The study of argumentation has primarily focused on logical and dialectical approaches, with minimal attention given to the rhetorical facets of argument. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice approaches argumentation from a rhetorical point of view and demonstrates how logical and dialectical considerations depend on the rhetorical features of the argumentative situation. Throughout this text, author Christopher W. Tindale identifies how argumentation as a communicative practice can best be understood by its rhetorical features.  

The Truth about Orangutans: Conflicting Criteria of Premise Adequacy

The Truth about Orangutans: Conflicting Criteria of Premise Adequacy

The truth about orangutans: Conflicting criteria of premise adequacy

Introduction: Deep Disagreements between Logic and Rhetoric

Argumentation aims at action, more than it aims at truth. That, at least, is one of the prominent sub-texts of the previous chapter. If, as Crosswhite (1996, 151) indicates, universal audiences are more embodiments of a concept of good than of what is true or factual,1 then this raises questions about the nature of truth and its role in argumentation, along with suggestions about the types of evidence that should interest us. This issue is more than incidental to our project. The kind of theory of argumentation being discussed here takes direction from Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's central claim that the theory of ...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles