Argumentation is about providing warrants for accepting as true certain conclusions. By limiting any discussion to these (more or less) strictly logical warrants, are we not ignoring the others that are at least as important?

The fact that there are more complicated arguments than the Aristotleian example not a valid argument for the conclusion that the Aristotelian example is only an argument in a very generous sense (whatever that means).

That would be like saying that because a penny is less valuable than a nickel, that a penny is only a coin in a very generous sense.

Indeed, you might want to examine this argument of yours. What difference does the "substantiality" of the content of the argument make to whether or not it is an argument? None, of course.

And, indeed, in order to examine and understand the nature of argument, it is heuristically important to examine an argument with insubstantial content so that the essentials of argumentation can be clearly understood. I suppose you have never taught logic. It would be almost suicidal to begin with the more complicated before the simpler was thoroughly understood. You don't introduce calculus with tensor calculus.

I formal argument is what kenn described. An argument in the sense that people mean when they say "My argument is that..." is kind of a mish mash usually. Both approaches have their uses, but I do want to see what the person thinks and why they think in when they make an argument.

Argumentation is about providing warrants for accepting as true certain conclusions. By limiting any discussion to these (more or less) strictly logical warrants, are we not ignoring the others that are at least as important?

I like this, especially the multifaceted way in which you convey that an argument should have a literal quantifier, a warrant, for which we judge a conclusion as true (or even possible false).

Would you say that an irrelevant premise would classify as a warrant? It may classify with your stipulations for logical warranty. In some ways, I think it would because, if anything, it would serve to more exemplify the premises that are more accurate and pertaining to the true conclusion. In other ways though, I think it wouldn't because I think we would have to come to terms with its inherent irrelevancy. Seriously, why keep dead weight in an argument.

Now, if only we knew what a warrant was, and how to decide whether something is a warrant, we would be all set. Do you think that if I inform you that unless you believe that 2+2=7 I will shoot you, that I have given you a warrant for believing that 2+2=7?

Seriously, why keep dead weight in an argument?

Indeed!

perhaps as long as the warrant there leads to a warranted conclusion. Almost like an argumentative formula with a wide degree of applicability.

)

Think of the various methods we establish the truth of the premisses. We can adumbrate examples, establish authorities and quote from them, draw distinctions, set up criteria for acceptance and show how the premises meet them, examine contrary doctrines or arguments proving them false, we can describe a situation in a more thorough manner, we can clarify, and so on. We can even show the logic of the prior argumentation for each premise as well as that of the argument taken as a whole.

Except in logic classes where one wants to examine the bare structure of an argument, we seldom find such simple examples in reading philosophers or in practical applications. In THESE very complex and often subtle arguments, logic alone cannot compel assent or even understanding, and must be supplemented with other tools.

Think of the various methods we establish the truth of the premisses. We can adumbrate examples, establish authorities and quote from them, draw distinctions, set up criteria for acceptance and show how the premises meet them, examine contrary doctrines or arguments proving them false, we can describe a situation in a more thorough manner, we can clarify, and so on. We can even show the logic of the prior argumentation for each premise as well as that of the argument taken as a whole.

Except in logic classes where one wants to examine the bare structure of an argument, we seldom find such simple examples in reading philosophers or in practical applications. In THESE very complex and often subtle arguments, logic alone cannot compel assent or even understanding, and must be supplemented with other tools.

Sure does, since the criterion you have just offered for a warranted system is a tautology, and an empty one, at that. Could not have a wider applicability than that.

How could a warranted conclusion not be warranted?

A warranted conclusion would follow from the warrants which validate it as such.

ANYWAY THIS IS BESIDES THE POINT!!!! LOL!!!!

Seriously though, stick to the topic! What are your thoughts on the questions in the OP?

I have already presented them, I thought. I think that your view is nefarious.

It is vague; many people argue vaguely.

Person A: it's not going to rain today
Person B: the weatherman said it was

That's person B's argument. You could formalize it and state all the implied premises, but I don't see why you would in that case.


But see, there's always a person on the other side of the argument. Often they mean more than they say, or are arguing with some other motivation. And that can be enlightening. Why someone believes what they do and why they think it is important can be lost in a simple list of premises.

Awesome, then there is nothing left to talk about. You have your opinion (which is that my view is "nefarious," (which incidentally I would like to know how nefarious now, like Jafar from Disney's Alladin nefarious or Captain Hook from Peter Pan nefarious LOL!) and I have mine. Which leads to the presentation of your argument which evidently was already stated. Well played, sir, well played. It was so good, I did not even notice them, but given a heavy emphasis on obfuscation, it seems rightly so.

So do I. But why must that be a part of the argument? In logic classes, student are given the exercise of extracting the argument out of the other stuff surrounding it in natural settings (magazine articles, letters to the editor, and so on) so that they can simply focus on the alethic merits of the argument without being confused by explanations, and other irrelevant comments. Not that these may not be important for understanding why (for instance) that argument is being made. But what is important is one thing, What is relevant is a different thing. The first does not imply the second, although the second does imply the first. If you are interested in how much money is contained in your bank account you want to focus on addition and subtraction of the figures. That does not mean that you should not consider questions like overspending, or saving money. Those are very important. Maybe more important than the other stuff about calculating the amount you have in your account at the moment. Only those questions are not relevant to the calculation. Videcorspoon's approach is simply confusing, and mixes up the relevant with what may well be important, but irrelevant.

Sorry. Lost track of your point again. It is nefarious because, as I pointed out, it leads to confusion and obfuscation which is, I think, a pernicious thing in philosophy. I am somewhat surprised to learn that you do not, despite your evident interest in logic.

Yes, I agree. An argument is what you would extract out of the other stuff. An argumentative approach might focus on that other stuff, or on the argument itself, depending.