Premise Adequacy

Abstract

It’s argued that some of the norms of premise adequacy vary with the context of argumentation. To begin, I set out some of the assumptions the discussion will take for granted, stipulate the senses I give to some of the terms of art which, although common, have different meanings in the hands of different authors, and explain what I mean by “premise adequacy.” A review of the various contexts for evaluating arguments shows that the question about when a premise may be undefended can have radically different motivations. If adequate premises are considered a necessary condition of a “good” argument, there will then be many different kinds of “good argument.” The classic philosophical notion that truth is a sufficient condition of premise adequacy for all argumentation does not stand up to the test of these different contexts of evaluation.