Abstract: This paper responds to one by Ralph Johnson in which he explores the question, how do logic and differ in their approaches to the study of argumentation? I begin by rejecting the categories Logic and Rhetoric as too abstract and argue for a focus on their specialized branches, informal logic and the of argumentation. The of shares an understanding of the nature of argumentative space very much like the understanding of informal logic. Once this is established, the differences between the two specialized fields do not appear to be what Johnson hypothesizes. *** It is a pleasure to be asked to engage in discussion with Ralph Johnson (1997) by responding to his paper, Argumentative Space: Logical and Rhetorical Approaches. 1 As one of the leaders of the Informal Logic movement, and especially in his efforts to see logic naturalized, Johnson has done a great deal to help logicians and rhetoricians understand and appreciate one another's work. His paper today is another contribution to that cause, taking up the question as to how informal logic and differ in their approaches to the study of argumentation. Johnson hypothesizes that the two fields see argumentative space in different ways, and this leads him to identify three differences between informal logic and in respect to their approaches to the study of argumentation. I am indebted to Johnson's paper for leading me to reconsider some of my thinking about the relationship of to argumentation. Reviewing Johnson's thoughtful analysis leads me to one insight, in particular, that I think is worth sharing. Ironically, however, the fresh insight prompted by Johnson's paper leads me also to disagree with the main points he advances. The central point I wish to make is this: just as informal logic is a special branch of the broader field of Logic, so also is the rhetoric of argumentation (as I shall call it) a special branch of the broader field of Rhetoric. If one accepts that view, then a comparison of approaches to must be based on an understanding of the specialized branches rather than on general characterizations of Logic and Rhetoric. In what follows, I will explain what I mean by the of and, on that basis, reconsider Johnson's comparison with informal logic. Such a reconsideration, I believe, must lead to a revision, at least, of Johnson's main claims about the differences between informal logic and as they approach the study of argumentation.
Publication Year: 1998
Publication Date: 1998-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 5
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot