Web content by Jean H.M. Wagemans
Ever since Aristotle wrote up a list of arguments in his debate manual called the Topica, philoso... more Ever since Aristotle wrote up a list of arguments in his debate manual called the Topica, philosophers and rhetoricians have provided a great many taxonomies of arguments, fallacies and other means of persuasion. The Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA) brings all these traditional accounts together in a systematic way. It offers a comprehensive overview of the various types of argument by describing them as a unique combination of three basic characteristics – form, substance, and lever.
The theoretical framework of the PTA uses clear standards for distinguishing between the types of argument and provides formal(izable) descriptions of their properties. For these reasons, the PTA is especially suitable as a point of departure for formal linguistic and computational research into the various ways in which people try to convince others of their point of view.
Apart from being an appropriate means for the analysis and evaluation of persuasive discourse, the PTA can also be used as a heuristic device for generating premises in support of any given conclusion.
The Periodic Table of Arguments is developed by Jean Wagemans, a philosopher who specializes in rhetoric, argumentation, and debate. Wagemans is a senior researcher at the Amsterdam Centre for Language and Communication (ACLC) and serves as the Chair of the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory, and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. He co-authored the Handbook of Argumentation Theory (2014) and Argumentation and debate (in Dutch, 2014). His other publications include scientific articles, book reviews, and popularizing columns. Wagemans gives guest lectures, invited talks, and keynote speeches at international conferences and regularly appears in the media to talk about his research and to provide expert commentary on current affairs.
Periodic Table of Arguments, 2021
What type of argument is this? Unlike for standard textbook examples, this question may be diffic... more What type of argument is this? Unlike for standard textbook examples, this question may be difficult to answer for arguments found in the wild. The Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP) described in this document helps the analyst of argumentative discourse to meet this challenge. The procedure contains clear instructions for how to identify the type of any natural argument in terms of the categorization framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA). Its various steps constitute a method for describing those characteristics of natural arguments that are relevant for evaluating their quality.
The Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA) takes an innovative approach to argument categorization. Un... more The Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA) takes an innovative approach to argument categorization. Unlike the classifications, taxonomies, and lists of arguments put forward in philosophy and rhetoric so far, the PTA distinguishes between argument types by looking at three basic characteristics: the argument form, the argument substance, and the argument lever. By defining an argument type as a unique combination of the values of these three parameters, the PTA provides a clear rationale for distinguishing between the types. Arguments belong to the same type when they share the values of all three parameters, and they belong to different types if at least one of these values differs.
The PTA’s parametric approach to argument categorization makes it easier for people to articulate and justify their interpretations of argumentative or persuasive discourse. The approach also facilitates annotating argumentation in the wild, moving from fact-checking to argument-checking, representing persuasive discourse in Adpositional Argumentation, and implementing procedures for argument type identification in the KRINO explainable AI project.
By following the links, you can learn more about the basic terminology of the PTA and the three parameters argument form, argument substance, and argument lever. For more information and free downloads of key publications on the PTA, please see the list below.
The digital revolution brought about unprecedented changes in people’s daily lives as well as in ... more The digital revolution brought about unprecedented changes in people’s daily lives as well as in techno-scientific contexts. In this paper, we address the problem of information overload people experience in online media, news outlets, and social media. The problem is well-known for its negative influence on the quality of online information, with abundant discussion on the promise of fact-checking and the potential role of censorship and moderation by social media. We instead discuss the issue from the perspective of digital literacy; specifically, we advance the view that our procedure of argument-checking can enhance such literacy, as a form of critical pedagogy, thereby contributing to improving the quality of online information.
Russian translation of Periodic Table of Arguments 2.5
Esperanto translation of Periodic Table of Arguments 2.5
You are invited to visit the website on the Periodic Table of Arguments at www.periodic-table-of-... more You are invited to visit the website on the Periodic Table of Arguments at www.periodic-table-of-arguments.org. The website contains a description of the theoretical framework of the table, information on the types of arguments within the four different quadrants, analyses of concrete examples, and descriptions of related research projects.
