{"id":4648,"date":"2021-10-16T10:53:25","date_gmt":"2021-10-16T08:53:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4648"},"modified":"2025-01-06T19:02:35","modified_gmt":"2025-01-06T18:02:35","slug":"argument-conclusion-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/argument-conclusion-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Argument \u2014\u00a0Conclusion"},"content":{"rendered":"

ARGUMENT \u2013 CONCLUSION<\/span><\/h1>\n

1. Argument<\/span><\/h1>\n

The word argument<\/em> is used in various fields, in grammar, logic, literature, and argumentation, with quite different meanings.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0In logic and mathematics,<\/strong> the arguments of a function f<\/strong><\/em> are the empty places x, y, z\u2026 that characterize the function; the independent entities (variables) organized by the function.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0By analogy, in grammar,<\/strong> the verb plus its subject and object(s) can be considered the counterpart of a function. For example,
\nto give<\/em>, corresponds to the three-argument predicate \u201cx<\/strong> gives y<\/strong> to z<\/strong>\u201d;
\nto love<\/em> corresponds to a two-argument predicate, \u201cx<\/strong> loves y<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

By replacing each of these variables with an appropriate phrase (i.e., respecting the semantic relation that characterizes the verb), we form a proposition: \u201cAdam gives Eve an apple<\/em>\u201d, see Proposition<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0In literature,<\/strong> the central argument<\/em> 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<\/em> is morphologically and semantically isolated; argument<\/em> as \u00ab\u00a0a summary\u00a0\u00bb has no relation to conclusion<\/em>, nor to arguing1<\/sub><\/em>, argumentation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2. Argument and argumentation<\/span><\/h1>\n

The words argument<\/em> and proof\u00a0<\/em>are used to translate the Greek word pistis<\/em> and the Latin word argumentum<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2.1\u00a0Argument ~ argumentation<\/span> <\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

By synecdoche, argument<\/em> often means argumentation<\/em>: \u201clet the best argument win<\/em>!\u201d<\/p>\n

2.2 Premise, Data, Argument\u00a0<\/span> <\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

\u2014\u00a0In logic, the premises<\/em> of the syllogism lead to a conclusion<\/em>. 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>. A premise is not an argument but a component of an argument; the argument is constructed by combining the two premises.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2014 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<\/a>, where the data becomes an argument<\/em> when combined with an often implicit system justification\/support \u00ab\u00a0warrant \/ backing\u00a0\u00bb, see Toulmin’s model<\/a>. The word argument<\/em> is routinely used to refer to the data<\/em> element as the head of such combinations.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0In analytic <\/em>and direct inferences<\/em><\/span>, 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Argument<\/em> and conclusion<\/em> are correlative terms. The relation \u00ab\u00a0argument \u2014 conclusion\u00a0\u00bb is expressed, more or less precisely by expressions like those listed below. If necessary, \u201cis\u201d can be replaced by \u00ab\u00a0is presented as such by the speaker\u00a0\u00bb (as in line 1, etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The argument <\/strong><\/td>\nThe conclusion <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014\u00a0is a consensual statement, or is presented as such by the arguer<\/em>)<\/td>\n\u2014 is a dissensual, contested, disputed statement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014 is more probable than the conclusion<\/td>\n\u2014 is less probable than the argument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014 is the cognitive starting point in deliberative argumentation<\/p>\n

\u2014 is the end point in justificatory argumentation<\/td>\n

\u2014\u00a0is the end point of deliberative argumentation<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0is the starting point in justificatory argumentation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u2014\u00a0expresses a reason<\/td>\n\u2014 searches for a reason<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014 does not bear the burden of proof<\/td>\n\u2014 bears the burden of proof<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014\u00a0is oriented towards the conclusion<\/td>\n\u2014\u00a0is a projection of the argument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014\u00a0(in a functional perspective, from the point of view of the speaker<\/em>
\ndetermines, legitimates the conclusion<\/td>\n		\u2014 \u2014 <\/em>determined, legitimated by the argument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u2014\u00a0(in a dialogical perspective<\/em>) accompanies the answer given to the argumentative question<\/td>\n\u2014 \u2014<\/em> is the correct answer to the argumentative question<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

2.3\u00a0Argument: true, probable, plausible, accepted, conceded\u2026<\/span> <\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

A statement is taken (or presented) as sufficiently true<\/span> to be used as an argument on very different bases.<\/p>\n

\u2014 The argument conveys a known fact, an intellectual self-evidence, see Self-Evidence<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The heat of the wax dilates the pores, making the pulling up less painful (Linguee)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 The partners have explicitly agreed on the statement, e.g.as part of \u00a0 (quasi-) dialectical agreement:<\/p>\n

We agree that Syldavia cannot leave the Eurozone now, so we can make further demands on them.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 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<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

You think that Syldavia will never leave the Eurozone, so\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 A simple fact: the statement is challenged, either by the opponent or the audience.<\/p>\n

