Argumentation Schemes for Composition and Division Arguments: A Critique of Walton's Account
Journal of Applied Logics-IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications
First page number:
Last page number:
This essay begins with a description of my acquaintance with Douglas Walton's scholarly work: this acquaintance goes back some five decades, but it is relatively meager given his enormous output, and yet I recently renewed and deepened it for the purpose of the present contribution. For this purpose, I decided to focus on a topic at the borderland of two things: the notion of argumentation schemes which seems to have earned Walton the greatest notoriety lately, and the fallacy of composition on which I have focused in the last several years. Thus, next I summarize Walton's account of argumentation schemes for the fallacy (and argument) of composition (and of division); unfortunately, it seems to be highly unsatisfactory. I also examine Chaim Perelman's account of the same topic since Walton refers to his work; Perelman's account is terminologically anomalous but seems to make some conceptual sense, and yet it magnifies further the inadequacy of Walton's account. Finally, I undertake a more constructive effort and sketch what I feel is a promising and more adequate account, elaborating several argumentation schemes and several evaluative principles, based on realistic examples.
Douglas walton's scholarly work critique; Argumentation schemes; Fallacy of composition; Chaim perelman
Arts and Humanities | Philosophy
Finocchiaro, M. A.
Argumentation Schemes for Composition and Division Arguments: A Critique of Walton's Account.
Journal of Applied Logics-IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 8(1),