Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argument as Hypothesis-Testing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 24))

  • 1595 Accesses

Abstract

This essay proposes that argumentation be understood as a rhetorical analogue to hypothesis-testing in the scientific method. It is a means for determining what should be regarded as true in situations in which empirical methods are not available. The paradigm is described and implications of following it are explored. The specific concern of the essay is with argumentation as deployed in competitive academic debate (referred to as “forensics”) but its point of view is generally applicable.

This essay was originally published in an anthology, Advanced Debate, edited by David A. Thomas and published by National Textbook Company in 1979.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Similar positions have been articulated by several other scholars, including Scott 1967; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969; Booth 1974; Langer 1958, and Ehninger 1975.

  2. 2.

    Rieke’s model for such an instance is “communication among philosophers.” There is a strong similarity between this model and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s view of the: “universal audience” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969, pp. 31–35).

  3. 3.

    A fuller explanation of this idea may be found in (Zarefsky 1972). On the function of presumption in inducing rigor, see also (Trapp 1976).

  4. 4.

    “Good reasons” are those which are psychologically compelling in that they render further inquiry unnecessary and superfluous. See (Wallace 1963).

References

  • Arnold, C.C. 1972. Inventio and pronutiatio in a new rhetoric. Paper presented at Central States Speech Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitzer, L.F., and E. Black (eds.). 1971. The prospect of rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, W.C. 1974. Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J.R. 1975. Attitudinal inherency: Implications for policy debate. Southern Speech Communication Journal 40: 158–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D. 1958. Debating as critical deliberation. Southern Speech Journal 24: 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D. 1970. Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations, and its uses. Communication Monographs 37: 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D. 1975. A synoptic view of systems of western rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech 61: 448–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, T.B. 1976. Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, H.W. 1959. Philosophy and argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, H.W. 1965. Some reflections on argumentation. In Philosophy, rhetoric, and argumentation, ed. M. Natanson and H.W. Johnstone, 1–9. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, S.K. 1958. Philosophy in a new key: A study of symbolism in reason, rite, and art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, D.A., and R.V. Seltzer. 1971. The role of attitudinal inherency in contemporary debate. Journal of the American Forensic Association 7: 278–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBath, J.H. (ed.). 1975. Forensics as communication: The argumentative perspective. Skokie: National Textbook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J.H., K.F. Schuessler, and H.L. Costner. 1970. Statistical reasoning in sociology, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. 1877. The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly 12: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in French in 1958.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 1952. Gorgias. Trans. W.C. Helmbold. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R.D. 1974. Rhetorical perspectives in modern epistemology. Paper presented at Speech Communication Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R.L. 1967. On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. Central States Speech Journal 18: 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapp, R.A. 1976. Non-policy debate in search of an audience. Paper presented at Western States Communication Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, K.A. 1963. The substance of rhetoric: Good reasons. Quarterly Journal of Speech 49: 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 1972. A reformulation of the concept of presumption. Paper presented at Central States Speech Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 1977. The role of causal argument in policy controversies. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    David Zarefsky

Authors
  1. David Zarefsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zarefsky, D. (2014). Argument as Hypothesis-Testing. In: Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation