Talk:Argument/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What an argument is not

I think it'd be really helpful to define things an argument isn't, or at least point to where to find alternatives. An obvious one would be the difference between an argument and a contradiction. What is it when two people exchange interjections rather than premises? Mutual verbal abuse? 209.40.210.222 (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is usual and helpful when teaching logic to contrast an argument with a mere assertion; I think this is what 209.40.210.222 meant by interjection. The term contracdiction has a special technical meaning in Logic just as the term argument does . I suggest the article follows tradition and explains the difference between an argument and a mere assertion. Any volunteers?--Philogo 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Assertion! Thank you! So what is it when two people exchange assertions, but don't argue or contradict?209.40.210.222 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the source of your problem is this. The word "argument" in English has at least three differnt meanings, of which we are dealing with the first following: (a) Argument (Logic and Philosphy) (b) Argument (Maths) (c) Argument (vernacular) - a heated dispute. Such distinctions should be made on a diambuguity page; in theis articel we are dealing Argument (Logic)in whcih it is both reasobale and traditional to distingush beteen an argument and a (set of) mere assertions. It is an itnersting exerise to look at, say, some political speeches, and highlight what if anything appears to be an argument nad then with these test for validty. You will find that most such are a mostly a series of mere assertions. A disappointing number of actual arguments turn out to be valid, and then only if you provide missing premises. Try it, and see if I am not right! We could say here, if necessary, "An argument in Logic and Philosophy is not a heated dispute, nor is it a mere (set of) assertions" --Philogo 13:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"So what is it when two people exchange assertions, but don't argue or contradict?"

Declamation. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

This new paragraph does not appear to inform the reader much about the subject of the article. It seems to me to be, in addition, incomprehensible - but that may be a failing of mine not shared by the average reader. I propose deletion. — Philogos (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-written this section in plain English. Let me know if you still think it could be improved. Walkinxyz (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be improved if it explained whether and if so how (with examples) such a "World-disclosing argument" meets the lede's defiintion of argument as In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.. If it does not meet the lede's definition of argument perhaps it relates to some other sense of the word argument and should be part of some other article relatng to that other sense.— Philogos (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it already meets that definition. It's a fairly trivial broad definition of argument, and the examples I give (in transcendental and dialectical arguments) already describe what the relationship of premise to conclusion would be in such arguments. Can you see how a "world disclosing" argument wouldn't meet that definition? Walkinxyz (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This new paragraph still does not appear to inform the reader much about the subject of the article. (It seems to me to be, even after re-writing to be largely incomprehensible - but that may be a failing of mine not shared by the average reader.) It appears to me that World-disclosing argumentsI are examples of (purported) arguments, but it is not clear how the provision of such further examples helps explain the subject of the article, any more that the provision of, say, (purported) scientific/biological/religious/sporting/musical/amusing examples would assist. I therefore still propose deletion.

— Philogos (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The importance of this section, in an article on logical argument, is the unique form(s) of logic employed by world disclosing arguments. Their form of logic, or reasoning, is not the same as a conventional deductive, inductive, conductive, etc. argument. However, they are forms of argument, not subjects or genres of argument, as in scientific/biological/religious… each of these could have deductive, inductive, or world-disclosing forms of arguments employed.

Whether or not they are "purported" to be arguments is not the issue. Wikipedia does not aim at truth, but verifiability, and these are well-documented types of argument (although neglected by most encyclopedias). There are debates about their status among prominent philosophers, including people like Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, Michel Foucault, but they are distinctive forms of argument… noone has been able to convincingly reduce them to some other type, or to some non-rational sphere like aesthetics (although Habermas tried). They are not "genres" or "subjects", they cut across genre, and subject, and are distinctly philosophical (as evidenced by the philosophical examples given).

An article on logic is bound to be somewhat technical. If you don't understand it, and can't come up with a constructive way to improve the paragraph, I suggest that you let it alone, until you've read the sources and comprehend what is at issue, logically and philosophically.

Walkinxyz (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be dismissive. I know this is a subject that many people who come from mainstream philosophical backgrounds are not familiar with. But the topic is widely discussed by people like Arendt, Dewey, Taylor (who calls disclosure and disclosive argument another "department" of reason), Habermas (in his Philosophical Discourse of Modernity) and Hubert Dreyfus.

I appreciate your attention to the paragraph, as it is helping me make it as informative as I possibly can. I have added some clarification vis a vis WD's status as a logical form of argument, and I would be happy to add more sources as I find them. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(i) Article states World-disclosing arguments have "distinctive logical structure" but (a)no citation (b) no description of what is the "distinctive logical structure". (ii) Article says the primary criterion is the extent to which an argument resolves.. but does not make not clear what the critereon is of (iii) Article says that World-disclosing arguments have "distinctive logical structure" and explains distinction from deductive and inductive argument by saying a [disclosive argument's] function is therefore primarily practical, rather than rhetorical or "truth-tracking. But the function (purpose) of an argument is not a structural feature; some deductive and inductive arguments may be put forward for primarily practical reasons and others not. Hencee this function/purpose fails to distinguish World-disclosing arguments from deductive and inductive arguments. (iv) Article says Transcendental arguments, in which an understanding of some feature of experience is shown to logically entail (emphasis added) this would make Transcendental arguments deductive arguments; (v) Search of internet for "World-disclosing argument" fails to indicate use of this term other than in this article. — Philogos (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC) The word "argument" does not appear even in

in the article World disclosure.— Philogos (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very lucid analysis. I wish equally revealing answers were available, but my sense of it is, it would take a fair amount of explication. I'm not sure where, exactly, would be the appropriate article for that material, once it's prepared, but clearly there should be a place for it in the encyclopia. That being said, considering the bold claims of those philosophers about long established principles and novel methods... I think extensive coverage in this article would be inappropriate per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

Needless to say, a few NPOV and attributed words should be included to inform readers that unconventional approaches are available... just as soon as an explication from secondary sources is available.

In it's current state, I don't see a controversy in deleting the section from this article.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we (a) cut the para from this article and (b) paste it into the article World disclosure.— Philogos (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The "bold claims" and "novel methods" of long-dead philosophers like John Dewey and Heidegger?

