Lat. ad fidem argument, fides, “faith”.

Revealed truth can be used either as arguments, or disputed as claims.

1. Revealed truths as arguments

Revealed truths can be used as arguments justifying some conduct; we follow the Law because our God has given it to us; because He will reward His Followers, the Good, and punish the Wicked. Appeals to religious beliefs may be dismissed as appeals to superstition, S. Threat.

2. Revealed truths as claims

Faith and religious mysteries can be opposed to reason and argument. Thomas Aquinas discusses “whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?” and quotes St. Ambrose’s categorically negative response: “Put arguments aside where faith is sought” (ST, Part 1, Quest.1, Art. 8)[1].

For a believer, revealed truths have precedence over all other forms of truth; trying to demonstrate a revealed truth would degrade it. It should be emphasized that, for a believer, renouncing to argue does not imply submitting to the argument from authority, since he or she considers that authority has a human origin, while faith has a divine origin. Whether religious tradition is of human or divine origin is a controversial issue among theologians.

But the precedence of faith does not invalidate the necessity of argument. Thomas Aquinas distinguishes three kinds of situations, depending on whether one addresses Christians, heretics or unbelievers.
— Where a speaker is addressing a Christian audience, argumentation will have two significant uses. The first use is to connect two articles of faith, to show that one can be logically deduced from the other. For example, if somebody believes in the resurrection of Christ, then he or she must believe in the resurrection of the dead. In addition, arguments may be used to extend the domain of faith to deeper truths, derived from the elementary ones.

— When arguing with heretics who agree on some point of the dogma, an argument will be built upon this point to show that they must also accept the validity of other connected points. The technique is basically the same as in the previous case.
In both cases, argumentation about matters of faith is based on arguments postulated as true because they are taken from the corpus of revealed truths.

— Where confronting unbelievers, the argument will essentially be ad hominem, showing that their beliefs are contradictory (after Trottman 1999, p. 148-151).

As can be seen, the Angelic Doctor does not exclude situations of deep disagreement from the field of argumentation, S. Disagreement.

3. Superstition

S. Threat and Promises

---

[1] Quoted after Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica. Benziger Bros, 1947. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP001.html#FPQ1OUTP1 (11-08-2017)

---

 

The term expression is used in Aristotelian rhetorical theory and critical theory with three quite distinct meanings.

1. A language-related paralogism

In the Sophistical Refutations, the label “paralogisms of expression” covers the six paralogisms “related to language”:

Homonymy          Composition          Accent
Amphiboly           Division                   Expression.          S. Fallacy (2): Aristotle foundational list.

This label can also be used to specifically refer to the paralogism of homonymy.

2. Pseudo-deduction

A speech is said to be fallacious by expression when although expressed formally as a demonstration, it has no demonstrative content. The speech may take the form of a demonstration, if, for example the speaker introduces a high number of argumentative indicators. When there is no semantic connection between the connected propositions A and B, the argument “A, therefore B” is said to be fallacious due to the “form of the expression”. The conclusion is drawn “although there has been no syllogistic process” (Rhet., II, 24, 1401a1; Freese, p. 325), that is without any real argumentation.

Such examples can sometimes be found in academic essays overloaded with argument indicators, hoping that they will end up producing an argument. The discourse of Pangloss, railed at by Voltaire in Candide, is of that kind:

[After the earthquake that ravaged Lisbon]
Some [citizens] whom they had succored, gave them as good a dinner as they could in such disastrous circumstances; true, the repast was mournful, and the company moistened their bread with tears; but Pangloss consoled them, assuring them that things could not be otherwise. “For,” said he, “all that is for the best. If there is a volcano in Lisbon it cannot be elsewhere. It is impossible that things should be other than they are; for everything is right.
Voltaire, Candide, or The Optimism. [1759].[1]

3. Misleading expressions

In Aristotle Sophistical Refutations, the fallacy of “form of expression” is also called the fallacy of “form of discourse”, as well as a “figure of discourse”, a label likely to introduce formidable confusions. The fallacy of form of expression corresponds exactly to the phenomenon that analytic philosophers discuss under the heading of misleading expressions.

For example, according to Ryle, a statement such as “Jones hates the thought of ​​going to hospital” (1932, p. 161) suggests that the phrase “the thought of going to hospital” refers to some existing object, its reference; this expression induces a belief in the existence of “‘ideas’, ‘conceptions’, ‘thoughts’ or ‘judgments’” (ibid.). Ryle considers that to eliminate such non-existing entities, the statement must be rewritten in the form corresponding to its semantic-ontological reality: “Jones feels distressed when he thinks of what he will undergo if he goes to hospital” (ibid.). This new formulation is not supposed to contain any reference to deceptive entities such as “the idea of ​​going to hospital” (ibid.).

Analytical philosophy has devoted substantial efforts to the study of misleading expressions as expressions that generate non-existent problems, as seen in the previous case, or expressions which are superficially similar but whose semantic structure is very different, as shown by the following examples.

— According to Austin’s analysis ([1962]), descriptive statements and performative statements have the same superficial grammatical structure, whilst their meanings and references are very different. The former refer to states of the world, whereas the latter produce the reality they formulate.

— The words “the path is stony and steep” and “the flag is red and black” are syntactically analogous, yet one can infer from the first that “the path is stony” and that “the path is steep” whilst it cannot be inferred from the second that “the flag is red” and that “the flag is black”. Fallacies of composition and division can be considered as a particular case of fallacious expression by the form of the expression.

— The similarity of superficial linguistic forms, can lead us to attribute to a word an erroneous semantic characterization. For example, suffering and running are syntactically, intransitive verbs, and, from this analogy, one might think that, like running, suffering expresses an action.

— The arguments drawn from derivative words might also be criticized as cases of fallacies of expression, S. Derived Words.

---

[1] Quoted after Voltaire, Candide, Chap. V. New York, Boni and Liveright, 1918. No pag. https://archive.org/stream/candide19942gut/19942.txt (11-08-2017)

---

 

In common language, the words explain and explanation refer to different scenarios, discourse genres and interactions. Ethnomethodology proposes to grasp the ongoing intelligibility of ordinary actions and interactions through the concept of “accounts” (justifications, explanations). Text linguistics considers the explanatory sequence as one of the basic sequence types (Adam 1996, p. 33), along with narration, description and argumentation. The relations between text types are complex: a justificatory (vs. deliberative) argument explains, or accounts for a decision by enumerating the good reasons having motivated the decision made in the past.

1. Structure of explanatory discourse

From the conceptual point of view, explanatory discourse connects a less well-known, local phenomenon, something to be explained (explanandum) to a better known and complex explanatory domain (explanans). Explanation promotes understanding. An explanation is an abduction^@. One can distinguish between different kinds of explanation according to the kind of field-related principles invoked to connect the explanandum to the explanans:

— Causal explanations, allowing prediction and action, as in the following explanatory definition, S. Causality:

Rainbow: A luminous meteorological phenomenon […] produced by the refraction, reflection and dispersion of the colored radiations composing the white light (of the sun) by drops of water. (PR, Art. Rainbow).

— Functional explanations:

Why does the heart beat? — To circulate the blood
Why religion? — To strengthen social cohesion
Why do oranges have slices and chocolate bars have squares? — So they can be more easily divided among children.

— Analogical explanations, S. Analogy I; Analogy II:

The atom is like the solar system

— Intentional explanations, S. Motives: “He killed to steal”.

— Interpretive explanation; when it comes to an obscure text, the explanation provided is an interpretation^@ of the text.

The specific conceptual structure of explanatory discourse in science depends on the definitions and operations governing the field considered: one can explain in history, in linguistics, in physics, in mathematics. As it relies upon a less known / better known differential, explanation also depends on the previous knowledge of the person to whom it is addressed. A good explanation must “reach home”; the explanation provided to someone having no knowledge of the given field, will not be the same as that given in a research paper in that same field.

2. Ordinary explanations

1.1 Explain: The word and its usages

The actors of the verb to explain are human (S1, S2 …). Explanatory discourse connects the explanandum to a possible explanans.

— Explanation typically bears upon an external phenomenon which one wishes to better understand:

In “S1 explains M to S2” the explanation is ​​a conceptual interactional sequence.
In “E explains M”, the explanation is phrased as an objective conceptual monologue, containing no reference to an interactive event.

— S1 can summon another person S2 to explain his or her (= S2‘s) behavior. Then, S1 wants to clarify an interpersonal misunderstanding, or something that could be taken as an offense O, committed by S2 against S1:

You owe me an explanation! (1)

The so-called “explanation” required is actually a justification. (1) constitutes a rather threatening opening, said in an angry tone, and anticipating an animated, even violent discussion. The “explanatory” interaction to follow will probably be an argument₂ (S. Argument – Conclusion), made with the aim of either restoring the relationship between the two individuals, or redefining it.

In everyday usage, the word explanation refers to segments of speech or to interactive sequences opened by a speaker who:

— does not understand:

“(Explain to me) what does ‘zoon politikon’ mean?”: Arequest for a definition, a paraphrase, a translation or an interpretation.

“(Explain to me) what really happened?”: A request for a convincing narrative.

“(Explain to me) why does the shape of the moon change?”: A request for a theory, diagrams and images.

— does not know how to do something:

“(Explain to me) how does it works?”: A request for directions for use, a leaflet, a manual, a practical demonstration.

The structure of the explanation provided will be as diverse as the kind of activity involved.

The question of the unicity of the concept of explanation thus arises, as well as that of the varieties of interactional explanatory discourses. At the most general level, the need for explanation comes from the feeling of surprise (novelty, anomaly) before something astonishing. Any answer that can satisfy this astonishment and rid the speaker of any sense of surprise may be considered to be a satisfactory explanation.

1.2 In ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967) attaches central importance to accounts in everyday interactions, that is to ordinary explanations, justifications or good reasons given by the participant in regard to the meaning of what they are doing and expecting. Accounts are given at two levels; firstly, as explicit explanations “in which social actors give an explanation for what they are doing in terms of reasons, motives or causes” (Heritage 1987, p. 26). Secondly, implicit accounts are provided as explanations inscribed in the ongoing flow of actions and social interactions (ibid.). Such implicit accounts are intended to ensure the mutual intelligibility of “what is going on”, on the basis of action scripts, social expectations or practical moral standards. These explanations are said to be situated, i.e., context bound.

When it comes to conversation, explicit explanations often manifest themselves as repairs, when an initial turn is followed by a non-preferred sequence, for example if an invitation is rejected, the refusal will often be accompanied by a justification: “I’m afraid I can’t come with you, I have to work”. This kind of explanation or reason is required in view of a social norm, as can be seen in the conflictive turn taken by the interaction when explanations are not provided (Pomerantz 1984).

1.3 Explanatory sequences

Beyond the question “why are things so?”, the quest for an explanation is defined as a cognitive, linguistic, interactional activity, triggered by the feeling or expression of doubt, ignorance, by a disturbance in the normal course of action, or a mere “mental discomfort” (Wittgenstein 1974, p. 26). Explanations seek to satisfy such a cognitive need, to appease doubt and so produce a sense of understanding and (inter)comprehension.

The explanatory interaction between an “explainer” and an “explainee” can be schematized as a succession of stages. The first stage is a demand for an explanation addressed to an explainer by an explainee, and the last one a ratification of the explanation by the explainee:

Ee has a curiosity, a doubt, concern, a mental block … about M.
Ee looks for an explanation from Er
Er provides an explanation
Ee ratifies this explanation, or not.

According to this scheme, the explanation is an answer to a request. As an epistemic-interactional act, an explanation is satisfactory if it appeases Ee’s “mental discomfort”. This means that, if not based upon Ee’s interrogations, the most sophisticated and true explanation, will be satisfactory, at best, for the explainer Er.

