How to disagree about argument schemes

Abstract

Argumentation theorists often disagree about which scheme best represents a given type of argument (e.g. argument by analogy, argument from authority, inference to the best explanation). Unfortunately, these theorists sometimes become involved in fruitless pseudo-disagreement because they fail to perceive that their supposedly competing schemes are means for achieving different (but compatible) practical or theoretical goals. This paper explains some of the different purposes that an argument scheme may serve, and indicates how the relevant type of pseudo-disagreement may be avoided.