Please, just because this isn't on WIkipedia's radar yet, does not mean it's "fringe". It was a central concept for Heidegger, for example, according to prominent Heidegger scholars like Hubert Dreyfus:

According to Heidegger our nature is to be world disclosers. That is, by means of our equipment and coordinated practices we human beings open coherent, distinct contexts or worlds in which we perceive, feel, act, and think. The Heidegger of Being and Time called a world an understanding of being and argued that such an understanding of being is what makes it possible for us to encounter people and things as kinds of beings. He considered his discovery of the ontological difference – the difference between the understanding of being and the beings that can show up given an understanding of being – his single great contribution to Western thought.

(Hubert Dreyfus, "Further reflections on Heidegger, Technology, and the Everyday".)

(i) Article states World-disclosing arguments have "distinctive logical structure" but (a)no citation (b) no description of what is the "distinctive logical structure".

I have added citations for both of these things.

(ii) Article says the primary criterion is the extent to which an argument resolves.. but does not make not clear what the critereon is of

Yes it does. It says "in a disclosive argument, while validity and soundness may also be criteria for its success, the primary criterion is the extent to which an argument resolves some previously unresolvable problem"

The criterion is for its success as an argument.

Hence this function/purpose fails to distinguish World-disclosing arguments from deductive and inductive arguments.

The logical structure of these arguments is not homogenous. It is distinctive, however, in that it tries to disclose the background of meaning on which the argument itself depends. In other words, an argument can be both deductive and world-disclosing, but the "purpose" (the article says "function") of it is different, the method is different, and as a result, the structure is distinct. See the references to Taylor and Kompridis. I can add more by Dewey, Michel Foucault, Hubert Dreyfus, Ian Hacking.

A "method" of argumentation is just as much a part of its logic as its structure, and both are distinguishing features of world disclosing arguments.

(iv) Article says Transcendental arguments, in which an understanding of some feature of experience is shown to logically entail (emphasis added) this would make Transcendental arguments deductive arguments;

See above. This is explained very clearly in the article section under discussion: "it uses, rather than (or in addition to) inductive or deductive reasoning, some type of disclosive method to support its claims."

They are special kinds of deductive arguments, in that what is shown to be "logically entailed" by something is a concept, a pre-supposition, a premise. So they are rather interesting in that regard.

You have both asked questions, made criticisms, and I have responded and provided sources. I don't see why you are in a rush to delete the section, rather than trying to learn about this interesting form of argument.

Walkinxyz (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, this stuff isn't any more radical than Frege or Popper. They're already in the references (although without any citations in the rest of the article, I can't be sure their work is anywhere reflected).

Walkinxyz (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we (a) cut the para from this article and (b) paste it into the article.— Philogos (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Was this supposed to be an invitation to respond? You suggest we paste it into which article?

Why aren't you satisfied by the changes?

Use words. Thanks.

Walkinxyz (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Walkinxyz's work seems to me most valuable input to the article, expanding it beyond the logical into the philosophical. The material is perhaps challenging like quantum mechanics is to newtonian mechanics, so as a student i wonder about it while reading it too, as the objecting editors must do. But Walkinxyz's language is clear and structured (if occasionally over fastidious). Intro/definition, discussion and examples of disclosive argument is well put and well referenced and while the article was mostly about logic, it is a start-class philosophy article. I think to exclude it from here would be a considerable regression. Lisnabreeny (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting para as per majority view of 26/2/2011 and reasons given above.— Philogos (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that does not fly. The reasons given above were not sufficient for deleting a new section that is in the process of being revised and edited, including in response to those very reasons given. You have decided not to discuss changes that were made in response to your criticism, and to ignore the good faith efforts of another editor. Two editors disagree with you, yet you've decided to delete this unilaterally (nor have you pasted it anywhere, as far as I can tell). This is anything but constructive, and again it seems to be hostile on your part.

What is so objectionable about this section, exactly? Walkinxyz (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See above.— Philogos (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Would care to re-state the problems that you see remain in the article?

"In it's current state, I don't see a controversy in deleting the section from this article." (MachineElf)

The section has developed considerably since this was written, and a "majority view" about a version that existed over a month ago does not a consensus make. That's why we discuss things on Wikipedia, so things can be improved. Walkinxyz (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems crazy to me and i will edit war and dispute it. The article has been developed substantially -very intresting and informatively by an experienced philosophy scholar, and then it is stripped and the article subject reassigned to logic? Is there a "wikiproject logic"? Its crazy guys, so is it then edit war / wikipedia dispute time? If it is then lets get on with it, lets not waste time talking past each other and save attention for constructive edits and/or a concise dispute review. Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is a wiki project logic: Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic— Philogos (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would the editor Lisnabreeny please explain what he means by his avowed intent to "edit war and dispute it"— Philogos (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This new paragraph still does not appear to inform the reader much about the subject of the article. It appears to me that World-disclosing argumentsI are examples of (purported) arguments, but it is not clear how the provision of such further examples helps explain the subject of the article, any more that the provision of, say, (purported) scientific/biological/religious/sporting/musical/amusing examples would assist. I will therefore delete as previously agreed and discussed both here and at wiki project philosophy

— Philogos (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have explained to you why world-disclosing arguments are not "examples" of (purported) arguments. They are a type of argument, say a "family" of logical and philosophical argument, and scientific/biological/religious/sporting/musical/amusing arguments could all be world-disclosing arguments.

And they could be deductive or inductive as well. This is a discussion that does back decades, and I've acknowledged the views that dispute their "purported" status as arguments, and I've cited and sourced the people who consider them to be philosophical and logical arguments. Kompridis is a secondary source who consistently cites the people whose ideas he has researched, and the word "world-disclosing" and its context in discussion of philosophical arguments is well-established in the work of very influential and mainstream 20th century philosophers (Dewey, Wittgenstein, Heidegger), and their secondary scholarship (Kompridis, Taylor, Dreyfus).

It was not agreed to delete this section by more than two people, and a majority view does not necessarily amount to the consensus required. Furthermore, despite your wishful thinking, there is no majority view here at the moment, except against you. Walkinxyz (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This new paragraph still does not appear to inform the reader much about the subject of the article. It appears to me that World-disclosing argumentsI are examples of (purported) arguments, but it is not clear how the provision of such further examples helps explain the subject of the article, any more that the provision of, say, (purported) scientific/biological/religious/sporting/musical/amusing examples would assist. I will therefore delete as previously agreed and discussed both here and at wiki project philosophy.— Philogos (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for such a lengthy treatment in this article. A short NPOV link to Walkinxyz' World disclosure article would suffice... He should integrate the material into his article as was suggested.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This again indicates that neither of you understand the principles of Ownership. World disclosure is not "my" article. Nor is argument yours.

If you want to be good stewards of Wikipedia, you should endeavour to preserve the sourced, relevant content that I contributed. And if you can't be bothered, I am not going to keep pushing this rock uphill by making more changes to this article at YOUR request. I've tried that already, but it's hardly worth it with your behaviour. So much the worse for this article…

Walkinxyz (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to bother with consensus... If you don't want to summarize that's fine by me. I believe that's the only change to this article that's been suggested which you might have wanted to make. If you don't want to incorporate the material into your World disclosure article, I could care less, IMO, you greatly overestimate it's worth.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only concrete suggestion has been to delete it. I can't imagine what you think a summary would be… a sentence? The section I wrote certainly deserves to be included in the world disclosure page, but if you think that somehow makes up for the gap in the content of this page, you're mistaken.

I think this article should describe additional dimensions of philosophical argument. If you think I overestimate the worth of such things, and you 'don't give a fuck', then what can I do?

Still, it's sort of sad that a young editor with your interests wouldn't be somewhat curious about world disclosure… it's a pretty important part of 20th century philosophy. Probably the most important, as it bears on computer science and AI research, scientific progress from Galileo, Newton and Einstein to Heisenberg, and the entire German tradition of philosophy and its problematic relationship to Naziism.

Pick up Being and Time or a good commentary on it, and you'll learn something new, son. Walkinxyz (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well, the only concrete suggestion has been to delete it. I can't imagine what you think a summary would be… a sentence?" Yes, a sentence would be fine. I can't imagine what you're on about ad nauseum.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you don't already know about, obviously. User:Walkinxyz (not logged in)

Lest anyone think Taylor et al are "fringe"

Taylor has been recognized with two of the most prestigious awards available in the sciences and humanities: the Templeton Prize and the Kyoto Prize (sometimes referred to as the "Japanese Nobel"). So get over it.

Kompridis has based his own careful work on argument on Taylor's work and on Habermas' – both of whom currently rank as two of the top intellectuals in the world. He is at the same time commenting and expanding on the work of these two and his own ideas are notable in their own right and belong in an article about argument based on reason.

So don't tell me they're fringe, or that it's undue weight when this is some of the only sourced information in the article. No more deletions without a fair discussion and opportunity to respond (and reading the response).

Try to be constructive.

Also, this article is now an article on philosophical argument, not just argument in logic. There are pages linking to this article based on a redirect from "philosophical argument," and this is obviously the logical place (so to speak) to keep such an article.

Walkinxyz (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental arguments

I will open a discussion about this, since it seems to be controversial that transcendental arguments can be called one thing (deductive) on the transcendental arguments page and another thing (world-disclosing) here, or indeed that there can be different types of validity from the formal validity of a standard deductive or inductive argument.

Transcendental arguments may indeed be deductive arguments, but they are a very curious kind, and this bears on their validity. This is because they do not argue from standard premises, but rather directly from experience. It is essential to the validity of a transcendental argument that something has to be successfully shown to be true, not just asserted in a logically coherent and factually accurate way.

However, in order for that something to be shown, it has to be successfully formulated in discourse in a way that allows us to make better sense of our experience, and this formulation can be valid or invalid; correct or incorrect in its form. However, the formulation itself is still an essential part of the argument.

Taylor writes:

Transcendental arguments thus have to formulate boundary conditions we can all recognize. Once they are formulated properly, we can see at once that they are valid. The thing is self-evident. But it may be very hard to get to this point, and there may still be dispute… For although a correct formulation will be self-evidently valid, the question may arise whether we have formulated things correctly. This is all the more so since we are moving into an area [experience] that the ordinary practice of life has left unarticulated, an area we look through rather than at. […]

[These arguments] prove something quite strong about the subject of experience and the subject's place in the world; and yet since they are grounded in the nature of experience, there remains an ultimate, ontological question they can't foreclose—for Kant, that of the things in themselves; for [Merlau-Ponty's] thesis of embodied agency, the basic explanatory language of human behavior.

When we ask how they prove what they prove, we see another paradoxical mixture. They articulate a grasp of the point of our activity which we cannot but have, and their formulations aspire to self-evidence; and yet they must articulate what is most difficult for us to articulate, and so are open to endless debate.

("The Validity of Transcendental Arguments", Philosophical Arguments, pp. 32-33)

Walkinxyz (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A deducive or inductive argumnet may be "curious" but that does not make them a distinct type from deductive and inductive arguments. Logic does not concern itself with the truth - let alone the curiosity of the premises or conclusions of an argument. Similarly it is not concerned with the motives for putting forward an argument not the subject matter of its premises. In this respect it is not unlike arithmetic: 2+2=4 is the same equation whether you are counting mice, men, murders or transcedental experiences.— Philogos (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A "transcendental experience" has very little to do with the nature of the inaccurately named (by Kant) "transcendental" argument. The point is that they have other logical features than merely being deductive or inductive. I can try to explain this to you, but you don't seem interested. So I have provided sources to back up my position, and that's all I'm required to do. You may be of the opinion that they are not logically distinct, but your opinion doesn't matter here. The views of Taylor, Dewey, Mead, Kuhn, Kompridis, Dreyfus, Wittgenstein, Cavell, Hacking, Heidegger, Alasdair MacIntyre, and other philosophers do. Walkinxyz (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles for logic and philosophy?

I personally think that this would be difficult to support, so I have changed the topic designation (and disambig page) to cover "logic and philosophy."

There should be no reason why this isn't acceptable, as far as I can see. Philosophy strictly understood is conducted in the medium of argument, and logic is a branch of philosophy.

Walkinxyz (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Opposed: I know of no use of the term "argument" in philosophy distinct from its use in logic.

Moreover, in so far as logic is a branch of philosophy the words "and philosophy" are redundant in "logic and philosophy." in the topic designation (and disambig page)— Philogos (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you know of no such thing?

The words are not redundant. Philosophy and logic are two different things that have overlapping aspects and concerns. Logic is a branch of philosophy, but that is not all that it is. Obviously, philosophy is a much broader category that nonetheless takes place in the medium of rational argument. It is therefore dependent on logic and reason.

Insofar as philosophy takes place in the medium of rational argument, and insofar as logic is a branch of philosophy, they share the same concern with argument. However, logic covers aspects of science and mathematics, as well as everyday life, that would not necessarily be considered "philosophical" in every single instance.