This is an overview of current research projects related to the argument classification framework... more This is an overview of current research projects related to the argument classification framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments. It was presented at a meeting of the Argumentatieplatform Nederland, the Dutch association of scholars in argumentation theory, held at the Radboud University in Nijmegen on February 13, 2019.
This list contains the types of argument distinguished in the Periodic Table of Arguments and lin... more This list contains the types of argument distinguished in the Periodic Table of Arguments and links to analyses of natural occurring arguments that substantiate these types.
Papers by Jean H.M. Wagemans
Journal of Applied Logics, 2023
In this paper, we show how to represent natural argumentative discourse through Adpositional Argu... more In this paper, we show how to represent natural argumentative discourse through Adpositional Argumentation, a uniform framework for expressing linguistic and pragmatic aspects of such discourse on various levels of abstraction. Starting from representing the utterer and the utterance, we expand to claims and minimal arguments, finally focusing on complex argumentation in three different structures: convergent (many premises), divergent (many conclusions), and serial (an argument whose premise is the conclusion of another argument). An innovative feature of the framework is that it enables the analyst to provide a granular description of natural argumentative discourse, thus letting the logic of the arguer dynamically unfold while the discourse is presented without enforcing any particular interpretation.
TOPOI, 2023
This paper examines the conceptual and terminological overlap between theories and models of prac... more This paper examines the conceptual and terminological overlap between theories and models of practical deliberation developed within the fields of Practical Reasoning (PR) and Practical Argumentation (PA). It carefully delineates the volitional, epistemic, normative, and social commitments invoked and explicates various rationales for attributing the label 'practical' to instances of reasoning and argumentation. Based on these analyses, the paper develops a new approach to practical deliberation called the Stakeholder Commitment Approach (SCA). By distinguishing between 'problem holder' and 'problem solver', and specifying the distributions of attributable commitments among the stakeholders, the SCA introduces an extension and refinement of the grounds for assigning the label 'practical' that brings PR and PA closer together.
Intensive Care Medicine, 2023
Purpose: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of l... more Purpose: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations. Method: A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families. Results: Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together. Conclusion: This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.
Argumentation, 2023
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interac... more Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme.
Tekstanalyse, 2023
In dit hoofdstuk leer je:
• wat argumentatieanalyse inhoudt en wat het doel ervan is: een methode... more In dit hoofdstuk leer je:
• wat argumentatieanalyse inhoudt en wat het doel ervan is: een methode waarmee je stap voor stap kunt bepalen of de argumentatie in een betoog aanvaardbaar is;
• wat de theoretische achtergronden zijn van de argumentatieanalyse: de klassieke disciplines logica, dialectica en retorica;
• hoe je de argumentatie in een betoog analyseert, waarbij je begint met het herkennen van standpunten en argumenten en vervolgens de argumentatiestructuur van de gehele tekst in kaart brengt;
• hoe je van elke individuele argumentatie in de tekst het type kunt identificeren;
• hoe je de aanvaardbaarheid, relevantie en toereikendheid van de individuele argumenten kunt vaststellen door de bij het argumentatietype behorende kritische vragen te stellen;
• hoe je de evaluatie van de afzonderlijke argumenten kunt gebruiken om
te bepalen of je het hoofdstandpunt aanvaardt en welke zwakke plekken
er in het betoog zitten.
