<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the <italic>dialectical</italic>, <italic>structural</italic>, <italic>probabilistic</italic> (or Bayesian), <italic>computational</italic>, and <italic>empirical</italic> approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (<italic>Epicureans on Squandering Life</italic>; Aikin &amp; Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the <italic>squandering argument</italic> as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) <italic>ad hominem</italic> argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.</p>
</abstract>

Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.

Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Faculty of English, Department of Pragmatics of English

Department of Logic and Methodology of Sciences

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or...

Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Published Online: Dec 31, 2023

Page range: 133 - 167

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2023-0007

Keywords
argument structure, Bayesian, computation, diagram, dialectic, empirical, evaluation, perceived argument strength, thought listing

© 2023 Frank Zenker et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Published Online: Dec 31, 2023

Page range: 133 - 167

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2023-0007

Keywordsargument structure, Bayesian, computation, diagram, dialectic, empirical, evaluation, perceived argument strength, thought listing

© 2023 Frank Zenker et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Keywords
argument structure, Bayesian, computation, diagram, dialectic, empirical, evaluation, perceived argument strength, thought listing