Abstract
We argue in this paper that there is an epistemic obligation to communicate the appropriate degree of confidence when asserting conclusions in conductive argumentation. This runs contrary to the position of those theorists who contend that once the conclusion to a conductive argument is drawn, it is simply asserted in an unqualified manner. We argue, on the contrary, that, in many contexts, we do qualify our conclusions and further, that we have an epistemic responsibility to do so. As an illustration, we discuss the case of the Italian scientists tried for failing to convey to the public appropriate warnings of the risks of the earthquake in L’Aquila.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Surprisingly given his thesis, Adler does acknowledge that “there are loads of arguments that end with qualified conclusions, including, ‘plausible’ or, more equivocally, ‘the best explanation is’” (p. 7). But the rest of his argumentation leads us to believe that he would reconcile this apparent contradiction by asserting that such arguments are not cogent, i.e., they are not arguments which can be put forward for acceptance.
References
Adler, J. E. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation, 13(1).
Ashcroft, H. (2012, November 20). L’Aquila earthquake—shaking the scientific community. Retrieved from http://www.bangscience.org/2012/11/laquila-earthquake-shaking-the-scientific-community/.
Bailin, S., & Battersby, M. (2010). Reason in the balance: An inquiry approach to critical thinking. Whitby, ON: McGraw-Hill.
Bailin, S., & Battersby, M. (2009). Inquiry: A dialectical approach to teaching critical thinking. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 8 CD-ROM. OSSA: Windsor, ON.
Battersby, M., & Bailin, S. (2011). Guidelines for reaching a reasoned judgment. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 145–157). London: College Publications.
Billi, M. (2013). Sentenza. Tribunale di L’Aquila. Sezione Penale. N.253/2010 R.G.N.R. Retrieved from http://processoaquila.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sentenza-grandi-rischi-completa-1.pdf.
Blair, J. A.., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41–56.
Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.). (2011). Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.
Govier, T. (2011). Conductive arguments: Overview of the symposium. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 262–276). London: College Publications.
Hitchcock, D. (2002). The practice of argumentative discussion. Argumentation, 6(3), 287–298.
Hooper, J. (2012, October 22). Italian scientists convicted for false assurances before earthquake. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/22/italian-scientists-jailed-earthquake-aquila.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pappas, S. (2012). Scientists on trial for failing to predict Italian quake. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44596501/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-trial-failing-predict-italian-quake/#.U3J_LF69zw2.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the surgeon general. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/.
Watt, S. (2011, September 16). Scientists in the dock over L’Aquila earthquake. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9593123.stm.
Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and response: Justification in ethics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Monica Bhattacharjee for her contribution to the preparation of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bailin, S., Battersby, M. (2015). Conductive Argumentation, Degrees of Confidence, and the Communication of Uncertainty. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21102-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21103-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)