Your desire to exclude from this article what are distinctly philosophical arguments (and are referred to as such in books with titles like Philosophical Arguments), and to banish the very word "philosophy" from the topic sentence, indicate that you simply don't understand what this discussion is about.

Furthermore, your inability to accept the contributions and opinions of others here (even when properly cited and sourced) indicate a very strong case of ownership.

See the WikiProject philosophy page. This is getting tiring.

Walkinxyz (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Unconvincing: still opposed, topic designation reverted.— Philogos (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your discussion here till finished

Could I ask that the discussion about the lead of this article be confined here till it is decided please and that you not drag it onto the argument (disambiguation) page till you're finished thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

World-disclosing arguments

I propose the deletion of this paragraph (Argument#World-disclosing arguments on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the declared subject of the article, i.e. the use of the term argument in logic. There are millions of philosophcal arguments (and mathermatical, biological, historical, Chinese etc arguments and mentioning them or descrbing them is unlikley to significantly clarify to the reader the mening of the term argument in logic. — Philogos (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There being no objection I have deleted the paragraph— Philogos (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I object. You continue to display a blinkered view of both argument and logic, and you defy a (difficult) compromise that was reached earlier on this page after long discussion. Walkinxyz (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What made you think things had changed? Walkinxyz (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion unapposed for one month.— Philogos (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The current source for a definition of argument "in logic" (from which the first sentences in this article are paraphrased) in fact provides "a typical logic, sometimes called 'classical elementary logic' or 'classical first-order logic.'"

You seem to believe that this exhausts the topic of "logic," but it does not. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is all the same to me...whether it is your own opinion or not. It is the argument itself that I wish to probe, though it may turn out that both I who question and you who answer are equally under scrutiny— Philogos (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your new source also gives support to the definition of an argument as a "claim or set of claims supported by one or more defensible reasons." It is hardly original research, it is rather a definition that fits a broader conception of argument given in any number of dictionaries. However, dictionary definitions are not what encyclopedias are for. Rather, they are designed to convey something about the significance, importance, or notability of a subject. That is what the connection to reason gives, something also supported by the Audi book and any number of other elementary introductions to logic, logical argument, and reasoning.

Logic is mainly concerned with the question of validity: whether if the premises are true we would have reason to accept the conclusion." (Audi, p.43)

The rest was a summary of information that is in the article, and basic connections to related Wikipedia articles. To call it original research is stretching the definition of that way beyond what it is intended to cover.

Your quotation is cute, but doesn't really mean much in this context. Pull yourself out of your bubble. User:Walkinxyz (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.72.51 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re "Pull yourself out of your bubble"; please read Wikipedia:Civility — Philogos (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended. Allow me to re-phrase in more civil terms. In my opinion, it might behoove you to widen your perspective. (That is, unless I've misinterpreted the meaning of the quotation, and you're suggesting the same thing of yourself, in which case, I apologize a second time.) Walkinxyz (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for discusssing the article not the editors. — Philogos (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The new initial sentence "An argument is set of claims, one or more of which, the premises, are offered to support or give reasons for another claim, known as the conclusion" uses the term "claim" rather than "sentence". I see the source for this in the cited book by Judy Grovier. I think it unusual to describe the constituent premises and conclusion as "claims"; more usual, I think you will find, is "sentence", "statement" or "proposition". For example a text chosen at random from my shelves (Wesley, Logic, PH 1963) has

"More precisely, an argument is a group of statements standing in relation to each other. (Footnote: The term "statement" is used to refer to components of arguments because it is philosophically more neutral than alternatives such as "sentence" or "proposition". No technical definition of "statement is offered here, because any definition would raise controversies in the philosophy of language which need not trouble the beginner. More sophisticated readers may supply whatever technical definition seems most appropriate to them.) An argument consists of one statement which is the conclusion and one or more statements of supporting evidence. The statements of evidence are called "premises".

. In what way do the inserted words making the new initial sentence (derived from Grovier) improve the article?— Philogos (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, they make it more accessible to the general reader by presenting a definition in everyday language, as opposed to technical terms or schematic descriptions. The term "meaningful declarative sentence in a natural language," for example, is quite technical, removed as it is from everyday usage. In addition, the word "claim" – as opposed to sentence or statement – helps to distinguish an argument from a report, and is also less technical than "proposition." I think you will find that most sources aimed at a general audience include some discussion of claims and reasons in arguments. In fact, if you Google the terms argument, claim and reason together, you will find over a hundred million pages. If you Google "meaningful declarative sentence" you will find considerably fewer.

The technical language is important, however, more important in a general encyclopedia (vs. an encyclopedia of logic or philosophy, which Wikipedia is not) is to let the general reader recognize the things in his experience that correspond with the terms under discussion, so that a more detailed discussion of their importance will be meaningful for her. Although the discussion can also initiate the reader into the technical vocabulary of the discipline, this should not take precedence to making clear the wider significance of the thing being talked about.

Pace Wesley, the definition "a group of statements standing in relation to each other" is about as vague as vague could be when it comes to the study of arguments. Could you please tell me what comes before this sentence in the quotation you provided? He says "more precisely" which suggests that even he began with a general description. User:Walkinxyz (not signed in) 99.233.168.67 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The immediately preceding sentence In Salmon is "Roughly speaking, and argument is a conclusion standing in relation to its supporting evidence." Together with the previous quote, this makes up the entire para. I mentioned that I picked this book at random; it was widely used for into 1000 level uni logic course. Salmon is not here giving a formal definition.

I agree we should make the logic articles as accessible as possible. I think it better to begin with an opening sentence which we define as carefully as possible the subject of the article, as "In Logic, an X is a Y", to be followed but explanatory remarks, statements in symbols if helpful, and examples. I think if you look at a number of texts you will find that they all agree that an arguments consists of one or more/a set/a series of sentences/statements/propositions/claims one of which is called the "conclusion" the rest being called "the premises" and thee premises purport to support/entail/evidence the conclusion. Regarding the variation "sentences/statements/propositions/claims", one reason I quoted you the Salman, was so you could see how concerned he is to use a neutral term. Unfortunately "statement" is not a neutral term following Strawson: see [statement] and neither is "proposition" see [proposition]. Mates, Elementary Logic, 1972, settles on "sentence", by which he has in mind declarative sentences:

"Sentences are usually classified as declarative, interrogative, imperative etc. Characteristic of declarative sentences is that they are true or false, and it is these that are of primary interest to the logician"

— Ibid p. 5

Mates defines an argument as follows:

Logic investigates the relation of consequence that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a sound argument... By an argument we mean a system of declarative sentences(of a single language) one of which is designated as the conclusion and the other as premises

— ibid pp 4-5

.

I would disagree that an argument is first an foremost a "system." That is ontologically suspect as far as I'm concerned. Walkinxyz (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

However, it is not true that ALL declarative sentences are either true or false, only the meaningful ones. Hence the "meaningful declarative sentence" used in the article. I beg to differ with you; I think that the normal reader of primary school education WOULD understand "meaningful declarative sentence", although would not perhaps understand why the phrase is used instead of, say, "statement" "declaration" or "proposition". I have queried you use of claim because (A) it is no usual to use it in this context (can you cite any source OTHER than Judy Grovier?) and I wonder why the article should make us of a minority term(B) I am not sure in precisely what sense is it being used: is it the same as one of "sentence" or "proposition" or "statement" or "declarative sentence" or "utterance" or does it have some different sense all together? the chose of term we use, "sentence" or "proposition" or "statement" or "declarative sentence" or "meaningful declarative sentence" or "utterance" or "claim" is philologically a hot potato.: see truthbearer and Mates who said

In remarking that propositions, statements, thoughts and judgments as described by those who consider them to be what logic is all about,, do not exist, I seem to have stamped on the toes of a number of reader"

— ibid p x

.

I suspect that Mates would add the term "claim" to the list! The use of "meaningful declarative sentence" has not been previously challenged and the article has been stable for many months prior to your edits.— Philogos (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that he would add it to the list if he understood what arguments do, and not just what logicians do. My problem is that "meaningful declarative sentence in a natural language" does not help to distinguish an argument from a report of an argument. And we disagree on what an average reader of English would understand.

I was also editing this article months ago. What does it matter that the article was stable, if it could be improved? "can you cite any source OTHER than Judy Grovier?" – I don't think I really need to, but if you force me to, I will. When discussing arguments in everyday language, the common usage is to say the author "claims" something. Claim is simply a synonym for an assertion – whether presumed, proven or alleged. How is that in any way controversial, or a "minority" description? Find an author that says an argument is categorically NOT a claim or set of claims and you'll have a case here. I didn't say that all arguments have to be described as a set of claims, I said that an argument can be described that way. Am I wrong?

The immediately preceding sentence In Salmon is "Roughly speaking, and argument is a conclusion standing in relation to its supporting evidence." Together with the previous quote, this makes up the entire para. I mentioned that I picked this book at random; it was widely used for into 1000 level uni logic course. Salmon is not here giving a formal definition.

I see now that he gives a vague answer, not a general one – i.e. his entire answer is vague. You were wise to not include the first part. An "argument is a conclusion standing in relation to its supporting evidence," but so is a line of reasoning in my own head. What makes it an argument? The term presumes a "speaker" and a "respondent," or their equivalent.

Mates defines an argument as follows:

Logic investigates the relation of consequence that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a sound argument... By an argument we mean a system of declarative sentences(of a single language) one of which is designated as the conclusion and the other as premises

— ibid pp 4-5

.

I would disagree that an argument is first an foremost a "system." That is ontologically suspect as far as I'm concerned. Walkinxyz (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, semantically and ontologically, a "premise" is not equivalent to a "sentence," especially if it is not explicit. And premises can also be articulated in more than one sentence, including interrogatives. e.g. in the following argument:

"What is the colour that turns my thoughts to murder? Red is the colour. But what should I do when my thoughts turn in such a way as this? Should I wipe out all trace of the colour, wherever I find it? This is to me more murderous than anything. Therefore I must go into hiding." Walkinxyz (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of your sources use language such as "we define…" in a conversational way to address the readers of the respective source. The definition seems in most cases provided for the sake of illustration rather than providing a comprehensive or exhaustive definition. I think you might be interested in the Wikipedia philosophy style guide which suggests that articles are not meant to be written conversationally, that they are meant for as broad an audience as possible, and that they should take a "meta" perspective from outside the relevant field of study. Walkinxyz (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your responses together in one place at the END of the section, rather than weaving them. You seem to disagree with Salman, Mates, but they are reliables sources. Editors must edit froma neutral point of view.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

The subject of the article is the the argument as used in logic; it may be used in other ways but they are not the subject of this article. — Philogos (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to create a page called Argument (Logic), or Argument (Symbolic Logic) of course you're more than welcome to. You'd do a good job, I'm sure. However, despite what the subject heading says, this is simply the argument article, in a general encyclopedic resource that ranges across all topics, not just logic or philosophy, and as such it must take some account of the normal sense in which we use the term argument (the sense that it is studied in logic and philosophy), and why we use arguments, as well as the ways in which philosophers themselves actually argue. Anything less, I think, is a sad disservice to Wikipedia readers.

Second, my opinions on the talk page with regard to the quality of your sources are hardly undue bias. This criticism of yours is quite badly misplaced, I'm afraid. My changes have to do with relevance to the topic and intelligibility for the average reader, and all have been sourced when requested (note that not everything has to be sourced in a Wikipedia article, only capable of being verified in principle).

That said, as an editor who desires to contribute to this topic, which, I will admit, does take some degree of sophistication to properly understand, you could do worse than to familiarize yourself some of the most influential and up-to-date academic work on logic and argument (which are far from "minority" or "marginal"), including the work of people like Charles Taylor, Ian Hacking, Donald Davidson, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wittgenstein, Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey and others such as Nikolas Kompridis, who does a fine job of researching and reviewing their work. You will be less inclined then to speak, as Mates, does, of an argument as a "system" – they are self-evidently far more than that.

Your quotations from individuals who discuss the topic of argument in "rough" terms, or who discuss a particular aspect of logic, may be "reliable" but they are not relevant to the lead of this article. You've told me that you picked sources "at random" from your shelf. Editors are required to use judgment in evaluating the quality of sources, not just rely what a random (or popular) expert says. To do this, they need to use their own reasoning and draw on their own expertise – something of which I am glad to say I am not totally bereft, whatever my other faults. The line of reasoning I have included here on the Talk page is a heuristic aid, to show you that what you think are "abnormal" definitions of argument are in fact consistent with common knowledge and the abilities of anyone with the ability to reason. From the style guide:

Philosophy articles should be written not from any particular POV, but rather from the perspective of a reasoner which every person is. This is to say that it should be possible for an average person to be able to reason things out so as to have an excellent and intellectual understanding of the topic merely by reading and following wikilinks. Toward this end, articles should not be written with jargon, nor terminology favoring one in-group of academicians over another.

