2004
Volume 36, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

This contribution deals with arguments that make an appeal to the arguer’s own or someone else’s behaviour in order to make the standpoint likely. Such arguments resemble descriptions of classical rhetorical plausibility related to the conjectural status (concerning the issue whether the accused ‘did or did not do it’). Today, argumentation studies hardly pay any attention to these kinds of argument. The few authors that do deal with them consider them as causal or symptomatic arguments. In this contribution it is argued that such a characterization does not cover all aspects of these arguments being relevant for their evaluation. Arguments in which an appeal to behaviour is made should be treated as arguments from authority and, at least partly, be evaluated as such. An overview of variants of behaviour-arguments is presented and it is shown which critical questions apply to each.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2014.2.JANS
2014-08-27
2021-12-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/36/2/s1.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2014.2.JANS&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2014.2.JANS
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2014.2.JANS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error