3. Explanation and argumentation

3.1 Explanation and justificatory argumentation

Explanations are on the side of the justificatory arguments, S. Justification:

— Explanation and argumentation both originate in a state of doubt about a statement which does not fit with the individual’s stock of beliefs and knowledge.
— Explanation and argumentation develop from an interrogation.
— Both are connecting processes which develop a given stock of beliefs. Explanation integrates an unquestionable fact, the explanandum into the explanans system. Deliberative argumentation develops arguments taken in this stock of beliefs towards a conclusion, which will be integrated in this same stock of beliefs. Justificatory argumentation integrates a challenged known fact into an established coherent system of representation.

In deliberative argumentation, the argument is given as assured, doubt is attached to the consequent, the conclusion. In justificatory argumentation, the search for argument goes the opposite way:

My client is entirely innocent, how can I prove / explain this to the jury?

as in explanation, where the explanandum is an established fact, and the explanans must be identified:

No doubt, the face of the moon change; how can I make sense of that?

The same laws of passage can make the connection; causal links, for example, are exploited both in explanation and in argumentation, S. Pragmatic; Motives.

3.2 Explanation as argumentative move

The opposition between argumentation and explanation may have an argumentative import. Explanation projects unequal interaction roles: the explainee is the ignorant profane in a low position, whilst the explainer is the expert in a high position. In argumentative situations, the roles of proponent and opponent are more equal; one “explains something to somebody” vs. “argues with or against somebody about something”.

The question “why?”, which typically introduces a request for explanation, may also be used to call into question an opinion or a behavior. In the latter case, it opens an argumentative, egalitarian, discussion. But the recipient of this question may re-frame the argumentative situation as an explanatory situation, “Wait, let me explain!”, whereby the relations becomes asymmetric, the explainer trying to have the upper hand over the explainee.

---

 

1. The predicative rhetorical genre

The classical rhetorical genres, the deliberative, the judicial, the epidictic, all relate to civil life. Christian religious rhetoric has developed a new genre, preaching, where persuasion is put to the service of religious faith. Predication is the action name associated with the verb to preach, and the noun preacher. It has not been affected by the derogatory orientations sometimes associated with these two words in contemporary usage. It is homonymous with the word predication as used in grammar and logic to designate the operation by which a predicate (a verbal group) is associated with a subject in a sentence; and with the word to predicate something upon, that is to base an action or a saying upon:

I predicated my argument on the facts. (tfd, Predicate)

Preaching as an argumentative genre fully complies with the definition of argumentation provided by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca as a discursive effort “to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent” ([1958]/1969, p. 4). The theses referred to in this case are religious beliefs, that are articles of faith from the point of view of the preacher. Assuming that the audience is composed of believers, by preaching to them, the pastor assures their ongoing training and increases their degree of belief, in other words, “the soul’s adherence” to their creed (after Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, [1958], p. 4).

If the audience is composed of unbelievers, the missionary might preach to them in order to instigate these same beliefs. If the audience is composed of heretics in a position of strength, rhetoric must give way to dialectic.

The tenants of the Catholic faith are given in the Holy Scriptures, and are commented on by the authorities, the Fathers of the Church. These contents are articulated and applied in sermons by means of various speech techniques, which have established themselves in a sometimes polemical tension between dialectical appeals to reason and rhetorical enthusiasm for faith, S. Faith.

2. The exemplum

The exemplum (plural exempla) is an instrument of preaching which has been particularly developed by the Dominican and Franciscan mendicant orders, from the beginning of the thirteenth century. Structurally, the exemplum is a narrative, exploiting the resources of the fable. The genus is legitimated by the very example of Christ who preached by parables. The exempla present models of action to be followed or avoided.

The exemplum is “a brief narrative given as truthful and intended to be inserted into a discourse (usually a sermon) to convince an audience by a salutary lesson” (Brémond & al. 1982, pp. 37-38). Brémond distinguishes metaphorical and metonymic exempla.

2.1 Metonymic exemplum

In such exempla, the fact is presented as being likely. There is then a certain identity of status between the heroes of the anecdote and the recipients of the exhortation. The parable of the evil rich is told to the rich, and the logicians are told the tale of one of their colleagues, who is tormented in hell for his sins, that is to say, his sophisms.

The following exemplum deals with the fate of souls after death, and especially with purgatory. The lesson it contains is a “Christian denunciation of vain pagan erudition” (Boureau, p. 94), and a call to the logicians to convert to a religious life.

For our edification, it may be useful to know that a harsh sentence is inflicted upon sinners at the end of their lives.
This is what happened in Paris, according to the Parisian Cantor (= Peter the Chanter, Petrus Cantor). Master Silo urged one of his colleagues, who was very ill, to come and visit him after his death and to inform him of his fate. The man appeared before him a few days later, wearing a cloak of parchment covered with sophistic inscriptions and full of flames. The master asked him who he was. He replied, “I am the one who promised you that he would visit.” When asked what his fate was, he said, “This cloak weighs me down and oppresses me more than a tower. They make me bear it for the vainglory which I have derived from the sophisms. The flames with which it is filled represent the delicious and varied furs I wore, and this flame tortures me and burns me”. And as the master found this slight penalty, the deceased told him to stretch out his hand to test the lightness of punishment. On his outstretched hand, the man dropped a bead of sweat, which drilled the hand of the master as fast as an arrow. The Master experienced an extraordinary agony, and the man said to him, “so it is with all my being”. Afraid of the harshness of this chastisement, the master decided to leave the world and enter religion. And in the morning, facing his gathered students, he composed these verses:

To the frogs, I give up croaking /To the ravens, cawing, / To the vain, vanity.
I attach my fate /To a logic that does not fear the conclusive ‘therefore’ of death.

And, abandoning the world, he took refuge in religion.
Jacobus da Varagine, The Golden Legend, written around 1260[1]

The practice of exemplum goes beyond the strictly religious domain. Fontenelle’s “Golden Tooth” is actually a lay metonymic exemplum illustrating the fallacy of finding the cause of a fact that does not exist, S. Cause – Effect.

