How to Disagree About Argument Schemes

Authors

  • Fábio Perin Shecaira Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Faculty of Law

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4610

Keywords:

Argumentation, argument schemes, methodology

Abstract

Argumentation theorists often disagree about which scheme best represents a given type of argument (e.g. argument by analogy, argument from authority, inference to the best explanation). Unfortunately, authors sometimes become involved in fruitless pseudo-agreement because they fail to perceive that their supposedly competing schemes are means for achieving different (but compatible) practical or theoretical goals. This paper explains some of the different purposes that an argument scheme may serve, and it indicates how the relevant type of pseudo-disagreement may be avoided.

 

Author Biography

Fábio Perin Shecaira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Faculty of Law

PhD in Philosophy (McMaster University 2012)

Current employment: Tenured Professor at the Faculty of Law of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Nationality: Brazilian

Downloads

Published

2016-12-14

Issue

Vol. 36 No. 4 (2016)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .