Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes

Bibliographic Data

ID21583176
AuthorsAlfonso Hernández (0000-0003-3354-9967, Università della Svizzera italiana, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume37
Issue3
Pages377-395
Publication date2023-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueArgumentation (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0920-427X • E-ISSN: 1572-8374
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s10503-023-09613-w
OpenAlexW4362663354
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited17

Critical questions have been understood in the framework of argument schemes from their conception. This understanding has influenced the process of evaluating arguments and the development of classifications. This paper argues that relating these two notions is detrimental to research on argument schemes and critical questions, and that it is possible to have critical questions without relying on argument schemes. Two objections are raised against the classical understanding of critical questions based on theoretical and analytical grounds. The theoretical objection presents the assumptions that are embedded in the idea of argument schemes delivering questions to evaluate arguments. The analytical objection, on the other hand, exposes the shortcomings of the theory when critical questions are used to evaluate real-life argumentation. After presenting these criticisms, a new theory of critical questions is sketched. This theory takes into account the dynamics of dialectical discussions to describe the function of critical questions and their implications for evaluating arguments

Argument map · Argumentation theory · Critical theory · Dialectic · Epistemology · Informal logic · Sociology · Artificial Intelligence in Law · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Philosophy · Topic Modeling

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access