Why your most logical arguments might be built on social foundations, not formal rules
In short: Argumentation theory has evolved from a quest for universal, logical truths into a study of how we actually persuade one another. Moving beyond rigid philosophical systems, modern scholars now explore how social context, conversation, and community standards shape the way we justify our decisions and resolve our deepest disagreements.
Historically, argumentation theory was rooted in foundationalism, a branch of philosophy seeking to ground all claims in universal logical forms. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle championed systematic methods, but modern scholars have largely moved away from this idealism. They argue that premises do not derive their soundness from abstract philosophical systems alone, but rather from the specific intellectual fields and communities where they occur.
This shift, often called the linguistic turn, gained momentum in the mid-20th century. In 1958, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced 'la nouvelle rhetorique,' an approach prioritizing the juridical presentation of evidence over formal inference rules. Later, scholars like Karl R. Wallace, Ray Lynn Anderson, and C. David Mortensen began focusing on 'marketplace argumentation'—the ordinary, messy debates of everyday people. This perspective aligns with pragmatist philosophy, suggesting that logic is not just a set of abstract laws, but a tool for managing conversation in contexts that naturally prefer agreement.
Today, the field is highly interdisciplinary, drawing from sociology, linguistics, and psychology. Conversation analysis, developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson, examines how we naturally structure dialogue. Some researchers, such as Alan G. Gross, take this further, arguing that even scientific knowledge is rhetorical 'without remainder.' In this view, science holds authority only because its communal verification methods are trusted, not because it exists outside of human social interaction. Whether in law, science, or politics, argumentation is less about finding a perfect, objective truth and more about how we navigate the social grounds of our shared knowledge.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Argumentation theory
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/culture-argumentation-theory.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Communication · More in Cultures · Latest · A–Z · All topics
