Abstract
Krabbe (2003, in F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644) defined a metadialogue as a dialogue about one or more dialogues, and a ground-level dialogue as a dialogue that is not a metadialogue. Similarly, I define a meta-argument as an argument about one or more arguments, and a ground-level argument as one which is not a meta-argument. Krabbe (1995, in F.H van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 333–344) showed that formal-fallacy criticism (and more generally, fallacy criticism) consists of metadialogues, and that such metadialogues can be profiled in ways that lead to their proper termination or resolution. I reconstruct Krabbe’s metadialogical account into monolectical, meta-argumentative terminology by describing three-types of meta-arguments corresponding to the three ways of proving formal invalidity he studied: the trivial logic-indifferent method; the method of counterexample situation; and the method of formal paraphrase. A fourth type of meta-argument corresponds to what Oliver (1967, Mind 76, 463–478), Govier (1985, Informal Logic 7, 27–33), and Copi (1986) call refutation by logical analogy. A fifth type of meta-argument represents my reconstruction of arguments by parity of reasoning studied by Woods and Hudak (1989, Informal Logic 11, 125–139). Other particular meta-arguments deserving future study are Hume’s critique of the argument from design in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and Mill’s initial argument in The Subjection of Women about the importance of established custom and general feeling vis-à-vis argumentation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Barker S. F.: 1989, Reasoning by Analogy in Hume’s Dialogues. Informal Logic 11, 173–184
Barth E. M., E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Copi I. M.: 1986a, Informal Logic. Macmillan, New York
Copi I. M.: 1986b, Introduction to Logic (7th edn.). Macmillan, New York
Costantini S.: 2002, Meta-reasoning: A Survey In: A. C. Kakas, F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational Logic. Springer, Berlin, pp. 253–288
Finocchiaro M. A.: 1980, Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Reidel, Dordrecht
Finocchiaro M. A.: 2005, Arguments about Arguments: Systematic, Critical, and Historical Essays in Logical Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Govier T.: 1985, Logical Analogies. Informal Logic 7, 27–33
Hamblin C. L.: 1970, Fallacies. Methuen, London
Hansen, H. V.: 2005, ‹Does Mill Have a Theory of Argumentation?’, Paper presented at the conference “The Uses of Argument,” OSSA, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, 18–21 May
Krabbe E. C. W.: 1995, Can We Ever Pin One Down to a Formal Fallacy? In: F.H van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds) Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 333–344
Krabbe E. C. W.: 2002, Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed) Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 153–167
Krabbe E. C. W.: 2003, Metadialogues In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 641–644
Laar, J. A. van: 2002a, ‹Equivocation in Dialectical Perspective’, in H. V. Hansen, R. C. Pinto, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair and R. H. Johnson (eds.), Argumentation and Its Applications, OSSA, Windsor. CD-ROM. ISBN: 0-9683461-2-X
van Laar J. A. van: 2002b, The Use of Dialogue Profiles for the Study of Ambiguity In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 659–663
Laar, J. A. van: 2003, The Dialectic of Ambiguity, Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Philosophy, Groningen University
Massey G. J.: 1975a, Are There Good Arguments That Bad Arguments Are Bad?’. Philosophy in Context 4, 61–77
Massey G. J.: 1975b, In Defense of the Asymmetry. Philosophy in Context 4(Suppl.), 44–56
Massey G. J.: 1981, The Fallacy Behind Fallacies. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6, 489–500
Mill, J. S.: 1988, The Subjection of Women (ed. S. M. Okin), Hackett, Indianapolis
Oliver J. W.: 1967, Formal Fallacies and Other Invalid Arguments. Mind 76, 463–478
Perlis D.: 1988, Meta in Logic In: P. Maes, D. Nardi (eds) Meta-level Architectures and Reflection. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 37–49
Quine W. V. O.: 1961, From a Logical Point of View (2nd edn.). Harper & Row, New York
Salmon W. C.: 1984, Logic (3rd edn.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Woods J., B. Hudak: 1989, By Parity of Reasoning. Informal Logic 11, 125–39
Wooldridge, M., P. McBurney, and S. Parsons: 2005, ‹On the Metalogic of Arguments’, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-05), Utrecht, pp. 560–567
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Finocchiaro, M.A. Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation 21, 253–268 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9055-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9055-x