2.2 Metaphorical exemplum

In such exempla, “the narrative no longer quotes a sample of the rule, but a fact that resembles it” (ibid.):

The hedgehog, it is said, when he enters a garden, takes on a load of apples which he fixes on his prickles. When the gardener arrives, the hedgehog wants to run away, but his load prevents him doing so, and thus he is caught with his apples. […] This is what happens to the unfortunate sinner who is taken, when he dies, with the burden of his sins.
Humbert from Romans, [The Gift of Fear or the Abundance of the Examples], written between 1263 and 1277.[2]

---

[1] Quoted after Jacques de Voragine, La Légende Dorée. Text presented by A. Boureau. In J.-C. Schmitt (ed.), Prêcher d’exemples [Preaching Exempla]. Paris: Stock, 1985. P. 7.
[2] Humbert from Romans, Le Don de Crainte ou l’Abondance des Exemples. Trans. from Lat. to French by Chr. Boyer. Lyon: PUL. 2003. P. 116.

---

 

The word example has two main meanings:

1. Way of being or doing worthy of imitation: setting an example, leading by example, being an example for the community.
2. Any item in a series of equivalent elements, one case among others. If the series is composed of different elements, a typical example is the most characteristic individual, central to the series.

Besides the specific forms of argumentation described below, the following forms of argumentation are related with the example: S. Exemplum; Imitation; Ab exemplo.

1. The example in the Aristotelian rhetorical system

In a version of the Aristotelian rhetorical system, the induction and the syllogism are the instruments of scientific discourse, whereas the example and the enthymeme are their counterparts in rhetorical discourse (Rhet, II, 20, 1393a20-25, RR p. 335). There are different kinds of examples:

[Argument by example] has two varieties; one consisting in the mention of actual past facts, the other in the invention of facts by the speaker. Of the latter, again, there are two varieties, the illustrative parallel and the fable. (Id., 1393a25-30; RR p. 357-358)

A table of rhetorical instruments:

An argument drawn from an example based on past, real facts is illustrated by a form of induction leading to the conclusion, “we must prepare for war against the King of Persia and not let Egypt be subdued”, in view of two past experiences which were detrimental to the Greeks:

For Darius of old did not cross the Aegean until he had seized Egypt; but once he had seized it, he did cross. And Xerxes again did not attack us until he had seized Egypt. but once he had seized it, he did cross. (Rhet., II, 20, 1393a30-b5, RR p. 335)

The reasoning can be seen as an induction, aimed at establishing as a law that “the conquerors who seize Egypt then cross the sea to Europe”, or as a direct stimulation to wake up bad memories. In that case, the argument by example would function as a kind of two-term reasoning.

Comparison — Aristotle gives as an example of a “parable”, an analogy drawn from the speeches of Socrates. This parable condemns the practice of drawing lots for magistrates, since one does not “use the lot to select a steersman from among a ship’s crew” (Rhet., II, 20, 1393b5, RR, p. 335); S. Metaphor.

Fable — Aristotle gives as an example of a fable of the horse that wanted revenge on the stag, and in so doing becomes a slave to man, with an application to the saviors of the fatherland who quickly became tyrants (Rhet, II, 20, 1393a5-25, RR p. 337). As portraits (S. Ethos), fables are a fully argumentative and literary genre, from Aesop (620 – 564 BCE) to modern times, S. Exemplum.

2. Argument by example

As a generalization (induction) based on a single specific case, the argument from example draws on an observation made on one individual, and categorically generalizes it to all individuals of the same class or of the same name:

This butterfly is blue, so (all) butterflies are blue.

In reality it is only possible to conclude “some Bs are P” from “this B is P”. The generalization on the basis of one single specific case corresponds to the converse of the instantiation of a universal proposition, which is valid; if “all Is are P” then “this I is P”.

This swan is white, it’s okay, since (all) swans are black.

Argument by example is a kind of hasty generalization or induction on the basis of a single case, or a relatively small number of cases. It may also be a case of two-term reasoning.

The inductive narrative proceeds from an anecdote: “the owners of iPhones are unbearable. Recently I was camping…” and the anecdote develops, highlighting the terrible behavior of one iPhone user and generalizes this case to all iPhone users. In Aristotelian terms, the process is an inductive generalization, based on a real past fact, which is then elaborated as a truth revealing fable.

3. Argumentation from a generic example, or ecthesis

A generic example is a being in which all the properties of the genus to which it belongs are clearly manifested. It is a prototype of the class, its best incarnation, S. Category; Intra-categorical Analogy. The argument from the generic example is based on such a specimen and results in conclusions being made about a given genus (about all the individuals belonging to that genus):

The generic example consists in explaining the reasons for the validity of an assertion by performing operations or transformations on a given concrete object, considered not for itself but as a characteristic representative of a class. (Balacheff 1999, p. 207).

The process is also known as ecthesis, defined as “[a] technique of demonstration used especially in Euclidean geometry: to establish a theorem, you reason on a singular figure. Your inference is correct if it does not mention the characteristics peculiar to the drawn figure but only those which it shares with all the figures of its species.” (Vax 1982, Ecthèse)

4. Exemplification of a generic or accidental feature?

The argument by example is a legitimate extrapolation if it is founded on a generic feature. If one asks for example how many wings birds may have, observation of any bird will lead the observer to discover the correct answer. On the other hand, if one asks about the average weight of a pigeon, the same procedure is absurd: “this pigeon taken at random weighs 322 g. So the average weight of a pigeon is 322 g.”

As in many cases, it is not previously known whether the investigated feature is essential or accidental, this distinction is exploited as an argumentative resource. The proponent considers that generalization is valid because it is based on an essential trait, and the opponent argues that it is accidental and cannot be generalized. S. Classification; Accident.

The remains of a single animal belonging to an unknown disappeared species provides a wealth of knowledge about this species, but its specific conditions must be duly acknowledged, as shown by the case of the Neanderthal man.

1. The views the scientists hold about the Neanderthals have changed over time. (after G. Burenhult, “[Towards Homo Sapiens]”, 1994[1])
More precisely: Is the Neanderthal man our ancestor or a species different from our own?

2. First answer: The Neanderthal man belongs to our species. “It has long seemed obvious that the physical appearance of the Neanderthal man — and especially those living in Europe — was very different from ours”. However, “in spite of these physical differences, Neanderthals have long been regarded as direct ancestors of the present man” (id., p. 66).

Second answer: The Neanderthal man belongs to a different species. “Following the work of the French paleontologist Marcellin Boule these differences were judged too great” (id., p. 67), and the Neanderthal man was considered to belong to a different species.
The Neanderthal of Marcellin Boule: “From 1911, the paleoanthropologist Marcellin Boule published a detailed study of the skeleton. He built an image that has conditioned the popular perception of Neanderthal man for more than thirty years. His interpretations are strongly influenced by the ideas of his time concerning this extinct hominid. He describes him as a kind of savage and brutal caveman, dragging his feet and not able to walk upright.”
“Marcellin Boule describes a Neanderthal with a flattened skull, a curved vertebral column (much like gorilla), semi-flexed lower limbs and large divergent big toes. This description is in keeping with the ideas of the time on human evolution” (Wikipedia, Marcellin Boule).

4. But this Neanderthal was seriously handicapped: “In 1913, Marcellin Boule exaggerated the differences with us, not realizing that the skeleton he was studying — the “Old Man of the Chapelle aux Saints” (Corrèze, France) — was deformed by arthritis, as demonstrated by W. Strauss and A. J. Cave in 1952.” (id., p. 67)
“J.-L. Heim describes the subject as badly disabled; he suffered a deformity of the left hip (epiphysiolysis or rather trauma), a crushing of the finger of the foot, severe arthritis in the cervical vertebrae, a broken rib, and a narrowing of the channels of the spinal nerves.” (Wikipedia, id.)

5. Conclusion: Our cousin, the Neanderthals: “Today Neanderthal men are seen as our cousins ​​rather than as our ancestors, although they look like us in many respects” (ibid.).

5. Exemplification as illustration and test case example

The generic example functions as a basis for an abductive generalization, resulting in a rule or regularity about a class of cases or individuals. Specific cases can be introduced in relation with such a general discourse.

— The illustrative example facilitates the understanding of a concept or a law, by introducing a (typical) instantiation of the concept or the law:

A migratory bird is a bird that … So the swallow…

Moreover, if the example chosen is (presented as) typical of the phenomenon, it renders the time-consuming and precarious work of checking a large number of cases unnecessary. In this sense, to give an argument in defense of a general statement is simply to find a case to which it applies correctly. If the general statement is the result of an a priori argumentation or illumination, the illustrative example will at least show that the conclusion is not undermined by the first example that comes to mind (see infra, § 6).
The illustrative example can also be used as an epideictic amplification technique:

Whereas an example is designed to establish a rule, the role of illustration is to strengthen adherence to a known and accepted rule, by providing particular instances which clarify the general statement, show the import of this statement by calling attention to its various possible applications, and increase its presence to the consciousness. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 357)

— The test case example is different. It may be introduced as an objection to the theory, and the speaker must show that the general principle he or she favors can be successfully applied to this case, that it accounts for this case.

6. Refutation by the counter-example (arg. in contrarium)

An example does not establish a law, but is sufficient to refute a generalization. Argument by the counterexample is the standard method of refutation of general propositions “all A are B”: this assertion is refuted by showing an A which is not B. This strategy is perfectly operative in ordinary argument, S. Opposites.

---

[1] G. Burenhult, Vers Homo Sapiens. In Le Premier homme. Preface by Y. Coppens, Paris, Bordas, 1994, p. 67.

Rhetorical argumentation focuses on persuasion, adherence, communion, consensus, co-construction… These terms sound much like moral incitements, “don’t be different, be the same”; and it’s difficult to disagree with the principle of agreement. The emphasis on persuasion and consensus suggests that unanimity would be the normal, healthy state of society, as opposed to the pathological state of controversy, or dissensus.

1. The passion for dissensus as sin and fallacy

The passion for dissensus characterizes polemical exchanges; verbal violence is not associated with controversies as it is with polemics. Emotional dramatization and personal involvement are expressed in the speech acts opening the debate: to rise up against, to be outraged, to protest… When it comes to emotional repercussions, controversy and polemic might hurt the feelings of the parties.
The polemicist refuses to close the debate, and allow the other party’s argument to prevail, even if it is the stronger argument. This refusal to defer to the arguments of the other is a paralogism of obstinacy, stigmatized by Rule 9 of the critical discussion, that asks the proponent to bow before a conclusive argument (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004, p. 195; S. Rules). But who says that the point of view has been conclusively defended? The polemicist refuses to admit that the point of view of his or her opponent has been defended conclusively, and posits that the veracity of his or her viewpoint is beyond reasonable doubt. As a last resort, he or she might appeal to intimate conviction, as a way of preserving a jeopardized identity.

The condemnation of argumentativeness and polemic has deep historical roots. The Middle Ages considered contentio, that is contentiousness, as a sin of the tongue, S. Fallacies as Sins.

Contentio is a war of words. It may be a defensive war waged by the stubborn individual, who refuses without reason alter his position. But contentio is most often manifested as a display of aggression in one of many forms. This might be an unnecessary verbal attack against one’s neighbor, an aim not to seek the truth, but to simply manifest aggression (Aymon); a quarrel which, abandoning any quest for truth, gives rise to dispute and goes as far as blasphemy (Isidore); a refined and malevolent argumentation that opposes the truth to satisfy an irresistible desire for victory (Glossa ordinaria); a wicked, contentious and violent altercation (Vincent of Beauvais); an attack against the truth led by the strength of the clamor [“public outcry”, CP] (Glossa ordinaria, Peter Lombard). Often, however, the contentio appears in texts without ever being defined, as if the connotation of violent verbal antagonism attached to the term is sufficient to indicate that it should be avoided and condemned as a sin. (Casagrande & Vecchio ([1987], p. 213-214)

Contentio is a second level sin, derived from first level sins such as envy, vainglory and pride. There is one reservation to be mentioned here, namely that such definitions restrict the sin of contentio to violent attacks against religious truth. It is not, however, a sin to violently and continuously attack error and sin; anger becomes a holy anger.