Furthermore, experts who write in a conversational tone – and don't get me wrong, those are sometimes the best kind – should not provide the template for a Wikipedia article. Your sources (I mean Mates, and Salman, or Wesley or whomever) do not give an adequate overview of the importance of argument for logic, let alone philosophy, but rather seem to confine themselves (at least in the quotations you provide) to pick at the fine points of technical logical terminology. That is good for them, but irrelevant to the lead of an article like this. Walkinxyz (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article has always been Argument as used in logic, as indicated by the hat (until you changed it). It was decided some time ago not to call it Argument(logic), on the grounds (as I recall) that it is the principal usage: for other uses see Argument (disambiguation). The changes you have made to the lede do not provide a definition of Argument as normally used in the literature by reliable sources. Mates and Salman are reliable sources; it is not relevant whether you disagree with them. The established use of the terms Argument in logic is that it (a) consists of one or more premises and a conclusion (b) the premises purport to support the conclusion (c) in the case of deductive argument, the premises are purported to entail the conclusion (d) the premises and the conclusion are said to be in the literature by different authors either (a) statements (b) sentences (by which are meant declarative sentences) or (c) propositions. All authors agree that whichever terms they have used , they are referring to whatever it is they consider to be either true or false (i.e. truthbearers ). As I said before this is hot potato in the field of philosophy logic. (You might care to look at Kneale, The Development of Logic, Oxford 1962 p. 48 et seq. I have only seen “claim” used in the one text you cited. I have provided a number of sources in support of the foregoing; I can easily provide more. The ball is in your court to cite sources for the changes you have made. — Philogos (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a usage guide. It is not just about terms that are used in specialized fields such as logic. The problem with Mates and Salman are not whether I agree or disagree with them, but whether they are relevant to the lead of an encyclopedia article on argument in general. And perhaps they are, but you have not shown me why.

From The uses of argument, Stephen Edelston Toulmin: "A man who makes an assertion puts forward a claim—a claim on our attention and to our belief…" etc. (p.11) and on and on.

You have provided a good structural definition of a standard deductive or inductive argument. However, the purpose of a lead is to "stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." There is plenty of literature on definitions of argument that are not structural but functional, and plenty of literature on arguments that do not conform to the standard deductive or inductive form. When I have time, I will refer you to even more of them, but in the meantime I would urge you to not be so dogmatic and adversarial in this.

"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry." [Including for yourself.] (Charles Saunders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic") Walkinxyz (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "dogmatic and adversarial"; please read Wikipedia:Civility — Philogos (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC). Re ""A man who makes an assertion puts forward a claim—a claim on our attention and to our belief…"; I do not see how this shows how the term Argument is used in Logic. Re "The established use of the terms Argument". Above I set out how the term is used n the literature (see (a) --(D) above. The citations already provided, ("Argument", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.", The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Ed. CUM, 1995 "Argument: a sequence of statements such that some of them (the premises) purport to give reason to accept another of them, the conclusion"; Stanford Enc. Phil., Classical Logic; Mates, Elementary Logic, 1972 ;Wesley, Logic, PH 1963) bear this out and are all reliable sources. I can provide further supportive references from Jennifer Fisher, The Philosophy of Logic, 2008; Anthony Harrison-Barbet, Mastering Philosophy; LTF Gamit, Logic Language and Meaning, 1991;Barwise & Ethcmendy, Language Proof and Logic, 1999; Hacking, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1972; Sybil Wolfram, Philosophical Logic, 1989 (page refs available on request). All of these concur with what I wrote above; none of them concur with the changes you have made to the beginning of the lede. I look forward to seeing the citations you have promised to support your

"In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, or give evidence or reasons for accepting a particular conclusion.

rather than the original

"An argument in logic is either (a) a set (or sequence) of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or (b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language, one of which is designated to be the conclusion.

. I would be particularly interested to see your citations from Wittgenstein. — Philogos (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Philogo

I am going to quote at length from a secondary text on argument in particular, not just on logic (specifically on definitions of argument) that I find particularly helpful in this regard, since it contains a passage which quotes several primary sources on logic (no less than ten or eleven), and then goes into some detail discussing them, including reference to the views of Peirce, James and Wittgenstein. The text is Ralph H. Johnson's Manifest Rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument (2000). From pages 46-49:

[A] good definition [of argument] must stress both the function of argument and its rational nature: "The rational function of argument makes evaluation a necessary component of any adequate theory of argument" (cited: Rowland, 1987, p.150). But before I move to my own definition, it will be helpful to review some current ones.

Review and Critique of Current Definitions

[O]ne view of argument sees it as a set of statements, (propositions, assertions, beliefs, and judgments), one of which, the conclusion, is supported by the others — the premises. A definition of this sort can be found in every kind of logic text, whether deductive or inductive, formal or informal. On this view, an argument is a text or discourse that has a certain structure: Claim supported by reason(s). Here are a few examples of authors who take this view.

In Copi's (1961) Introduction to Logic, the oldest textbook in North America, is the following definition, "An argument, in the logician's sense, is any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others which are regarded as providing evidence for the truth of that one" (p.7). In later editions, "evidence" is replaced by "support or grounds") (1986, p.6). A few lines later, Copi added: "An argument is not a mere collection of propositions, but has a structure" (p.7)

In a popular critical thinking text, Barry and Rudinow (1992) wrote, "An argument is a set of assertions one of which is understood or intended to be supported by the other(s)" (p.95).

Cederblom and Paulsen (1996) wrote, "When someone gives reasons to support a point of view, that person is usually offering an argument" (p.15). The hedge "usually" softens matters here. But the basic idea of argument as reasons offered in support of a view is evident.

Hinderer (1991) wrote, "In logic, the term 'argument' means that at least one reason is offered to influence a person's belief about something" (p.16)

Schwarz (1994) wrote:

A discourse is any sentence or group of sentences. In reasoning we are especially interested in a particular kind of discourse called an argument. An argument is any discourse which attempts to support a claim by giving reasons. The reasons that are given as supporting the claim are the premises of the argument, and the claim that is to be supported is called the conclusion of the argument. (p.1)

In all of these definitions, we can see the influence of the view that an argument is a group of propositions in which some (the premises) support the other (the conclusion).

To be sure, the traditional view is not all wrong. It highlights on important aspect of argument – its structure. But this way of understanding argument ultimately must fail because it does not distinguish argument from other forms of reasoning. I may give a reason in support of a claim to influence a person's belief and yet not be making an argument.

I offer reasons in support when I explain, "the reason that your car won't start is that you have a dead battery, and also the starter is defective." Here I am supporting one claim (your car won't start) by another (you have a dead battery) and another (your starter is defective), yet this discourse is not argument but, rather, explanation. Or, "The reason we are having such a crazy summer is the influence of El Nino." Here I offer a reason (the influence of El Nino, which is not even a statement) that is intended to support some other assertion (we are having such a crazy summer), but the function of this relationship is not to persuade the hearer of the truth of the proposition for which support is given. Supposing that the hearer already grants its truth, the reasoner is offering an explanation why.

I offer reasons when I instruct, "If you want to get the best light for this shot, you're going to have to use a XDX-1000 filter combined with…" Here I offer a reason (you're going to have to use a XDX-1000 filter) as support for the claim (If you want to get the best lighting), but the function of the discourse is not to persuade anyone that the claim is true. Presumably, the hearer (here, the apprentice) is prepared to accept the instructor's instruction; they are not going to argue about it. So although that discourse fits the standard definition of argument given previously, it does not seem to have the character of an argument.

I offer reasons when I make an excuse, "I can't go to the show tonight because I have to study for my exam tomorrow." Here we have the structure of argument as defined, but that is not sufficient to qualify it as an argument.

Generally, then, the mere existence of discourse–reasoning in which a claim is in some fashion supported by others is not a sufficient condition, although it is a necessary one, for construing that discourse as an argument.

The conception of argument I have been discussing might be called the structural view, and I have produced samples from textbooks to show that it is widespread. But it would be wrong to think that this view is restricted to textbooks. Theorists like Hamblin (1970) also adopted this view: "Argument is generally regarded as being whatever it is that is typically expressed by the form of words 'P, therefore Q,' 'P, and so Q'; or, perhaps, 'Q, since P', 'Q because P' " (p.228). Wreen (1998) also expressed this view: "If we think of offering an argument as simply offering a reason, or reasons, for a conclusion, where such offering is conceptual in nature …" (p.77). Or look at the entry on argument in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995), where an argument is "a sequence of statements such that some of them (the premises) purport to give reason to accept another of them the conclusion" (p.37). The entry for argument in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Honderich, 1995) is slightly more useful but still reflects this gap:

The word has three main senses:

1. A quarrel, as when …

2. In the most important sense for philosophy an argument is a complex consisting of a set of propositions (called its premises) and a proposition (called its conclusion). You can use an argument by asserting its premises and drawing or inferring its conclusion. (p.47)

There is some validity to the structural view. We produce arguments for a reason, to serve a purpose. We engage in the practice of argumentation because we wish to persuade someone of something, and to do so rationally. We recognize that if we want to persuade the other of something rationally, it is incumbent on the arguer to put forth reasons. Hence the view that an argument consists of a thesis plus the reasons for it. What this line of reflection shows is that argument has its structure (reasons in support of a thesis, or premises plus conclusion) because of the purpose it serves – rational persuasion. A significant limitation of the structural view is that it ignores this important aspect – purpose or function. The moral of the story is that if a satisfactory conceptualization of argument is to be developed, the purpose or the function of the discourse must be referred to, an idea that is alluded to obliquely in this definition from Johnson and Blair (1983), "By an argument we mean a collection of claims (or statements) whose purpose is to lay out a route which leads from the acceptance of some claims (the premises) to the acceptance of some other target claim (the conclusion)" (p.3). This articulation is moderately better than the standard structural account, at least in so far as it alludes to function or purpose no less than structure. But better still would be an account that linked the two ideas. This is what a pragmatic approach accomplishes. What do I understand by this phrase?

A pragmatic approach to argument begins by asking: What purpose(s) does argument serve? What function (or functions) do argument(s) have? The answer is: Many, no doubt. But preeminent among them is the function of persuading someone (I call this person the Other) of the truth of something (I shall call this the Thesis) by reasoning, by producing a set of reasons whose function it is to lead that person rationally to accept the claim in question. There are other purposes or functions that argument serves, such as to inquire into some matter or to solidify a point of view. For example, the use of argumentation for inquiry (which may be described as self-persuasion) is dependent on argument as persuasion: We first lean the practice of persuading others then we can use that practice to inquire; that is, to persuade ourselves. Just as one might argue that we first learn to talk to others and then learn to talk to ourselves, I would claim that in the first instance, argumentation serves the purpose of rational persuasion. First we learn how to persuade others and then we learn how to persuade ourselves [argumentation as inquiry]. In other words, the public precedes the private in the practice of argumentation as elsewhere in language, if Wittgenstein's views are right.

et cetera. (from Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument, 2000, 146-149)

So it does help to have some context, and some history as well, which is provided by secondary sources on argument and not just logic textbooks picked out "at random." I will write more about the history of argument, including how argument came to be defined in "mathematical" terms, in tomorrow's dissertation. (This will include a more in-depth discussion of Wittgenstein.) Such an understanding is also pretty essential for a Wikipedia article like this.

Walkinxyz (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I would be very interested to see your citation from Hacking. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You have cited just the one source, i.e Ralph Johnson (philosopher), Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument (2000) dn he writes{{quote> |text=[O]ne view of argument sees it as a set of statements, (propositions, assertions, beliefs, and judgments), one of which, the conclusion, is supported by the others — the premises. A definition of this sort can be found in every kind of logic text, whether deductive or inductive, formal or informal. }}

- :and

In the most important sense for philosophy an argument is a complex consisting of a set of propositions (called its premises) and a proposition (called its conclusion).

- :He thus agrees that the established use of the term Argument in the literature is as I described above, and as per the article's lede prior to your edit. He calls this the "standard structural account". However Dr Johnson suggest there is a better definition of argument that this prevailing account:

A significant limitation of the structural view is that it ignores this important aspect – purpose or function. The moral of the story is that if a satisfactory conceptualization of argument is to be developed, the purpose or the function of the discourse must be referred to, an idea that is alluded to obliquely in this definition from Johnson and Blair (1983), "By an argument we mean a collection of claims (or statements) whose purpose is to lay out a route which leads from the acceptance of some claims (the premises) to the acceptance of some other target claim (the conclusion)" (p.3).

