A Time for Argument Theory Integration

Abstract

The thesis of the chapter is that there is less disagreement and theoretical conflict on the current argumentation scene than some have thought to exist. In order to find where opportunities for integration might be fruitful, I consider where conflict and incompatibility have been thought to exist. Some of those historical antagonisms include: different conceptions of argument, and of argumentation; formal logic vs. argumentation and informal logic; logic vs. rhetoric vs. dialectic; Pragma-Dialectics vs. informal logic; emotion, intuition and logic I will examine these antagonisms or ambitions, seeking common ground, or possibilities for coexistence. In some cases, apparently conflicting conceptions are just different; in some cases what have been taken to be conflicts between theories are disagreements, sure enough, but not clashes of deep theoretical perspective; in some cases perceived incompatibilities are compatible. I illustrate a few ways in which argument theory integration might be carried out.