{"id":5552,"date":"2021-10-24T13:23:44","date_gmt":"2021-10-24T11:23:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5552"},"modified":"2025-04-30T09:15:48","modified_gmt":"2025-04-30T07:15:48","slug":"self-argued-claim-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/self-argued-claim-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Self-Argued Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

SELF-ARGUED CLAIM<\/span><\/h1>\n

1. Argumentation as a Composition of Statements<\/span><\/h1>\n

1.1 Argument, Conclusion, Inferense License, Rebuttal<\/span><\/h2>\n

This fully explicit combination corresponds to Toulmin\u2019s layout of argument<\/a>, which articulates the argumentative unit around five elements, Data<\/em>, Claim<\/em>, the two-level transition principle, Warrant<\/em> and Backing<\/em>, and finally, a Qualifier<\/em> referring to the argument’s rebuttal conditions ([1958], Ch. 3).<\/p>\n

1.2 Argument, Conclusion, Inference License<\/span><\/h2>\n

It is generally assumed that the link between argument and claim is provided by a topos, an argument scheme, which is often left implicit.
\nThe consistency of a chain:<\/p>\n

The wind is blowing, it will rain.<\/span><\/p>\n

is based on the empirically observed regularity:<\/p>\n

When this kind of wind blows, it usually rains.<\/span><\/p>\n

From an epistemic perspective, there is \u201cmore\u201d in the argument than in the conclusion, in that the argument is more reliable than the conclusion, which is only a hypothetical projection of the argument.
\nFrom a semantic perspective however, there is \u201cless\u201d in the argument than in the conclusion, in that the conclusion is more than an analytical development of the argument, it is the product of that argument enriched and structured by its combination with a general scheme or topos<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

1.1 Argument, Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n

Consider a discourse, consisting of two statements, {S1<\/strong>, S2<\/strong>}. This sequence is argumentative if it can be paraphrased with some of the following sentences:<\/p>\n

S1<\/strong> backs, supports, motivates, justifies, <\/em>\u2026 S2
\nS1<\/strong>, because, therefore, so, thus<\/em>, \u2026 S2
\nE2<\/strong>, because, since, as, given that<\/em>, \u2026 S1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The theory of argumentation within language formulates the same relation in a way that has proved extremely fruitful: the conclusion, it is what the speaker has in mind or in view, <\/em>what he or she is getting at, <\/em>when he or she produces the argument<\/em>:<\/p>\n

The speaker puts forward D1<\/strong>, in order to, in view of… D2<\/strong>.<\/span>
\nThe reason why he states D1 <\/strong>is D2<\/strong>.<\/span>
\nThe meaning of D1<\/strong>, that is, the direction in which it aims, the sense\u2026 of D1 <\/strong>is D2<\/strong>.<\/span>
\nAnd, finally, \u201cD1<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, that is to say, in other words,<\/em> that means, <\/em>\u2026 D2<\/strong>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

S: \u2014 You say you have homework, does <\/em>that mean you are not going out with us tonight?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, a conclusion can be introduced not by a connector or an indicator of consequence<\/em>, but by a connector of reformulation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Claim D2<\/strong> essentially \u201crepackages\u201d the argument, revealing the contextual meaning of the statement as an argument. The interlocutor fully understands the statement-argument, only when the conclusion is grasped see orientation<\/a>.
\nThis is the crucial difference between logical inference and argumentative inference, which would be more properly called argumentative derivation.<\/p>\n

2. Argumentation as Self-justified Conclusions<\/span><\/h2>\n

From the standpoint of epistemology, in order to be valid an argumentation must be expressed in a coordinated sequence \u201cS1<\/strong> (argument), S2<\/strong> (claim)\u201d, such that the claim is not a reformulation of the argument. It follows that it must be possible to evaluate each statement independently<\/strong><\/span>. This is the case in the following sentence, \u201cThe wind has increased, it will rain<\/em>\u201d, which expresses two independently observable facts, the fact that there is wind and the fact that it will rain a little later. The first fact is measured by an anemometer, the second by a rain gauge, two devices that operate on completely different principles.<\/p>\n

In ordinary discourse, the conclusion<\/strong> may be present explicitly<\/strong> in the argument as a parenthetical element , or implicitly<\/strong> as the orientation of one of its key words.
\nIn the same way the statement expressing the argument<\/strong> may also be embedded in the concluding claim as a subordinate clause, or somehow integrated into a component phrase of the statement expressing the claim<\/span>:<\/p>\n

These people are coming to work in our country, welcome them!<\/span>
\n\u2192<\/strong> Let us welcome these people who are coming to work!<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the argument is absorbed in the meaning of one key term of the statement,<\/p>\n

\u2192<\/strong> Let us welcome these workers!<\/span><\/p>\n

In both cases, the argument is contained in the word (Empson [1940])<\/span>; the global statement is self-argued<\/strong><\/span>, it expresses a complete perspective, that presents itself as obvious, irrefutable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Scientific language has one level of meaning, while natural language has several; explicit meaning is based on implicit meanings. This essential fact distinguishes scientific languages from natural languages.
\nArguments loaded with the predetermined conclusion that they \u201csupport\u201d can be considered to be \u201cbiased\u201d, fallacious, and censored as such. But this is a rather desperate maneuver. It makes little sense to pretend to develop critical thinking about human affairs while ignoring or condemning the medium and substance that is, and probably will continue to be for some time to come, the very stuff of all transactions concerning human affairs.<\/p>\n

\n

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

SELF-ARGUED CLAIM 1. Argumentation as a Composition of Statements 1.1 Argument, Conclusion, Inferense License, Rebuttal This fully explicit combination corresponds to Toulmin\u2019s layout of argument, which articulates the argumentative unit around five elements, Data, Claim, the two-level transition principle, Warrant and Backing, and finally, a Qualifier referring to the argument’s rebuttal conditions ([1958], Ch. 3). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5552","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=5552"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5552\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14135,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5552\/revisions\/14135"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}