- :which he calls a "pragmatic approach". Our difficulties would thus be resolved if the article (a) sets out the the prevailing use of th terms as used in logic, about which there appears to be no dispute (b) points out (in the body of the article) that Ralph Johnson believes that a better use of the term would be as he describes above, quoting from his own book. The article will then do what is says on the box: explain how the term IS used in logic, and mentions any views about how the term SHOULD be used; in other words we report the lexical definition in the lede and mention the stipulative definition in the body. Do you agree? — Philogos (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I look forward to receiving the relevant refs to Wittgenstein you promised. Perhaps a "history section in the article would be interesting if you care write it; you might look at Kneale's The Development of Logic, Oxford 1962. The terms "argument" is not mentioned in the index to the 742 pages, but you could make a start from sec 1.3 p. 7, Dialectic and Metaphysical Argument"— Philogos (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PPS Hacking quote:

We can divide an argument into two parts. There is the part that states the conclusion and the part that gives the reasons. Statements giving reasons are called (27) PREMISES/CONCLUSION. The (28)_______________ give reasons for the (29)______________

— Ian Hacking, A concise Introduction to Logic, Random House, NY; 1972

— Philogos (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to what you've just written here. It isn't just one source, it's an additional source that defines an argument in logic as reasons supporting a claim (which once upon a time was the definition in this article, but was reverted), with about 10 sources that agree with him cited. None of those sources say anything about a "meaningful declarative sentence in natural language" (not to say that it can't be defined that way, but the sources Johnson quotes do not define them that way – they use the words claim, assertion, reason, proposition, premise, conclusion and yes, sentence as a unit of "discourse").

A number of them do, however, state that it is a series of claims or assertions, and that its purpose is to persuade. The current definition encompasses all of that, with the conjunction or to distinguish the "structural" from the "functional" aspects of argument. A sentence about this distinction might help.

However, you have not cited a single source that disagrees explicitly with Johnson, nor have you cited from a volume on argument, while I have cited 3 or 4. Therefore I take Johnson's to be the most reliable source, the "best account so far", given his depth of engagement with primary sources that AT LEAST don't disagree, and AT BEST support his definition through and through.

Do you think his definition is missing some crucial point that needs to be part of the first sentence of the lead (i.e., the definition)? If so, what?

Do you believe that there are reliable sources that dispute the current definition? You have not provided any, and I have now provided several in support of it.

Once again, Wikipedia is no a usage guide. Its purpose isn't to lay out all the differing definitions of a term or advise on how a term is to be used. This article is not "about how the term is normally used in logic, and how people say the term should be used." It is not a glossary. It is an encyclopedia article about the subject of argument as studied in logic and philosophy. And since this isn't a logic textbook, that is the appropriate topic for this article.

At this point, I don't see a reason to continue this discussion. It seem to me that you're not even reading your own words, and you think the sources I've cited support them. They do not.

User:Walkinxyz (not logged in) 174.116.187.50 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You cited Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument (2000) and he writes

One view of argument sees it as a set of statements, (propositions, assertions, beliefs, and judgments), one of which, the conclusion, is supported by the others — the premises. A definition of this sort can be found in every kind of logic text, whether deductive or inductive, formal or informal.

and he gives a number of examples of authors who takes this view. This seems to concur with what I said above:

The established use of the terms Argument in logic is that it (a) consists of one or more premises and a conclusion (b) the premises purport to support the conclusion (c) in the case of deductive argument, the premises are purported to entail the conclusion (d) the premises and the conclusion are said to be in the literature by different authors either (a) statements (b) sentences (by which are meant declarative sentences) or (c) propositions

The texts that I quoted to you all contain a "definition of this sort" (although many use sentence, and none I recall use beliefs or judgments.) So there is no significant disagreement about how the term is used in logic so far as I can see; if you see a significant difference please say what it is. PS Will you not prvide the citations from Witgenstein? Page/pra refs will do: I have mist everthing he wrote at my elbow. Cheers! — Philogos (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnson and the texts he cites are perfectly compatible with the way the current definition in this article is phrased. He says "one view" sees argument in structural terms, but then he explains why a purely structural definition is necessary but inadequate in a full account of argument. And while that structural definition is covered in the current introduction (albeit in simpler terms than your (a) through (d)), I thought that you had a problem with the way the current definition in this article is phrased (i.e. not neutrally). Did I misunderstand you? Or, if I understood correctly that you do have a problem with its neutrality, can you cite a source that directly refutes Johnson on the definition of argument with regard to its purpose (including the discussion of Wittgenstein which you seem not to have noticed)? Preferably from a scholarly volume on argument? If not, then you really don't have a case here. There is something essential in how Johnson (and others, including the sources currently cited in the article) describe argument as having the purpose of rational persuasion. If you dispute that, you need to give me a source that directly backs up your claim, especially since it accords stupendously with common sense, just as well as it does with the current introduction of this article (and the sources it cites).

Finally, I can find no reliable primary or secondary sources that use the term "meaningful declarative sentence(s) in a natural language." Can you please provide me with one?

Walkinxyz (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"There is always the danger of wanting to find an expression's meaning by contemplating the expression itself, and the frame of mind in which one uses it, instead of always thinking of the practice." – Wittgenstein, On Certainty § 601

Walkinxyz (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And another:

"[L]ogic does not treat language – or thought – in the sense in which a natural science treats a natural phenomenon, and the most that can be said is that we construct ideal languages. But here the word "ideal" is liable to mislead, for it sounds as if these languages were better, more perfect, than our everyday language; and as if it took a logician to show people at last what a proper sentence looks like.

All this, however, can appear in the right light only when one has attained greater clarity about the concepts of understanding, meaning something, and thinking. For it will then also become clear what may mislead us (and did mislead me) into thinking that if anyone utters a sentence and means or understands it, he is thereby operating a calculus according to definite rules."

(Philosophical Investigations, p. 43)

I would like to reiterate in the light of these two quotations, that the subject of an article such as this should not, in my opinion, be merely a particular "word as it used in logic" (and the schema according to which philosophers define it – that would be a worthy subtopic however), but rather something we do (with a particular purpose), and which logicians and others study and describe in its various forms. And this opinion of mine happens to accord with realizations that the later Wittgenstein had about the way philosophers (erroneously) think of rational human activity (e.g. argument) as governed primarily by rules or procedures or formal schemes.

Walkinxyz (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree your lead is much better than what was there. The previous lead tried to be abstract and failed WP:TECHNICAL badly. If one is going to try and make the stuff inaccessible it should be done further down the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)