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, <\/strong>see Strategy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Challenging the argument \u2014<\/strong> If the argument<\/em> is to be challenged, it must itself be legitimized. As part of this operation, the argument assumes the status of a claim<\/em> 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<\/a>; Epicheirema<\/a>. 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 \u201cdeep disagreement\u201d should not be seen as invalidating argumentation as a useful social tool for dealing with social incompatibilities, provided that third parties<\/em> play their role in well-regulated settings.<\/p>\n

3. Claim, Thesis, Conclusion, Viewpoint, Point of view, Standpoint<\/span><\/h2>\n

In argumentation, the conclusion<\/em> is also called the claim<\/em>, or standpoint<\/em>.
\nA philosophical conclusion is often called a thesis<\/em>, S. Dialectic<\/a>.
\nThe set of conclusions drawn from complex data at the end of an abduction process can be a full-blown theory, S. Abduction<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.1 Point of view, viewpoint, standpoint<\/span><\/h3>\n

In the socio-political domain, a standpoint<\/em> is an \u00ab\u00a0opinion\u00a0\u00bb, possibly justified by arguments. The pragma-dialectical program aims at reducing, resolving, or eliminating differences of opinion<\/em>. The corresponding expressions \u00ab\u00a0resolving\u2026 differences of conclusions, claims, thesis\u2026\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> are not used.
\nAn argument as a point of view, an opinion, a perspective\u2026 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<\/em> can be used to refer to an entire discourse, including the point of view and the good reasons that support it.
\nIn ordinary language, the concept of point of view organizes the speaker’s perceptual reference system:<\/p>\n

On the other side of the hedge was a gardener.<\/span>
\nOn the other side of the hedge was a street.<\/span><\/p>\n

In one case, the speaker is outside<\/em> the garden, in the other inside<\/em> the garden. The concept of point of view<\/em> 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.<\/span>
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n

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.
\nThe point of view is an inescapable starting point. Points of view are comparable and evaluable. We cannot be without<\/em> a point of view, but we can define a better <\/em>point of view; change<\/em> our point of view, and multiply<\/em> our points of view. To eliminate differences in viewpoints, one would have to eliminate subjectivity, or the plurality of voices, and decontextualize the discourse.
\nScientific 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 <\/span>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<\/span>, or of the objective and omniscient narrator of nineteenth-century novels.<\/p>\n

3.2 Conclusion<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n

The opening section of a discourse is its introduction<\/em>, the closing section its conclusion<\/em>. The argumentative<\/em> conclusion<\/em> is different from the material<\/em> conclusion<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

The argumentative conclusion<\/em> 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;<\/span> in which its orientation<\/em> is materialized; the intention<\/em> that gives the discourse its meaning, and the ultimate core of the text obtained by condensing it.<\/p>\n

The conclusion is more or less separable from the arguments that support it. Once we have reached the conclusion that \u00ab\u00a0Harry is probably a British citizen\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, we can, by default, act on that belief. But, insofar as the modal probably<\/em> expresses clear reservations about the whole inferential process, the claim remains open to revision (i.e. is revisable<\/em>) as the available information changes. The \u201cfire and forget\u201d principle [1]<\/a> does not work well in argumentation. The conclusion is never completely divorced from the language used in its construction.<\/p>\n

A statement S<\/strong> becomes a claim in the following dialogical configuration<\/p>\n

(1) \u2014 S<\/strong> is asserted by a speaker (as something essential to him, or merely anecdotal)<\/span>
\n(2)\u00a0\u2014 S<\/strong> is not ratified by the addressee: non-<\/em><\/span>preferred second turn
\n<\/em>(3)\u00a0\u2014 S<\/strong> is reasserted, possibly reformulated by the speaker<\/span>
\n(4)\u00a0\u2014\u00a0S<\/strong> is explicitly rejected by the interlocutor (reassertion not ratified, i.e.\u00a0 disagreement ratified)<\/span>
\n(5) \u2014 Pro- and contra-arguments emerge
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

At stage (3), the disagreement emerges. At stage (4) the disagreement is ratified as such, a stasis<\/a> is formed, and S<\/strong> is now a Claim<\/em> made by the first speaker. At stage (5), the stasis begins to develop<\/p>\n

Stage (1) is not a dialectical \u201copening stage\u201d. 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<\/a>;<\/span> Disagreement<\/a>. In other words, being a claim<\/em> is not a property of a statement, but is attached to the treatment of a statement in an interactive configuration.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> \u201c(Of a missile) capable of guiding itself to its target after being fired.\u201d (EOD, fire-and-forget<\/em>) (11-08-2017)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ARGUMENT \u2013 CONCLUSION 1. Argument The word argument is used in various fields, in grammar, logic, literature, and argumentation, with quite different meanings. \u2014\u00a0In logic and mathematics, the arguments of a function f are the empty places x, y, z\u2026 that characterize the function; the independent entities (variables) organized by the function. \u2014\u00a0By analogy, in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4648","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4648"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4648\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4652,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4648\/revisions\/4652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}