AI and Society, 2023
The need for fair and just AI is often related to the possibility of understanding AI itself, in ... more The need for fair and just AI is often related to the possibility of understanding AI itself, in other words, of turning an opaque box into a glass box, as inspectable as possible. Transparency and explainability, however, pertain to the technical domain and to philosophy of science, thus leaving the ethics and epistemology of AI largely disconnected. To remedy this, we propose an integrated approach premised on the idea that a glass-box epistemology should explicitly consider how to incorporate values and other normative considerations, such as intersectoral vulnerabilities, at critical stages of the whole process from design and implementation to use and assessment. To connect ethics and epistemology of AI, we perform a double shift of focus. First, we move from trusting the output of an AI system to trusting the process that leads to the outcome. Second, we move from expert assessment to more inclusive assessment strategies, aiming to facilitate expert and non-expert assessment. Together, these two moves yield a framework usable for experts and non-experts when they inquire into relevant epistemological and ethical aspects of AI systems. We dub our framework 'epistemology-cum-ethics' to signal the equal importance of both aspects. We develop it from the vantage point of the designers: how to create the conditions to internalize values into the whole process of design, implementation, use, and assessment of an AI system, in which values (epistemic and non-epistemic) are explicitly considered at each stage and inspectable by every salient actor involved at any moment.
Journal of Pragmatics, 2023
This paper proposes a theory of interpreting argument types as an integral part of a systematic a... more This paper proposes a theory of interpreting argument types as an integral part of a systematic and comprehensive 'hermeneutics of persuasive discourse'. It first explains how such a hermeneutics can be developed based on pragmatic insights about the use of language for persuasive purposes expressed in the philosophy of argument. Then, after having provided an overview of the main hermeneutical stages involved in interpreting persuasive discourse, the paper focuses on the stage of argument type identification. It formulates a 'hermeneutics of argument type' in terms of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA), an argument categorization framework systematizing existing accounts of arguments in the broad sense of the term (topoi, loci, argument schemes, fallacies, means of persuasion). For each of the three parameters within this framework, 'argument form', 'argument substance', and 'argument lever', the paper describes how to determine their value by analyzing several examples of natural arguments.
Argument & Computation, 2022
In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply... more In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) in evaluating the arguments produced by an Artificial Intelligence text generator, GPT-3, in an opinion piece written for the Guardian newspaper. The CAPNA examines instances of argumentation in three aspects: their Process, Reasoning and Expression. Initial Analysis is conducted using the Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP) to establish, firstly, that an argument is present and, secondly, its specific type in terms of the argument classification framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA). Procedural Questions are then used to test the acceptability of the argument in each of the three aspects. The analysis shows that while the arguments put forward by the AI text generator are varied in terms of their type and follow familiar patterns of human reasoning, they contain obvious weaknesses. From this we can conclude that the automated generation of persuasive, well-reasoned argumentation is a far more difficult task than the generation of meaningful language, and that if AI systems producing arguments are to be persuasive, they require a method of checking the plausibility of their own output.
Logic4Peace Book of Abstracts, 2022
Languages, 2022
Reported speech, or relata refero, although not always part of the argumentation tout court, can ... more Reported speech, or relata refero, although not always part of the argumentation tout court, can be an important element of argumentative discourse. It might, for instance, provide information on the position of another party in the discussion or function as part of the premise of an argument from authority. Whereas existing methods of representing argumentative discourse focus on arguments and their interrelations, this paper develops a method that enables the analyst to also include informative elements in the representation, focusing on reported speech. It does so by incorporating the notion of ‘voice’ into the representation framework of Adpositional Argumentation (AdArg). In particular, the paper explains how to formalize the constituents of this notion and illustrates its use in representing (1) an author’s report of the position of another party (including the supporting argumentation); (2) an author’s own position (including the supporting argumentation); and (3) source-based arguments such as the argument from authority, with an indication of the distance of the source from the author.
Uploads
Web content by Jean H.M. Wagemans
The theoretical framework of the PTA uses clear standards for distinguishing between the types of argument and provides formal(izable) descriptions of their properties. For these reasons, the PTA is especially suitable as a point of departure for formal linguistic and computational research into the various ways in which people try to convince others of their point of view.
Apart from being an appropriate means for the analysis and evaluation of persuasive discourse, the PTA can also be used as a heuristic device for generating premises in support of any given conclusion.
The Periodic Table of Arguments is developed by Jean Wagemans, a philosopher who specializes in rhetoric, argumentation, and debate. Wagemans is a senior researcher at the Amsterdam Centre for Language and Communication (ACLC) and serves as the Chair of the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory, and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. He co-authored the Handbook of Argumentation Theory (2014) and Argumentation and debate (in Dutch, 2014). His other publications include scientific articles, book reviews, and popularizing columns. Wagemans gives guest lectures, invited talks, and keynote speeches at international conferences and regularly appears in the media to talk about his research and to provide expert commentary on current affairs.
The PTA’s parametric approach to argument categorization makes it easier for people to articulate and justify their interpretations of argumentative or persuasive discourse. The approach also facilitates annotating argumentation in the wild, moving from fact-checking to argument-checking, representing persuasive discourse in Adpositional Argumentation, and implementing procedures for argument type identification in the KRINO explainable AI project.
By following the links, you can learn more about the basic terminology of the PTA and the three parameters argument form, argument substance, and argument lever. For more information and free downloads of key publications on the PTA, please see the list below.
Papers by Jean H.M. Wagemans
• wat argumentatieanalyse inhoudt en wat het doel ervan is: een methode waarmee je stap voor stap kunt bepalen of de argumentatie in een betoog aanvaardbaar is;
• wat de theoretische achtergronden zijn van de argumentatieanalyse: de klassieke disciplines logica, dialectica en retorica;
• hoe je de argumentatie in een betoog analyseert, waarbij je begint met het herkennen van standpunten en argumenten en vervolgens de argumentatiestructuur van de gehele tekst in kaart brengt;
• hoe je van elke individuele argumentatie in de tekst het type kunt identificeren;
• hoe je de aanvaardbaarheid, relevantie en toereikendheid van de individuele argumenten kunt vaststellen door de bij het argumentatietype behorende kritische vragen te stellen;
• hoe je de evaluatie van de afzonderlijke argumenten kunt gebruiken om
te bepalen of je het hoofdstandpunt aanvaardt en welke zwakke plekken
er in het betoog zitten.
The theoretical framework of the PTA uses clear standards for distinguishing between the types of argument and provides formal(izable) descriptions of their properties. For these reasons, the PTA is especially suitable as a point of departure for formal linguistic and computational research into the various ways in which people try to convince others of their point of view.
Apart from being an appropriate means for the analysis and evaluation of persuasive discourse, the PTA can also be used as a heuristic device for generating premises in support of any given conclusion.
The Periodic Table of Arguments is developed by Jean Wagemans, a philosopher who specializes in rhetoric, argumentation, and debate. Wagemans is a senior researcher at the Amsterdam Centre for Language and Communication (ACLC) and serves as the Chair of the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory, and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. He co-authored the Handbook of Argumentation Theory (2014) and Argumentation and debate (in Dutch, 2014). His other publications include scientific articles, book reviews, and popularizing columns. Wagemans gives guest lectures, invited talks, and keynote speeches at international conferences and regularly appears in the media to talk about his research and to provide expert commentary on current affairs.
The PTA’s parametric approach to argument categorization makes it easier for people to articulate and justify their interpretations of argumentative or persuasive discourse. The approach also facilitates annotating argumentation in the wild, moving from fact-checking to argument-checking, representing persuasive discourse in Adpositional Argumentation, and implementing procedures for argument type identification in the KRINO explainable AI project.
By following the links, you can learn more about the basic terminology of the PTA and the three parameters argument form, argument substance, and argument lever. For more information and free downloads of key publications on the PTA, please see the list below.