2. Polemics and “deep disagreement”

The concept of deep disagreement was introduced by Fogelin (1985). Deep disagreement involves incompatible values or metaphysical principles, rather than empirically testable epistemic issues. The solution of scientific conflicts, including in mathematics and logic, call for technical treatment (Woods 2003), while deep disagreement is more akin to polemics, involving intense personal commitment on the part of the participants. Nonetheless, polemics seems to prefer (face-to-face) confrontation, while deeply disagreeing position can be developed in parallel and in mutual ignorance, thus appearing beyond the field of argued dialogue.

In human affairs, the existence of such intractable divergences may be considered as a “radically shocking” challenge (Turner & Campolo 2005, p. 1) to the argumentative enterprise itself. “if [Fogelin] was right, what would become of the field? Even more important, arguably, what could be done about deep disagreements themselves? The field and all of the good it meant to accomplish seemed to be threatened all at once” (ibid.).

3. The post-persuasion era and the normality of dissensus

Any serious argumentative debate contains an element of radicalism, which calls for a de-demonization of dissensus, and, as a consequence, for a re-evaluation of the role of the ratified third parties, who have the power to make a decision. As Willard, who has written extensively on this subject, states:

To prize dissensus goes against an older tradition in argumentation, that values ​​opposition less than the rules that constrain it. (Willard 1989, p. 149)

The preference for consensus does not exclude the reality of dissensus. Argumentation studies must confront situations in which differences of opinion are produced, managed, solved, amplified or transformed through their discursive confrontation. Determining which differences of opinion should be reduced and how, and which ones should rather be encouraged and deepened is a major social and scientific issue, having critical educational implications.

Argumentation can be used to divide opinion; this is what the discourse of Christ achieves in the Christian vision of the world:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Matthew 10: 34-36[1]

The first virtue of argumentation is not that it solves the conflicts, but that it is able to give words to conflicts; it is a precious method of managing differences, sometimes reducing them, sometimes increasing them and causing them to multiply. In an over-consensual context, it may be the noble task of argumentation to bring about relevant dissensual discourses, and to value and stimulate the emergence of differences of opinion.

The majority rule does not imply that the majority is the holder of the truth, and is entitled to enforce its rule over a disgraced minority who spuriously resist the persuasive power of the orator, or refuse to acknowledge the defeat inflicted upon them by the dialectician. One can hypothesize that, in our terrestrial world, the coexistence of contradictory opinions represents the normal state, neither pathological nor transitory, of the socio-political ideological field; deep disagreement is the routine and rule. Hegelians would add that contradiction is the dialectical engine of history.

In any case, democracy does not eliminate differences, and voting does not eliminate minorities and their opinions. In such conditions “it is not about convincing, but about living together” [2], the objective is not to convince others, but to enable groups to coexist. Argument is a way of managing these differences, sometimes eliminating them, sometimes promoting them for the common good.

---

[1] Matthew 10:34-36. Quoted after The Bible, New International Version (NIV), www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:34-36 (11-08-2017)

[2] “No se trata de convencer sino de convivir”. A. Ortega, “La razón razonable”, El País, 25-09-2006.

---

 

1. Exaggeration as amplification

Aristotle defines exaggeration as the use of “indignant language […] painting a highly colored picture of the situation” (Rhet, II, 24, 1401b1-10, RR, p. 383), and notes its spectacular and curious effect in a judicial situation: “if the defendant does so, he produces an impression of his innocence; and if the prosecutor goes into a passion, he produces an impression of the defendant’s guilt” (ibid).

2. Exaggeration to absurdity

Exaggeration to absurdity is a technique of refutation known under the name of adynaton: “the arguer uses both hyperbole and apodioxis to establish a position by the exaggeration of the absurd of the opposite position” (Molinié 1992, Adynaton; for apodioxis, S. Dismissal)

This is a variant on refutation from the absurd, taken to the ridiculous:

To prevent accidents, leave your car at home!
To avoid recidivism, let us execute all offenders!

The mechanisms of argumentation are the same as those of the slippery slope argument, an invitation: “don’t stop now, the path is so good”, S. Slippery Slope; Laughter.

You want to be vegetarian, no problem, eat salad, go and graze on the lawn.

In the following passage the position “criminally insane people must be judged as everyone else” is rejected by showing that if intentionality is not taken into account, the very idea of criminal behavior becomes meaningless:

Let us judge all criminal acts. Whatever the level of consciousness of their perpetrators. And why not a dog? The news provides a tragic opportunity to further advance justice. […] And why does the cyclone that recently ravaged the West Indies, causing several victims and immense material damage, escape the wrath of justice?
M. Horeau, [Obvious Delirium]. Le Canard Enchaîné, 2007[1]

3. Minimization, or euphemization

Minimization strategies are used to deflect an accusation, when bad behavior is acknowledged as such, and its material significance is reduced to nothing. If I’m accused of having stolen a bicycle, for example, I might defend my actions thus: “Oh yes, but it’s just an old broken worthless bike.”

The associated feeling is indifference, and the accuser is encouraged to cool down, S. Calm. Anything can be euphemized, even torture:

30-7-84 Christian Von Wernich (chaplain [capellán] of the Police of Buenos Aires, currently priest in Bragado) (statement to the magazine Siete Días):
Tell me that Camps has tortured a poor guy whom nobody knows, good, okay then. But how could he have tortured Jacobo Timermann, a journalist about whom there was constant and decisive global pressure, if only for that!
Carlos Santibáñez & Mónica Acosta, [The Two Churches], [1996].[2]

---

[1] L. M. Horeau, “Flagrants délires”. Le Canard Enchaîné, (a satirical newspaper) August 29, 2007. P. 1
[2] Carlos Santibáñez & Mónica Acosta, Las dos Iglesias. Report commemorating the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Bishop Angelelli.
www.desaparecidos.org/nuncamas/web/investig/dosigles/02.htm (11-08-2017).

Some argument schemes are designated by Latin labels, S. Ab —; Ad —; Ex —. This entry lists the labels using the Latin preposition ex (rarely e, and never e before a vowel).

E/ex means “taken from”; in the construction “arguments e/ex N” the Latin noun N refers to the substance, from which the argument is drawn.

