentative situation according to the visual metaphor of a spectator within a landscape, which would be the reality, inaccessible as such, if not represented on a map.
The spectator’s vision provides a section of reality that is restructured according to the laws of perspective. The reality referred to by the point of view is only so with respect to a focus, that is, by definition, unstable. In this sense, a point of view is either questionable because it acts as a blinker; or valuable, because it protects one from the objectivist illusion produced by consensus, and from the paranoia of absolute knowledge.

An affirmation corresponds to a point of view if it is traceable to one subjective source, whereas absolute truth, or vision, is independent of any source, or has a universal, absolute source.
The point of view is an inescapable starting point. Points of view are comparable and evaluable. We cannot be without a point of view, but we can define a better point of view; change our point of view, and multiply our points of view. To eliminate differences in viewpoints, one would have to eliminate subjectivity, or the plurality of voices, and decontextualize the discourse.
Scientific discourses routinely do this, but, insofar as argumentative discourse seeks to deal with human affairs, involving (legitimate) interests, values, and their affective correlates, argumentation analysis cannot align itself with scientific language without changing the nature of its objects and goals. The radical elimination of points of view would require the resurrection of Hegel’s absolute subject, or of the objective and omniscient narrator of nineteenth-century novels.

3.2 Conclusion

The opening section of a discourse is its introduction, the closing section its conclusion. The argumentative conclusion is different from the material conclusion that ends an intervention. The argumentative conclusion can be stated, or repeated, in any part of speech, at the beginning or at the end, or both.

The argumentative conclusion is defined in relation to the argument (see table above). In an argumentative monolog, the conclusion is the claim by which the discourse is organized; to which it converges; in which its orientation is materialized; the intention that gives the discourse its meaning, and the ultimate core of the text obtained by condensing it.

The conclusion is more or less separable from the arguments that support it. Once we have reached the conclusion that « Harry is probably a British citizen », we can, by default, act on that belief. But, insofar as the modal probably expresses clear reservations about the whole inferential process, the claim remains open to revision (i.e. is revisable) as the available information changes. The “fire and forget” principle [1] does not work well in argumentation. The conclusion is never completely divorced from the language used in its construction.

A statement S becomes a claim in the following dialogical configuration

(1) — S is asserted by a speaker (as something essential to him, or merely anecdotal)
(2) — S is not ratified by the addressee: non-preferred second turn
(3) — S is reasserted, possibly reformulated by the speaker
(4) — S is explicitly rejected by the interlocutor (reassertion not ratified, i.e.  disagreement ratified)
(5) — Pro- and contra-arguments emerge

At stage (3), the disagreement emerges. At stage (4) the disagreement is ratified as such, a stasis is formed, and S is now a Claim made by the first speaker. At stage (5), the stasis begins to develop

Stage (1) is not a dialectical “opening stage”. The speaker does not necessarily intend to open a dispute. Non-ratification can occur at any time in an interaction, and can involve any foreground or background statement, see Denying; Disagreement. In other words, being a claim is not a property of a statement, but is attached to the treatment of a statement in an interactive configuration.

---

[1] “(Of a missile) capable of guiding itself to its target after being fired.” (EOD, fire-and-forget) (11-08-2017)

---