High Costs and Low Benefits
Analysis and Evaluation of the “I’m Not Stupid” Argument
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21583260 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Henrike Jansen (0000-0002-3068-6897, Leiden University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 529-551 |
| Publication date | 2023-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Argumentation (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0920-427X • E-ISSN: 1572-8374 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10503-022-09592-4 |
| OpenAlex | W4320486354 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 15 |
This article presents an analysis and evaluation of what I call the “I’m not stupid” argument. This argument has ancient roots, which lie in Aristotle’s famous description of the weak man’s and strong man’s arguments. An “I’m not stupid” argument is typically used in a context of accusation and defense, by a defendant who argues that they did not commit the act of which they have been accused. The analysis of this type of argument takes the shape of an argumentative pattern, which displays a full-fledged representation of its argumentation structure. It is based on a collection of ten contemporary instances of the “I’m not stupid” argument. Although ten instances constitute a small collection, the wide variation in the argumentative elements that they express explicitly or leave implicit made it possible to identify five new key premises in comparison with previous analyses of the weak man’s and strong man’s arguments (Walton, Tindale and Gordon 2014 in Argumentation 28:85–119, 2014; Walton 2019 in Argumentation 33:45–74, 2019). These new premises show that the crucial point of an evaluation of this argument is the arguer's supposedly rational character in making a gain-loss calculation. They also show that we need empirical data to strengthen our analyses of argument schemes and argumentation structures
Argument map · Argumentation theory · Argumentative · Commit · Epistemology · Informal logic · Political communication · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Artificial Intelligence in Law · Computer Science · History · Law · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2025 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |