1. Logic and Argumentation The inclusion of a section on “theory of argumentation” in standard logic textbooks suggests that many (if not all) common shortcomings of argumentation can be overcome using logical methods. It is tacitly assumed that

2. Systemic argumentation It is difficult to identify a statement that would be justified on its own, in isolation from other provisions. Justification is always systemic in nature. The inclusion of a new provision in a system of other provisions, giving stability to its elements,

5. Methodological argumentation A method is a system of instructions, recommendations, warnings, samples, etc., indicating how to do something. The method primarily covers the means necessary to achieve a specific goal, but may also contain

2.4. Understanding and Argumentation In written or spoken language, a concept is expressed by a name, which is a word or combination of words. Therefore, in general and logical semantics, when talking about a name, they distinguish between its meaning (or concept) and meaning, i.e. what it means

Argumentation An ordered set of arguments used to rationally confirm a thesis (prayer is not argumentation), but not capable of serving as proof of its truth (this will no longer be argumentation, but proof as

§ 1. PROOF AND ARGUMENTATION The purpose of knowledge is to achieve reliable, objective, true knowledge for active influence on the world around us. Establishing objective truth is an important task of a democratic justice system. Valid cognition

Theory of argumentation.

What kind of apparatus did rhetoric have to solve its problems? This,

firstly, the theory of argumentation developed by Aristotle and, secondly,

theory of speech means of persuasion (primarily the theory of tropes and figures),

especially elaborated by ancient rhetoric. Let's look first at

theories of argumentation.

Argumentation of ideas, theories, theses is a complex logical operation,

aimed at persuading an opponent. Argumentation as a way of thinking and

speech activity, as a logical construction, has its own irrefutable

Argumentation is an operation based on any judgments,

practical decisions or assessments, in which, along with logical techniques

They are also used in illogical methods and techniques of persuasive influence.

Arguments were originally divided into natural

evidence (witness testimony, documents, etc., referred to

evidence) and artificial evidence, which in turn

were divided into logical, ethical and sensual.

Logical proofs included proofs by induction,

which included both scientific induction and reasoning by analogy, and

deduction, which was divided into syllogisms based on scientific

proven premises, and so-called enthymemes, the premises of which differed

only a known probability. Logical arguments were combined with

natural evidence under the general name ad rem (lat. "by

essence"). The rest of the artificial evidence that will

discussed below, were united under the general name ad hominem (lat. "to

person"). The latter play a large role in rhetoric, as they are associated with

psychology and an attitude towards direct action, while the first

are associated only with logic and a mindset of reasoning.

Ethical evidence, or arguments for ethos (literally "custom" in Greek)

appeal to the community of moral, moral and ethical norms of the persuasive and

convinced. These may be reasons for empathy (i.e. sharing

positions) or, conversely, to joint rejection.

Sensory evidence, or arguments for pathos (literally "passions",

Greek) appeal to a person’s feelings and are divided into threats and promises.

The modern classification of arguments looks like this:

|A R G U M E N T |

| EVIDENCE | ARGUMENTS |

|Logical |Natural |to empathy |to rejection |

Proof and refutation.

Proof is a logical operation to substantiate the truth of judgments

with the help of other true judgments.

Refutation is a logical operation to substantiate the falsity of some

judgments.

Proof structure:

What is being proven

What is the proof of the advanced position?

How is it proven?

The answers to these questions reveal: Thesis, Arguments, Demonstration.

A thesis is a judgment put forward by the proponent, which he substantiates in

process of argumentation. The thesis is the main structural element

argumentation and answers the question: what is being justified.

Arguments are initial theoretical or factual positions, using

which justify the thesis. They act as a basis, or logical

foundation of argumentation, and answer the question: with what, with the help of what is carried out,

justification for the thesis?

Demonstration is logical form constructing a proof that, as

usually takes the form of a deductive inference. Argumentation should always

be true, while the conclusion is not always.

There are two types of evidence:

Direct - the thesis logically follows from the arguments.

Indirect (indirect) is such evidence in which the truth

the thesis put forward is substantiated by proving its falsity

antithesis, they are divided into two types:

Proof by contradiction is carried out by establishing

the falsity of a judgment that contradicts the thesis. Assumed truth

antithesis and a consequence is derived from it, if at least one of

the obtained consequences contradicts either the premise or another consequence,

the truth of which has already been established, then this consequence, and behind it

the antithesis is assumed to be false.

Separation proofs, method of elimination. Installed

the falsity of all terms of the disjunction except one, which is

a well-founded thesis. This type of proof is based on modus

Rules of evidence.

Thesis rules:

The thesis must be formulated precisely and clearly, and must not allow

polysemy. Mistakes: He who proves too much is not

proves nothing.

Throughout the entire proof, the thesis must be the same.

Error: substitution of thesis.

Argument rule:

Arguments must be true judgments, not contradictory

to a friend. Error: deliberate misconception - as arguments

deliberately false facts are used. Superior base - in

as arguments, facts are used that themselves need

proof.

The arguments must be sufficient to support the thesis. Error:

imaginary following.

Arguments must be proven regardless of the thesis. Error: circle in

proof - the thesis is proven by an argument, and the argument

is proven by the same thesis.

The rule of demonstration, that is, when linking the thesis with arguments,

the rules of the inference according to the scheme of which must be observed

the proof is being built. Errors: confusion of relative meaning

statements with an irrelevance - a statement that is true in specific

conditions is considered true for all other conditions.

Confusing the collective meaning of the concept with the dividing one.

Unauthorized methods of defense and refutation.

1. Evidence to the person, that is, the point is that instead of refuting

thesis and arguments, give a negative assessment to the opponent, his

personality.

2. Appeal to the public.

3. Swearing and swearing are the place of arguments.

4. Arguments of force - instead of logical arguments, physical threats

reprisals.

5. Disarming - when they try to neutralize the main argument

opponent, reducing him to nonsense.

6. Trojan horse - going over to the enemy’s side in order to bring

his thesis is absurd.

There are also several types of argumentation, this is the deductive method -

involves compliance with a number of methodological and logical requirements,

such as a precise definition or description in a larger premise fulfilling

the role of argument; initial theoretical or empirical position, exact and

a reliable description of a specific event, which is given in a minor premise;

compliance with the structural rules of this form of inference; inductive method -

is used, as a rule, in cases where, as arguments

factual data is used; and argumentation in the form of analogy -

is used in the case of using single events and phenomena.

Types of arguments.

Arguments may vary in content

judgments:

1. Theoretical generalizations not only serve the purpose of explaining known

or prediction of new phenomena, but also serve as arguments in

argumentation.

2. The role of arguments is played by statements of facts. Facts or

factual data are single events or phenomena for which

characteristic certain time, place and specific conditions of their occurrence

and existence.

3. Arguments can be axioms, i.e. obvious and therefore unprovable

in this area of ​​the situation.

4. The role of arguments can be played by definitions of the basic concepts of a particular

areas of knowledge.

RULES AND ERRORS IN RELATION TO ARGUMENTS.

Logical consistency and evidentiary value of reasoning in

depends largely on the quality of the initial factual and theoretical

material - the persuasive power of arguments.

The process of argumentation always involves preliminary analysis

available factual and theoretical material, statistical

generalizations, eyewitness accounts, scientific data, etc. Weak and

dubious arguments are discarded, the most compelling are synthesized into

a coherent and consistent system of arguments.

Preliminary work is carried out taking into account a special strategy

and argumentation tactics. By tactics we mean the search and selection of such

arguments that will be most convincing to a given audience,

taking into account age, professional, cultural, educational and other

its features. Speeches on the same topic before the court,

diplomats, schoolchildren, theater workers or young scientists will

differ not only in style, depth of content, psychological

approach, but also the type and nature of argumentation, in particular the special

selection of the most effective ones, i.e. close, understandable and convincing

arguments.

The solution to the strategic problem of argumentation is determined by the implementation

the following requirements, or rules, regarding arguments.

Reliability requirement, i.e. truth and evidence of arguments

determined by the fact that they act as logical foundations, based on

which derive the thesis. No matter how probable the arguments may be, some of them may

follow only a plausible but not reliable thesis. Addition

probabilities in premises only leads to an increase in the degree of probability

conclusion, but does not guarantee a reliable result.

Arguments serve as the foundation on which the argument is built.

If unverified or unverified

dubious facts, the entire course of argumentation is thereby jeopardized.

An experienced critic only needs to cast doubt on one or more

arguments, how the entire system of reasoning collapses and the speaker’s thesis looks

both arbitrary and declarative. The persuasiveness of such reasoning is not

out of the question.

Violation of the specified logical rule leads to two errors.

One of them - accepting a false argument as true - is called "main

error" (error fundamentalis).

The reasons for this error are the use as an argument

took place, reference to non-existent eyewitnesses, etc. Such a misconception

called fundamental because it undermines the most important principle of proof

To convince of the correctness of such a thesis, which is based not on any, but

only on a solid foundation of true positions.

The “basic misconception” in forensic investigation is especially dangerous.

activities where false testimony of interested parties - witnesses or

of the accused - incorrect identification of the person, things or corpse

lead in some cases to miscarriages of justice - punishment of an innocent or

to the acquittal of the actual criminal.

Another error is “anticipation of the reason” (petitio principii). She

lies in the fact that unproven ones are used as arguments, such as

rule, arbitrarily taken provisions: they refer to rumors, to current

opinions or assumptions expressed by someone and present them as arguments, supposedly

substantiating the main thesis. In reality, good quality

Such arguments are only anticipated, but not established with certainty.

The requirement for autonomous justification of arguments means because arguments

must be true, then before justifying the thesis, you should check

the arguments themselves. At the same time, grounds are sought for arguments without referring to

thesis. Otherwise, it may happen that an unproven thesis is used to justify

unproven arguments. This error is called "circle in demo"

(circulus in demonstrando).

The requirement for consistency of arguments follows from the logical idea

according to which anything formally follows from a contradiction - and

the thesis of the proponent, and the antithesis of the opponent. The content of the contradictory

no reason necessarily follows.

In forensic investigative activities, violation of this requirement may

expressed in the fact that with an unqualified approach to substantiating the decision

in a civil case or a conviction in a criminal case

refer to contradictory factual circumstances:

contradictory testimony of witnesses and accused that does not coincide with the facts

expert opinions, etc.

The requirement for sufficiency of arguments is associated with a logical measure - in

in their entirety, the arguments must be such that, according to the rules,

Logic necessarily followed a provable thesis.

The rule of sufficiency of arguments manifests itself in different ways, depending on

from the various types of inferences used in the process of justification. So,

insufficiency of argumentation when referring to analogy is manifested in small

the number of features similar to the phenomena being compared. There will be assimilation

unfounded if it is based on 2-3 isolated similarities.

An inductive generalization will also be unconvincing if the cases studied are not

reflect the characteristics of the sample.

Deviations from the requirements of sufficiency of arguments are inappropriate in any case.

nor in the other direction. The proof is untenable when individual

they are trying to substantiate a broad thesis with facts - a generalization in this case will be

"too or hasty." The reason for such unconvincing generalizations

is explained, as a rule, by insufficient analysis of factual material with

the purpose of selecting from a multitude of facts only reliably established, undoubted

and most convincingly confirming the thesis.

The principle “the more

arguments, the better." It is difficult to consider reasoning convincing when,

trying to prove the thesis at all costs, they increase the number

arguments, believing that they thereby more reliably confirm it. Acting

Thus, it is easy to make the logical fallacy of “excessive

evidence" when, unnoticed, they take clearly contradictory

arguments to a friend. The argumentation in this case will always be illogical or

excessive, according to the principle “he who proves a lot proves nothing.”

In a hasty, not always thoughtful analysis of factual material

There is also the use of such an argument, which not only does not

confirms, but on the contrary, contradicts the speaker’s thesis. In this case

the proponent is said to have used a “suicidal argument.”

The best principle of persuasive reasoning is the rule: better

less is more, i.e. all facts relevant to the thesis under discussion and

provisions must be carefully weighed and selected to obtain

a reliable and convincing system of arguments.

Enough arguments should not be assessed in terms of their number,

and taking into account their weight. At the same time, separate, isolated arguments, like

As a rule, they have little weight, because they allow for different interpretations. Other

case if a number of arguments are used that are interconnected and reinforce

each other. The weight of such a system of arguments will be expressed not by their sum, but

product of components. It is no coincidence that they say that an isolated fact

weighs like a feather, and several related facts crush with the weight of a millstone.

Thus, we have shown the importance of correct argumentation, which

is based, first of all, not on the number of facts, but on their

persuasiveness, brightness, impressive logic.

Logical culture, which is an important part general culture human, includes many components. But the most important of them, connecting, as in an optical focus, all other components, is the ability to reason logically.

Argumentation is the presentation of reasons, or arguments, with the intention of eliciting or strengthening the other party's (audience's) support for a position being advanced. “Argumentation” is also called a set of such arguments.

The purpose of argumentation is the audience's acceptance of the proposed provisions. The intermediate goals of argumentation may be truth and goodness, but its ultimate goal is always to convince the audience of the justice of the position proposed to its attention and, possibly, the action suggested by it. This means that the oppositions “truth - false” and “good - evil” are not central either in the argumentation or, accordingly, in its theory. Arguments can be given not only in support of theses that appear to be true, but also in support of obviously false or vague theses. Not only good and justice can be defended with reason, but also what seems or later turns out to be evil. A theory of argumentation that does not come from the abstract philosophical ideas, and from real practice and ideas about a real audience, must, without discarding the concepts of truth and goodness, put the concepts of “persuasion” and “acceptance” at the center of its attention.

In argumentation there is a distinction thesis - a statement (or system of statements) that the arguing party considers necessary to inspire in the audience, and an argument, or argument - one or more related statements designed to support a thesis.

Argumentation theory explores the variety of ways to persuade an audience through speech. You can influence the beliefs of listeners or spectators not only with the help of speech and verbally expressed arguments, but also in many other ways: gesture, facial expressions, visual images, etc. Even silence in certain cases turns out to be a fairly compelling argument. These methods of influence are studied by psychology and art theory, but are not affected by the theory of argumentation. Beliefs can further be influenced by violence, hypnosis, suggestion, subconscious stimulation, medications, drugs, etc. Psychology deals with these methods of influence, but they clearly go beyond the scope of even the broadly interpreted theory of argumentation.

Argumentation is a speech act that includes a system of statements intended to justify or refute an opinion. It is addressed primarily to the mind of a person who is able, after reasoning, to accept or refute this opinion. Argumentation, therefore, is characterized by the following features: it is always expressed in language, in the form of spoken or written statements, the theory of argumentation examines the interrelationships of these statements, and not the thoughts, ideas and motives that stand behind them; is a purposeful activity whose task is to strengthen or weaken someone’s beliefs; this is a social activity, since it is aimed at another person or other people, it involves dialogue and an active reaction of the other side to the arguments presented; argumentation presupposes the intelligence of those who perceive it, their ability to rationally weigh arguments, accept them or challenge them.

The theory of argumentation, which began to take shape in antiquity, has gone through a long history, rich in ups and downs. Now we can talk about the formation new theory argumentation, emerging at the intersection of logic, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, hermeneutics, rhetoric, eristics, etc. The urgent task is to build a general theory of argumentation that answers questions such as: the nature of argumentation and its boundaries; methods of argumentation; the originality of argumentation in various fields of knowledge and activity, from the natural and human sciences to philosophy, ideology and propaganda; a change in the style of argumentation from one era to another due to changes in the culture of the era and its characteristic style of thinking, etc.

The central concepts of the general theory of argumentation are: persuasion, acceptance (of statements or concepts), audience, method of argumentation, position of the participant in argumentation, dissonance and consonance of positions, truth and value in argumentation, argumentation and evidence, etc.

The general outlines of a new theory of argumentation have emerged in the last two or three decades. It restores what was positive in ancient rhetoric and is sometimes called “new rhetoric” on this basis. It became obvious that the theory of argumentation is not reducible to the logical theory of evidence, which is based on the concept of truth and for which the concepts of persuasion and audience are completely foreign. The theory of argumentation is also not reducible to the methodology of science or the theory of knowledge. Argumentation is a certain human activity that takes place in a specific social context and has as its ultimate goal not knowledge in itself, but a belief in the acceptability of certain provisions. The latter may include not only descriptions of reality, but also assessments, norms, advice, declarations, oaths, promises, etc. The theory of argumentation is not limited to eristics- theories of dispute, because dispute is only one of many possible situations of argumentation.

In the formation of the main ideas of the new theory of argumentation, the works of H. Perelman, G. Johnston, F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and others played an important role. However, even now the theory of argumentation is devoid of a single paradigm or a few competing paradigms and represents there is hardly a visible field of different opinions on the subject of this theory, its main problems and development prospects.

In the theory of argumentation, argumentation is considered from three different positions, complementary to each other: from the point of view of thinking, from the point of view of man and society, and, finally, from the point of view of o r i i. Each of these aspects of consideration has its own specific characteristics and is divided into a number of divisions.

The analysis of argumentation as a human activity of a social nature presupposes the study of the environment in which it unfolds. The narrowest audience includes only the one who puts forward a particular position or opinion and the one whose beliefs he seeks to strengthen or change. A narrow audience might be, for example, two people arguing, or a scientist putting forward a new concept and the scientific community called upon to evaluate it. The broader audience in these cases will be all those who are present at the argument, or all those who are involved in the discussion of the new scientific concept, including non-specialists recruited to one side through propaganda. The study of the social dimension of argumentation also involves analyzing the dependence of the manner of argumentation on general characteristics that particular integral society or community within which it occurs. A typical example is the peculiarities of argumentation in so-called “collectivistic (closed) societies” (totalitarian society, medieval feudal society, etc.) or “collectivistic communities” (“normal science”, army, church, totalitarian political party, etc.).

The study of the historical dimension of argumentation includes three time slices:

Accounting for the historically specific time in which the argumentation takes place and which leaves its fleeting mark on it.

A study of the style of thinking of a historical era and those features of its culture that leave their indelible imprint on any argumentation related to a given era. Such a study allows us to identify five fundamentally different, successive types, or styles, of argumentation: archaic (or primitive) argumentation, ancient argumentation, medieval (or scholastic) argumentation, “classical” argumentation of the New Age and modern argumentation.

Analysis of the changes that argumentation undergoes throughout human history. It is in this context that it becomes possible to compare the argumentation styles of different historical eras and raising questions about the comparability (or incomparability) of these styles, the possible superiority of some of them over others, and, finally, about the reality of historical progress in the field of argumentation.

The theory of argumentation treats argumentation not only as a special technique of persuasion and substantiation of put forward positions, but also as a practical art, which presupposes the ability to select from a variety of possible methods of argumentation the combination and configuration that are effective in a given audience and are determined by the characteristics of the problem under discussion.

Logical culture, which is an important part of the general human culture, includes many components. But the most important of them, connecting, as in an optical focus, all other components, is the ability to reason with reason.

Argumentation is giving reasons,or arguments,with the intention of arousing or strengthening another party's (audience's) support for a position being put forward.

“Argumentation” is also called a set of such arguments.

The purpose of argumentation is the audience’s acceptance of the proposed provisions. The intermediate goals of argumentation may be truth and goodness, but its ultimate goal is always to convince the audience of the justice of the position proposed to its attention and, possibly, the action suggested by it. Arguments can be given not only in support of theses that appear to be true, but also in support of obviously false or vague theses. Not only good and justice can be defended with reason, but also what seems or later turns out to be evil. A theory of argumentation that proceeds not from abstract philosophical ideas, but from real practice and ideas about a real audience, must, without discarding the concepts of truth and goodness, place the concepts of “belief” and “acceptance” at the center of its attention.

In argumentation, a distinction is made between thesis and argument (argument).

Thesis - judgment,which the arguing party considers necessary to instill in the audience.

Argument – ​​one or more interconnected judgments, designed to support a thesis.

Argumentation theory explores the variety of ways to persuade an audience through speech. You can influence the beliefs of listeners or spectators not only with the help of speech and verbally expressed arguments, but also in many other ways: gesture, facial expressions, visual images, etc. Even silence in certain cases turns out to be a fairly compelling argument. These methods of influence are studied by psychology and art theory, but are not affected by the theory of argumentation. Beliefs can further be influenced by violence, hypnosis, suggestion, subconscious stimulation, drugs, etc. Psychology deals with these methods of influence, but they clearly go beyond the scope of even the broadly interpreted theory of argumentation.

The concept of proof and its structure

Evidence is an important quality of correct thinking. Proof is related to argumentation, but they are not identical.

It is said about Isaac Newton that, as a student, he began the study of geometry, as was customary at that time, by reading Euclid's Geometry. Getting acquainted with the formulations of the theorems, he saw that they were valid and did not study the proofs. He was surprised that people expended so much effort to prove the absolutely obvious. Newton later changed his mind about the need for proof in mathematics and other sciences and praised Euclid precisely for the impeccability and rigor of his proofs.

The logical theory of proof speaks of proofs without regard to their field of application.

Proof is a procedure for establishing the truth of a certain judgment by bringing other judgments, the truth of which is already known and from which the first follows necessarily.

The proof differs thesis- a statement that needs to be proven, base(arguments) – those provisions with the help of which the thesis is proven, and logical connection between arguments and thesis. The concept of proof always presupposes, therefore, an indication of the premises on which the thesis is based, and those logical rules by which transformations of statements are carried out during the proof.

A proof is a correct conclusion with true premises..

The logical basis of each proof (its diagram) is logical law.

Proof is always, in a certain sense, coercion.

Example. 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes had no idea about geometry until he was forty. For the first time in his life, reading the formulation of the Pythagorean theorem, he exclaimed: “God, but this is impossible!” But then, step by step, he followed the entire proof, became convinced of its correctness, and resigned himself. There was really nothing else left.

The source of the “coercive force” of evidence is the logical laws of thinking that underlie them. It is these laws, acting independently of the will and desires of a person, that in the process of proof make it necessary to accept some statements after others and discard what is incompatible with what was accepted.

The task of the proof is to comprehensively establish the validity of the thesis being proven.

Since the proof is about complete confirmation, the connection between the arguments and the thesis should be deductive character.

In its form, evidence is a deductive inference or a chain of such inferences., leading from true premises to a proven position.

Usually the proof proceeds in a very abbreviated form.

Example. Seeing a clear sky, we conclude: “The weather will be fine.” This is proof, but extremely condensed. Omitted is the general statement: “Whenever the sky is clear, the weather will be good.” The premise: “The sky is clear” is also omitted. Both of these statements are obvious; there is no need to say them out loud.

Our conversations are full of evidence, but we hardly notice them.

Often, the concept of evidence is given a broader meaning: proof is understood as any procedure for substantiating the truth of a thesis, including both deduction and inductive reasoning, references to the connection of the position being proven with facts, observations, etc. An expansive interpretation of evidence is common in humanities. It is also found in experimental, observation-based reasoning.

As a rule, proof is widely understood in everyday life. To confirm the proposed idea, facts, typical phenomena in a certain respect, etc. are actively used. In this case, of course, there is no deduction; we can only talk about induction. But, nevertheless, the proposed justification is often called evidence. The widespread use of the concept of “evidence” does not in itself lead to misunderstandings. But only on one condition. It is necessary to constantly keep in mind that inductive generalization, the transition from particular facts to general conclusions, does not provide reliable, but only probable knowledge.

The definition of proof includes two central concepts of logic: the concept truth and the concept of logical following. Both of these concepts are not sufficiently clear and, therefore, the concept of evidence defined through them also cannot be classified as clear.

Many statements are neither true nor false, i.e. lie outside the “category of truth”. Assessments, norms, advice, declarations, oaths, promises, etc. do not describe any situations, but indicate what they should be, in what direction they need to be transformed. Good advice, order, etc. characterized as effective or expedient, but not as true.

Example. The statement “Water boils” is true if the water actually boils. The command “Boil the water!” may be expedient, but has no relation to the truth.

The model of proof that all sciences strive to follow to one degree or another is mathematical proof. For a long time it was believed that it represented a clear and indisputable process. In the 20th century, attitudes towards mathematical proof changed. The mathematicians themselves split into groups, each of which adheres to its own interpretation of the proof. The reason for this was, first of all, a change in the understanding of the logical principles underlying the proof. The confidence in their uniqueness and infallibility has disappeared. The controversy over mathematical proof has shown that there are no criteria for proof that do not depend on time, on what needs to be proven, or on those who use the criterion. A mathematical proof is a paradigm (model) of proof in general, but even in mathematics the proof is not absolute and final.