A list of “ex + N” Arguments

Latin name of the argument	• Meaning of the Latin word(s)Latin • (When necessary a word-for-word translation) • English equivalent(s) • Reference to the corresponding entry/ies
ex concessis (sg. ex concesso) e concessu gentium	Lat. concedere, “admit; agree with sb” — arg. from the consensus of nations ; from traditional wisdom; from what is admitted by the audience or the opponent — S. Consensus; Authority; Ex concessis; Ex datis; Beliefs of the Audience; Concession; Ad hominem.
e contrario [generally a contrario]	Lat. contrarius, “contrary; opposite” — S. Opposites
ex datis	Lat. datum, “gift” — arg. from the facts as such; from what is accepted by the audience — S. Ex datis
ex notatione	Lat. notatio, from notare “stamp with a mark” — arg. from “what the word (truly) says”; argument from the meaning or of a word. S. True Meaning of the Word; Derived Words
ex silentio	Lat. silentium, “silence” — S. Silence

As the ab and ad arguments, the ex arguments do not refer to a unified category of arguments, or to a common semantic family, nor to a formal type.

---

 

Evidentiality is a set of grammatical or linguistic phenomena indicating how the information conveyed in a statement has been obtained by the speaker. Evidential systems commonly signal that the information 1) comes from sensory experience (auditory, visual); 2) that is has been inferred from something else; 3) that it reproduces a hearsay. Other evidential systems are much more complex. In evidential languages, the speaker must explicitly mention the basis on which he or she says what he or she says, that is, the kind of argument supporting the utterance.

In some languages, evidentiality is grammaticalized, that is, it corresponds to a specific grammatical category. In English, for example, the reported event is necessarily referred to by its temporal-aspectual coordinates. In evidential languages, the speaker is obliged to stipulate how the information he relays has been obtained (via the senses, hearsay, inference, etc.). The sub-system of the grammatical marks of evidentiality is distinct from the modal system as well as from the temporal-aspectual system.

Evidentiality can be considered as a linguistically embedded argumentation, as an “argumentation within grammar”. It leads to the conception of the argumentation as a continuum, sometimes related to the grammar and semantics of the language and at other times, to the grammar and semantics of discourse.

In English, where evidentiality is not grammaticalized, evidential markers or phrases remain optional. The evidential sources can be discursively expressed as coordinated sentences or as the head of the sentence:

Peter is at home;

one can hear him             I hear that Peter is at home
one can see him               I see that —
they told me                   They told me that —
I read it                          I read that —
I guess                          I guess that —

Evidentiality may be expressed by modals. So, for example, in the statement “Peter is at home”, the information about that Peter’s whereabouts is given in the categorical mode, and is endorsed by the highest degree of speaker certainty on an epistemic scale ranging from doubt to certitude. From an evidential perspective, the statement implies that the speaker has some direct evidence to back the speech, for example “I just left him”, etc.

“Peter should be at home now”: this sentence communicates the same information on a lower position on the epistemic scale. From an evidential perspective, the statement implies, for example, “I have no direct and categorical evidence of what I say, but on the basis of Peter’s usual habits, I infer that he is at home”.

The following example is taken from Ducrot (1975). In “Pierre doit avoir reçu ma lettre” (“Peter must/should have received my letter”), , the information is backed only by common knowledge of the usual delivery deadlines. The following case is different:

Eh bien, je crois que Pierre a reçu ma lettre!
Well, I believe that Peter has received my letter!

There is now an implication that the same information has been inferred from a quite different source, that is, some natural sign taken in Peter’s behavior which can be explained only by referring to the letter’s content; for example, the letter informed Peter of a disciplinary warning, and Peter clearly changed his behavior.

---

 

In general, to evaluate an argumentative discourse is to pass upon this discourse a justified positive or negative “value judgment”, S. Value. The assessment activity is one argumentative activity among others, which may be misleading or well founded, regardless of the quality of the discourse it approves or condemns. In order to avoid arbitrariness, the evaluation must specify its method, criteria and reference assessment scale, and remain open to criticism — as is the case for any other argumentation.

1. Dimensions of evaluation

1.1 Assessment scales

Arguments may be evaluated on the basis of different kinds of scales, such as:

An efficiency scale — The best argument is the one that best orients its target towards the thesis it defends, or the action it advocates.

A scale of logical-scientific validity — Good arguments are valid deductions, starting from true premises and conveying their truth to their conclusion according to valid rules and methods.

Invalid arguments are misleading, and effective argumentation may be so; in fact, effective arguments are systematically suspected of being misleading. Conversely, a valid argument may be totally ineffective: for example, “P, so P” is a valid deductive inference but it has no persuasive power. It could be argued that ordinary arguments often simply just camouflage this kind of truism by using two distinct formulations of the same proposition P “P, therefore (paraphrase of P)”. Since trains never leave before the scheduled time, the following account is not a real justification:

Due to the delay, the train will not start on time.

1.2 Binary and gradual evaluation

— Binary evaluation classifies arguments as valid (good, accepted) and invalid (bad, rejected). This evaluation follows the rules and criteria of formal logic. It requires the translation of the argumentation produced in ordinary language into a logical language. The evaluation bears on this logical characterization, taken as expressing the essence of the argumentation, and this logical evaluation is then transferred to the original discourse, S. Connectives.

— Gradual evaluation positions the argument on a gradual scale, as more or less good or bad. In practice, the evaluation criteria depend on the argument scheme considered, and on the availability of a relevant set of critical questions, which can be rather heterogeneous. The argument under consideration is then checked for each condition, and its global evaluation may be only a precarious synthesis of the results of these different operations.

2. The diagnosis of fallacy

The imputation of fallacy is an adversarial procedure condemning, rejecting, or disqualifying a discourse. The accused arguer has the right to defend his or her argument, in view of the principle of “no execution without representation”. Discussions about the fallacious nature of argumentation are, in principle, open-ended and their conclusions are defeasible and adjustable. They are arguments like any others, possibly themselves fallacious. At any rate, meta-argumentative disputes about argument evaluation provide interesting data for argumentative analysis.