• wat argumentatieanalyse inhoudt en wat het doel ervan is: een methode waarmee je stap voor stap kunt bepalen of de argumentatie in een betoog aanvaardbaar is;
• wat de theoretische achtergronden zijn van de argumentatieanalyse: de klassieke disciplines logica, dialectica en retorica;
• hoe je de argumentatie in een betoog analyseert, waarbij je begint met het herkennen van standpunten en argumenten en vervolgens de argumentatiestructuur van de gehele tekst in kaart brengt;
• hoe je van elke individuele argumentatie in de tekst het type kunt identificeren;
• hoe je de aanvaardbaarheid, relevantie en toereikendheid van de individuele argumenten kunt vaststellen door de bij het argumentatietype behorende kritische vragen te stellen;
• hoe je de evaluatie van de afzonderlijke argumenten kunt gebruiken om
te bepalen of je het hoofdstandpunt aanvaardt en welke zwakke plekken
er in het betoog zitten.
Behalve theorieën en aanwijzingen over debatteren bevat het boek ook een korte geschiedenis van de dialectica (de klassieke benaming voor de kunst van het debatteren) en een verzameling criteria voor het beoordelen van een debat. Bovendien bevat het boek beschrijvingen van de meest gebruikte debatformats, een lijst met literatuursuggesties en een register met kernbegrippen.
Het boek is bedoeld voor iedereen die zijn of haar vaardigheden op het gebied van argumenteren en debatteren wil verbeteren. De theoretische inzichten en strategische aanwijzingen zijn niet alleen nuttig als je wilt deelnemen aan een wedstrijddebat, maar ook wanneer je een overtuigende bijdrage wilt leveren aan discussies op de werkvloer. Zowel studenten als professionals kunnen met Argumentatie en debat hun voordeel doen.
Politicoloog Daniël Schut is Nederlands Kampioen Debatteren (2013) en traint politici, bestuurders en professionals in overtuigend communiceren via trainingsbureau De Luistervinken.
Jean H.M. Wagemans is filosoof en universitair docent argumentatietheorie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
The Handbook covers classical and modern backgrounds to the study of argumentation, the New Rhetoric developed by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, the Toulmin model, formal approaches, informal logic, communication and rhetoric, pragmatic approaches, linguistic approaches and pragma-dialectics.
The Handbook is co-authored by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans, who are a coherent and prominent writing team whose expertise covers the whole field. The authors are assisted by an international Editorial Board consisting of outstanding argumentation scholars whose fields of interest are represented in the volume.
Federica Russo and Jean Wagemans talk about their cooperation with MMGA. Interview by Camilla Nieman.
https://isoc.nl/nieuws/whoever-does-not-study-rhetoric-will-be-a-victim-of-it/
Read the online version of the article (in Dutch) via http://volkskrant.nl/a-b77a1a75.
Jean Wagemans: “Dat zou kunnen, maar de verantwoordelijkheid voor het overtuigingsproces ligt ook bij de ontvanger van de boodschap. Zoals de oude Grieken al zeiden: Wie de retorica niet bestudeert, wordt er zelf het slachtoffer van.”
Read the online version of the article (in Dutch) at https://www.volkskrant.nl/cultuur-media/waarom-stelt-een-talkshowdebat-vaak-teleur~ba41d98c/?hash=d3fa230f78fe7f191436103f228398351596a5a7.
Watch the documentary at http://www.human.nl/medialogica/2016/het-oekraine-referendum.html
KRINO is like a calculator, a powerful tool people can use in situations when things are too complicated to solve by mental arithmetic. The software communicates in natural language, helping people to understand and assess specific claims or pieces of information.
The theoretical framework of KRINO combines cutting-edge research in linguistics, argumentation, and causality. The software transforms natural language in formal structures, it identifies the types of arguments occurring in the text, and evaluates these arguments based on an informational account of causality.
Scientists mainly operate in two different contexts. The first one is the context of scientific discussions, in which the expert discusses his findings with other experts operating in the same field. As to this type of discussions, the research project aims at providing an extended pragma-dialectical description of their argumentative characteristics, consisting of the empirical counterparts of the stages of a critical discussion relevant to the communicative activity types involved, the main conventions that play a role in scientific discussions, and the argumentative patterns typically developed within them. Special attention is paid to the analysis and evaluation of thought experiments (Popa) and to argumentation based on abduction (Wagemans).
The second context in which scientist operate is that of advisory discussions, in which the scientific expert defends a claim in front of a lay audience (e.g. shared decision making between doctors and patients, expert advice in politics and law). As to this type of discussions, the research project aims to provide criteria for the evaluation of the reasonableness of such expert advice, reconstructing it as argumentation from expert opinion (Wagemans).
As a first step, it will be elucidated how the terms 'dialectic' and 'rhetoric' are defined and used in pragma-dialectics. This part of the research results in an overview of the dialectical and rhetorical starting points of the pragma-dialectical approach.
The second part of the research consists in reconstructing the ancient dialectical and rhetorical interpretations of the aspects of argumentation to which the starting points that were analyzed in the first part pertain. The reconstruction entails ancient dialectical views as they are present or put forward in the reports on Zeno of Elea's paradoxes, Plato's dialogues, and Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations, as well as ancient rhetorical views as represented in the so-called 'system of classical rhetoric'.
The third and final part of the research consists of a detailed comparison of the reconstructed ancient and pragma-dialectical views on the relevant aspects of argumentation. The comparison results in an overview of the historical-philosophical backgrounds of the pragma-dialectical incorporation of rhetorical insights into a dialectical framework, which enables to specify its position in the present-day debate on the relation between dialectic and rhetoric.
In dit artikel analyseren we de argumentatieve aspecten van ‘shared decision making’ door het gehele besluitvormingsproces te reconstrueren in termen van het pragma-dialectische ‘ideaalmodel van een kritische discussie’. We richten ons daarbij op de volgende vragen:
• Uit welke stappen bestaat het gehele besluitvormingsproces en wat zijn daarbij de precieze taken van de arts en de patiënt?
• Welke invloed heeft het verschil in kennis en bevoegdheden tussen de arts en de patiënt op de verdeling van deze taken?
Onze reconstructie maakt niet alleen duidelijk wat de precieze betekenis is van ‘shared’ in de naamgeving van deze gespreksvorm, maar ook wat de argumentatieve functie is van de bijdragen van de deelnemers aan het proces dat aan de uiteindelijke beslissing voorafgaat.
McNutt, R. (2004). Shared medical decision making: Problems, process, progress. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(20), 2516-2518.
Matthias, M., Salyers, M., & Frankel, R. (2013). Re-thinking shared decision-making: Context matters. Patient Education and Counseling, 91(2), 176-179.
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine, 44, 681-692.
There is, however, much more to public discourse than just facts. First of all, the speaker may include other types of statements such as propositions of value and propositions of policy. How can their truth or acceptability be checked? Second, fact-checking only pertains to a single statement and not to the relation between statements, that is, the relation between an argument and the standpoint it supports. How to check whether this supportive relation holds?
In order to address these two problems, we need to go beyond fact-checking and develop something that could be called ‘rhetoric-checking’. In this talk, a procedure for such an activity will be proposed. After a short explanation of the various steps of the procedure, its use will be illustrated by performing a rhetoric-check of statements taken from campaign ads and speech fragments of Joe the Plumber and Donald Trump.
The aim of this paper is to indicate the systematic place of arguments based on the concept of analogy within the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, a new standard for describing and classifying arguments that integrates traditional dialectical accounts of arguments and fallacies and rhetorical accounts of the means of persuasion (logos, ethos, pathos) into a comprehensive framework.
First, the theoretical framework of the table will be expounded. Then, several concrete examples of arguments based on analogy, comparison, equality, metaphor, and similarity will be analyzed in terms of the framework. Finally, it will be indicated where they can be placed in the Periodic Table of Arguments, which subtypes can be distinguished, and how they relate to other types of arguments that are listed within this new standard of argument description and classification.