Av. de Berna 26, I&D Building, First floor, room 0.07
Marcin Lewiński, ArgLab - IFILNOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
The goal of the paper is to investigate the criteria for distinguishing between rational disagreements, genuine misunderstandings, and manipulative uses of the straw man fallacy in argumentative discussions. (The straw man is typically defined as a misattribution of commitments to our discussants in order to easier attack and rebut their arguments.) These three seem in principle easily discernible, but in many actual cases of ordinary exchanges, it may be remarkably hard to tell them apart. Part of the reason for that is that they all rely on the fundamental issues of linguistic interpretation. In the presentation, I will propose a dialectical profile for an intersubjective interpretation procedure that can be used to reconstruct and evaluate argumentative discussions.
The distinction between disagreement and misunderstanding has drawn particular philosophical attention. Arguably, disagreement presupposes understanding: we can only respond ¬p to our interlocutor’s p – a case of straightforward substantive disagreement – once we correctly identify what she means by p. Because of this, it has been argued, many cases of disagreement can be cleared up as mere misunderstandings: “whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction” (James, 1987/1905, p. 505); “assertions startlingly false on the face of them are likely to turn on hidden differences of language” (Quine, 1960, p. 59). But how do we know? No fast and hard criteria for distinguishing between “questions of fact” (substantive disputes) and “questions of language” (verbal disputes) can be proposed, although significant conceptual distinctions have recently been proposed (Chalmers, 2011; Plunkett, 2015; Plunkett & Sundell, 2013).
These classic topics in the philosophy of language have immense and direct relevance to the treatment of dialogical fallacies in argumentation theory, notably the straw man fallacy. To start with, disagreement is seen as an essential pre-condition for argumentation: in both a pragmatic sense (we don’t need to argue for unchallenged speech acts) and a dialectical sense (no argumentation without contradiction) (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Disagreement does not only instigate argumentation but, in the form of critical questions and counter-arguments, sustains argumentation, often in an unquestionably reasonable way.
Misunderstandings, by contrast, may undermine the very conditions of the possibility for rational argument. Following Hempel, it has often been argued that misunderstandings require explanation, rather than argumentation (Govier 1987). Within an argumentative discussion, problems of misunderstanding (“How do you mean?”) are solved by resorting to “language usage declaratives” (p means p1) rather than to arguments (p, because q) (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). However, in natural dialogues these distinctions often collapse: questions such as “How do you mean?!” can express both a semantic clarification request and an argumentative doubt (or even an outright challenge!). Misunderstandings understood as disagreements stemming from “differences of interpretation” are thus inherently murky.
Yet they are perilous (both theoretically and practically) for an additional, key reason: they leave the door wide open for various fallacies, notably the straw man fallacy, a misinterpretation that amounts to a deceptive manipulation of the other’s words. Again, clear-cut criteria for deciding between such fallacious misinterpretations and genuine misunderstandings – think of ambiguous cases such as “by saying p you must have meant p1, then…” – are notoriously hard to formulate, although some progress has been made. Lewiński (2011, 2012; Lewiński & Oswald, 2013) suggested the criteria of contextual plausibility (precise or loose interpretations called for) and charity (critical or constructive interpretations called for). In this presentation I further advance this line of investigation. I discuss conditions for an interpretative dialogue between arguers, where a negotiation over the meaning of contested passages takes place. I draw on dialectical theories of argumentation to propose an intersubjective interpretation procedure where the question of the burden of proof is crucial.
Aikin, S. J., & Casey, J. (2011). Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation, 25(1), 87-105.
Bizer, G., Kozak, S., & Holterman, L. (2009). The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique, Social Influence, 4(3), 216-230.
Chalmers, D. J. (2011). Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review, 120(4), 515-566.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
James, W. (1987/1905). Pragmatism. In W. James, Writings 1902-1910 (pp. 479-624). New York: Penguin.
Lewiński, M. (2011). Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation, 25(4), 469–497.
Lewiński, M. (2012). The paradox of charity. Informal Logic, 32(4), 403-439.
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2016). Argumentation theory. In K. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (pp. 1-15). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lewiński, M., & Oswald, S. (2013). When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 164-177.
Oswald, S., & Lewiński, M. (2014). Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. In T. Herman & S. Oswald (Eds.), Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies (pp. 313-343). Bern: Peter Lang.
Plunkett, D. (2015). Which concepts should we use?: Metalinguistic negotiations and the methodology of philosophy. Inquiry, 58(7–8), 828-874.
Plunkett, D., & Sundell, T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13(23), 1-37.
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saussure, L., de (forth.) The straw man fallacy as a prestige-gaining device. In S. Oswald et al. (eds.) Argumentation and Language. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wilson, D. (1994). Relevance and understanding. In G. Brown, et al. (eds.), Language and understanding, (pp. 35–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singular Reference in Fictional Discourse?
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | "Regulation, selection and…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Bewilderment as a predictor of different…
An Inter-University Workshop held on the 20th of November organised…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Speech act pluralism in polylogues"
Reason-giving as an expressive speech act
Talk by Rosalice Pinto (CEDIS) at 16 o'clock, Sala B1…
Value Seminar Talk by Erich Rast (IFILNOVA): Reasons for the…
Schizophrenia and Common Sense: explaining the relation between madness and…
The idea of the workshop is to explore the blurred…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Argument-Design through Role-Taking"
The workshop discusses the importance of communication and metaphors in…
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar |"Perception as Cognition: Beyond…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Proposals for the examination of networked…
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar |"Pictorial Models, Imagination, and…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Level, focus, and force of argumentative…
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning Workshop "Virtualism and the Mind"
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "An Online Social Debating System"
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar |"4E Cognition: Radical or…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Reasoning as a self-doubter"
Value Seminar Session with Erich Rast, Sala 1.05 ID 16h
Value Seminar with Marcin Lewiński, Sala 1.05 ID 16h
Value Seminar with Dima Mohammed, Sala 1.05 ID 16h
International Conference | Argumentation and Reasoned Action