Imre Lákatos, a Hungarian philosopher who moved to England, writes: “Many working mathematicians are confused by the question of what proof is if they cannot prove. On the one hand, they know from experience that evidence can be erroneous, and on the other hand, from their dogmatic deepening into the doctrine, they know that genuine evidence must be infallible. Applied mathematicians usually resolve this dilemma with a shy but strong belief that the proofs of pure mathematicians are “complete” and that they actually prove. Pure mathematicians, however, know better - they respect only the “complete proofs” given by logicians. If you ask them what the use or function of their “incomplete evidence” is, then they are mostly lost” 1 .

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer considered mathematics to be a rather interesting science, but one that did not have any applications, including in physics. He even rejected the very technique of rigorous mathematical proof. Schopenhauer called them mousetraps and cited as an example the proof of the famous Pythagorean theorem. It is, of course, accurate: no one can consider it false. But it represents a completely artificial way of reasoning. Each step is convincing, but by the end of the proof you feel like you have fallen into a mousetrap. The mathematician forces you to admit the validity of the theorem, but you gain no real understanding. It's like being led through a labyrinth. You finally come out of the maze and say to yourself: “Yes, I got out, but I don’t know how I ended up here.” Schopenhauer's position is, of course, a curiosity, but there is a point in it that deserves attention. You need to be able to follow every step of the proof. Otherwise, its parts will lose connection, and it may crumble like a house of cards. But it is equally important to understand the proof as a whole, as a single construction, each part of which is needed in its place. It is precisely this kind of holistic understanding that Schopenhauer, in all likelihood, lacked. As a result, a generally simple proof seemed to him like wandering in a labyrinth: every step of the path is clear, but the general line of movement is shrouded in darkness. Evidence that is not understood as a whole is not convincing. Even if you learn it by heart, sentence by sentence, it will not add anything to your existing knowledge of the subject.

Argumentation presupposes the presence of evidence, but is not limited to it. Proof is the logical basis of argumentation. At the same time, argumentation requires, along with evidence, persuasive influence. The compelling, necessary nature of evidence, its impersonality, constitute the main difference between evidence and argumentation. The argumentation is non-forceful in nature; its correctness cannot be established mechanically. When comparing the results of argumentation and evidence, they sometimes say: “Proved, but not convinced.” (And logicians say differently: “When they can’t prove it, then they argue.”)

In general, if we characterize the relationship between logic and the theory of argumentation, we can say that both of these disciplines study the techniques and forms of organizing thinking. But in accordance with their objectives and methodology, they do this in different ways. Symbolic (i.e. modern formal) logic studies the problem of the validity of our reasoning in the aspect of their evidence, using rigorous mathematical methods. Methods of symbolic logic are effective for solving a range of problems that can be formalized. The theory of argumentation introduces into scientific consideration a wider class of contexts and living speech situations, called discourses, which can only partially be formalized. These are the arguments of philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, history and other humanities. And in this sense, for example, legal argumentation carefully developed over many centuries, based on empirically established judgments and material evidence, is not considered logically sound argumentation.

But we must not forget that argumentation is a rational form of persuasion, since in it the conviction is based on the arguments of reason and logic, and not on emotions, feelings, and especially not on volitional and other influences or coercion. Typically, argumentation takes on a logical character, although the person using it may not know the laws of logic, just as a competent writer cannot accurately name the rules of grammar. In this case, laws and rules are applied unconsciously, automatically, as self-evident norms, since they lead to the right results. But when errors occur in oral reasoning or in writing, then the laws of logic or the rules of grammar make it possible not only to detect them, but also to explain the reasons for their occurrence. This is why logic and grammar play such an important role in the persuasion process.

Since the judgments of logic express the relationship of our thoughts to reality and they are characterized as true or false, logic has priority in rational argumentation. Of course, the most convincing arguments in an argument are ultimately facts, but they must be properly ordered and systematized, and this can only be achieved with the help of logical judgments and inferences. Ultimately, rational belief is achieved through logically correct reasoning in which conclusions are deduced or supported by true premises. If the conclusion follows from the premises according to the rules of logical inference, the reasoning is called deductive. If the conclusion is only confirmed and justified by premises, then the reasoning will not be deductive, but, for example, a conclusion by induction or analogy, or a statistical inference.

Argumentation is the science and art of making your opinion justified and convincing another person of it.

Rationale And belief - These two fundamental principles of argumentation give it duality. On the one hand, the theory of argumentation is a logical discipline based on logical methodology, since proof is a prerequisite when advancing and defending one’s position both in scientific research and in public discussion. On the other hand, argumentation includes a rhetorical component due to the fundamentally communicative nature of proof: we always prove something to someone - a person, an audience.

The most important area of ​​application of argumentation is disputes and discussions. Argumentative debate in antiquity was called dialectics, which meant the art of verbal interaction, the intellectual game of questions and answers. This understanding of dialectics distinguishes it from simple dispute - eristics. A dispute arises on the basis of a confrontation of opinions; it can take place like a game without rules, where there are gaps in reasoning and there is no logical coherence of thoughts. Dialectics, on the contrary, presupposes as necessary condition the presence of logical contacts and connections that give the flow of thought the character of sequential reasoning. The dialectical process is a process aimed at seeking knowledge or reaching agreements.

In addition, Aristotle, who can rightfully be called the founder of not only logic, but also the theory of argumentation, as well as rhetoric, gave dialectics another meaning - the art of plausible (probabilistic) reasoning, which deals not with exact knowledge, but with opinions. Actually, this is exactly what we encounter in discussions where certain points of view are discussed - opinions on certain socially significant or scientific issues.

As we have already noted, the theory of argumentation deals with evidence in a broad sense - as everything that convinces of the truth of any judgment. In this sense argumentation is always dialogical and broader than logical proof(which is predominantly impersonal and monological), since argumentation assimilates not only the “technique of thinking” (the art of logical organization of thought), but also the “technique of persuasion” (the art of coordinating the thoughts, feelings and wills of interlocutors). That is, we can say that in argumentation, emotional, volitional and other actions, which are usually attributed to psychological and pragmatic factors, play no less a role than methods of reasoning. In addition to them, a person’s moral attitudes, social orientations, individual habits, inclinations, etc. have a noticeable influence on conviction.

The following levels of argumentation are distinguished:

• 1) informational - the level of content of the message sent to the addressee; that information (primarily about facts, events, phenomena, conditions) that they strive to bring to his attention;
• 2) logical - level of organization of the message, its construction (consistency and mutual consistency of arguments, their organization into a logically acceptable conclusion, systemic coherence);
• 3) communicative-rhetorical- a set of methods of persuasion and techniques (in particular, forms and styles of speech and emotional influence);
• 4) axiological - systems of values ​​(general cultural, scientific, group) that the arguer and the recipient adhere to and which determine the selection of arguments and methods of argumentation;
• 5) ethical - the level of “practical philosophy”, the application of a person’s moral principles in practice, during a communicative dialogue, the moral acceptability or unacceptability of certain arguments and techniques of argument and discussion;
• 6) aesthetic - level of artistic taste, aesthetics of communication, construction of dialogue as an intellectual game.

The fundamental concept of argumentation theory is the concept justifications. Justification, or giving reasons for an argument or judgment, requires critical steps to reflect on the essence of the subject under discussion. Along with rational arguments in the modern theory of argumentation, the types of justification include arguments based on personal experience, since for an individual it is personal experience- the most natural criterion of truth and persuasiveness, appeals to faith and a number of others.

Argumentation includes evidence (validity in the objective sense) and persuasiveness (validity in the subjective sense). Evidence in science, as a rule, coincides with persuasiveness (though within the framework of one paradigm or another). In real communication, the opposite is often the case - for a number of argumentative practices (dispute, business negotiations), the art of persuasion comes to the fore.

As a result of the above consideration of the phenomenon of argumentation, the following complete definition can be given.

Argumentation - This is a verbal, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a rational subject of the acceptability (unacceptability) of a point of view by putting forward a certain set of statements that are compiled to justify or refute this point of view.

This definition was developed by the Amsterdam school of pragma-dialectics. By shortening and simplifying this (and others similar to it) definition, we get a “working” version: argumentation is a communicative activity aimed at forming or changing the views (beliefs) of another person by presenting rationally based arguments.