论辩充分性——析当代论证评估理论的一个新维度
|
摘要
"论辩充分性"标准是当代论证评估理论的一个新进展。它通过对论辩术理论视角的借鉴与整合,从而成功突破了仅关注"前提—结论间推论关系"的传统论证评估维度。论辩充分性标准要求论证者恰当地应对与其论证相关的论辩性素材,因而,其理论阐发既需要指明论证者所具有的特定论辩性义务,也需要澄清成功履行该义务所对应的具体标准。约翰逊对于论辩充分性理论做出了实质发展,他既着力坚持逻辑学的成果性论证研究对象,又试图维系其普遍主义的论证规范理想。从更广的当代论证理论领域来看,论辩充分性标准展示了逻辑学论证研究进路革新发展的重要方向,同时也明确呈现出其理论建构目标与论证实践情境之间的互动与冲突。
引文
(1) R. H. Johnson&J. A. Blair, Logical Self-defense, New York:Idea Press, 2006, p.xiii.
(1)“RSA三角标准”最早出现在R. H. Johnson&J. A. Blair的Logical Self-defense(Toronto:McGraw-Hill Ryerson,1977)一书中。
(2)R. H. Johnson&J. A. Blair, Logical Self-defense, Toronto:McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1983, p.195.
(3)J. A. Blair&R. H. Johnson,“Argumentation as Dialectical”,Argumentation, vol.1, no.1, 1987, p.54.
(4)R. H.Johnson&J. A. Blair, Logical Self-defense, New York:McGraw Hill, 1994, p.75.
(5)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2000, p.168.
(1)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.332.
(2)R. H. Johnson,“More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”,C. W. Tindale et al.(eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, CD-ROM, Windsor, ON:OSSA, 1999, p.12.
(3)R. H. Johnson,“More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”,C. W. Tindale et al.(eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, p.6,13.
(4)R. H. Johnson,“Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus”,H. V. Hansen et al.(eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM, Windsor, ON:OSSA, 2007, p.13.
(5)R. H. Johnson,“More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”,C. W. Tindale et al.(eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, p.10.
(6)R. H. Johnson,“Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus”,H. V. Hansen et al.(eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, p.14.
(1)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.319, 291, 194.
(2)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.333.
(3)R. H. Johnson,“Making Sense of Informal Logic”,Informal Logic, vol.26, no.3, 2006, p.251.
(1)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.171.
(1)M. A. van Rees,“Book Review on Manifest Rationality”,Argumentation, vol.15, no.2, 2001, p.234.
(2)J. E. Adler,“Shedding Dialectical Tiers:A Social-Epistemic View”,Argumentation, vol.18, no.3, 2004, p.284.
(3)M. Finocchiaro,“Commentary on Johnson’s Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus”,H. V.Hansen et al.(eds.),Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, pp.1-6.
(4)R. H. Johnson,“Response to Maurice Finocchiaro’s Commentary”,H. V. Hansen et al.(eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, p.3.
(5)R. H. Johnson,“The Dialectical Tier Revisited”,Frans H. van Eemeren et al.(eds.), Anyone Who Has a View:Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, Dorcrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, p.50.
(1)“RSA三角标准”最早出现在R. H. Johnson&J. A. Blair的Logical Self-defense(Toronto:McGraw-Hill Ryerson,1977)一书中。
(2)R. H. Johnson&J. A. Blair, Logical Self-defense, Toronto:McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1983, p.195.
(3)J. A. Blair&R. H. Johnson,“Argumentation as Dialectical”,Argumentation, vol.1, no.1, 1987, p.54.
(4)R. H.Johnson&J. A. Blair, Logical Self-defense, New York:McGraw Hill, 1994, p.75.
(5)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2000, p.168.
(1)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.332.
(2)R. H. Johnson,“More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”,C. W. Tindale et al.(eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, CD-ROM, Windsor, ON:OSSA, 1999, p.12.
(3)R. H. Johnson,“More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”,C. W. Tindale et al.(eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, p.6,13.
(4)R. H. Johnson,“Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus”,H. V. Hansen et al.(eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM, Windsor, ON:OSSA, 2007, p.13.
(5)R. H. Johnson,“More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”,C. W. Tindale et al.(eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, p.10.
(6)R. H. Johnson,“Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus”,H. V. Hansen et al.(eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, p.14.
(1)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.319, 291, 194.
(2)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.333.
(3)R. H. Johnson,“Making Sense of Informal Logic”,Informal Logic, vol.26, no.3, 2006, p.251.
(1)R. H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality:A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, p.171.
(1)M. A. van Rees,“Book Review on Manifest Rationality”,Argumentation, vol.15, no.2, 2001, p.234.
(2)J. E. Adler,“Shedding Dialectical Tiers:A Social-Epistemic View”,Argumentation, vol.18, no.3, 2004, p.284.
(3)M. Finocchiaro,“Commentary on Johnson’s Anticipating Objections as a Way of Coping With Dissensus”,H. V.Hansen et al.(eds.),Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, pp.1-6.
(4)R. H. Johnson,“Response to Maurice Finocchiaro’s Commentary”,H. V. Hansen et al.(eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, p.3.
(5)R. H. Johnson,“The Dialectical Tier Revisited”,Frans H. van Eemeren et al.(eds.), Anyone Who Has a View:Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, Dorcrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, p.50.