Evaluators

Hamblin gives a clear answer to this question: the logician is not the arbiter of the argument or dispute (Hamblin 1970, p. 244-245):

Consider, now, the position of the onlooker and, particularly, that of the logician, who is interested in analyzing and, perhaps, passing judgment on what transpires. If he says “Smith’s premises are true” or “Jones argument is invalid”, he is taking part in the dialogue exactly as if he were a participant in it ; but, unless he is in fact engaged in a second-order dialogue with other onlookers, his formulation says no more than the formulation “I accept Smith’s premises” or “I disapprove of Jones’s argument”. Logicians are, of course, allowed to express their sentiments but there is something repugnant about the idea that Logic is a vehicle for the expression of the logician’s own judgments of acceptance and rejection of statements and arguments. The logician does not stand above and outside practical argumentation or, necessarily, pass judgment on it. He is not a judge or a court of appeal, and there is no such judge or court: he is, at best, a trained advocate. It follows that it is not the logician’s particular job to declare the truth of any statement or the validity of any argument.
While we are using a legal metaphor it might be worthwhile to draw an analogy from legal precedent. If a complaint is made by a member of some civil association such as a club or a public company, that the officials or management have failed to observe some of the association’s rules or some part of its constitution, the courts will, in general, refuse to handle it. In effect the plaintiff will be told: “Take your complaint back to the association itself. You have all the powers you need to call public meetings, move rescission motions, vote the managers out of office. We shall intervene on your behalf only if there is an offence such as a fraud.” The logician’s attitude to actual argument should be something like this.

The diagnosis of fallacious speech operates on a meta-argumentative level, but this second level does not transcend the dialogue under scrutiny, it remains an integral part of the argumentative game. In other words, the judgment “this argument is fallacious” works in the same way as any other ordinary refutation, whether carried by a participant (ordinary use of the word fallacy) or by an analyst, who then behaves as a participant. One must then speak of an ad fallaciam argument.

In a letter to Scherer, the economist Leon Walras refers to a controversy between Scherer himself and Guéroult:

I take […] your [= Scherer’s] study of December 30 to the point where you […] clearly and plainly address the more general considerations about the divergence between his [Guéroult’s] opinions and yours.

“Perfectibility, you say is a modern idea, one of those that best indicate the distance between the old world and the new world. It bears within itself its own self-evidence, so that its adversaries are only a few sophists or some misanthropes. It has passed into the common law of intelligence. Yet, as M. Guéroult seems sometimes to do, perfectibility should not be confused with the possibility of perfection. This confusion is not merely a matter of words; for those who understand the scope of the questions, it marks the dividing point between two systems, liberalism and socialism. Socialism, reduced to its principle, is nothing other than the belief in the possible perfection of society and the effort to realize this state.”

This is clear and precise. M. Guéroult and you agree up to a point: for both of you, humanity advances and does not retreat; the law of the development and organization of society is a law of progress and not of decadence. Beyond these limits, you separate, you think that society is only perfectible, while M. Guéroult, on his part, thinks that society, sooner or later, will be perfect; you are a liberal, M. Guéroult is a socialist. Perfectibility or perfection, liberalism or socialism, such is the alternative and the question that is raised. (Léon Walras, [“Socialism and liberalism”], [1863][1])

Schérer argues that Guéroult concludes from the possibility of the perfectible (point upon which they agree) the possibility of the perfect (point upon which they disagree). This is a typical argument built upon derived words. Schérer does not consider this inference to be a sophism (he does not attribute to Guéroult the intention to mislead his readers) not even to be a mistake, a fallacy of “confusion”, simply a criticism. The analysis is not made from an external logical point of view; it comes from a political opponent, making this point as a sub-issue of a greater debate “Liberalism or Socialism?”.

3. For a laissez-faire in argumentation

Ordinary argumentation is carried out in specific fields by speech communities corresponding to what Hamblin calls “civil association[s]”, having their, interests, programs, ways of thinking and rules for deliberation and action. In these fields, the logician does not, as such, have the substantial specialist skills required. This remark is at the heart of “critical liberalism”, advocating a laissez-faire attitude with argumentation.

From such a viewpoint, what becomes of evaluation? Hamblin’s objection is taken into account, and the evaluation of the arguments is entrusted to the “civil association” with which the arguing party, interested in the outcome of the issue, is affiliated. The data to be considered for the evaluation is not limited to the one isolated argument under scrutiny, but consists in a well-defined selection of contradictory discourses developed around the same issue.

As a result, the evaluation process may be empirically documented and criticized on three levels:

— Non-thematized criticism: description of the practices of evaluation in action, such as concessions, objections, refutations and counter-discourses in general.
— Emergence of a specific ordinary critical metalanguage: charges of fallacy, misplaced authority, irrelevance, emotionality, amalgam and impugned motives, etc. (Doury 2000).
— Evaluations carried out by the specialists of the field. This level, which includes scientific expertise, is the ultimate level of evaluation. Scientists routinely evaluate the discourses and fallacies of their colleagues; historians and social scientists evaluate the fallacies of historians (Fisher 1970), and the teachers and pupils evaluate the pupils’ and teachers’ arguments.

All these activities are “[meta-argumentative]”, as opposed to “ground level argumentations” (Finocchiaro, 2013, p. 1). Provided that the intervention is useful and desired, the specialist in argument analysis can intervene at all levels. As Hamblin has explained, his or her function and deontological position are those of a “well-trained advocate”. As such, the specialist can evaluate all the arguments of the world, the posture being that of the participant analyst and evaluator, working under a double constraint of externality / internality well known in ethnomethodology. He or she may meaningfully intervene in court as a jurilogician or a jurilinguist, that is as a counsel, not a substitute for the judge.

Argumentative discourse is in itself evaluative and critical; scholarly evaluation is a process of argumentative expansion and deepening of the issue itself. There is no super-evaluator capable of putting an end to the critical process by providing a final, conclusive evaluation to silence all other participants.

---

[1] Quoted after Léon Walras L. (1896). “Socialisme et libéralisme”. In Études d’économie sociale – Théorie de la répartition de la richesse sociale Lausanne: Rouge & Paris: Pichon. P. 4.

---