Abstract
The principal aim of this book is to set out a way of fully analysing the semantic content of arguments. That, however, is certain to be a difficult and laborious process. I have stated more than once that the fallacies of expression are among the subtlest, and occur most insidiously at the highest level of argumentation.
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.
See https://periodic-table-of-arguments.org/argument-type-identification-procedure/ for the latest version.
- 2.
For the increasingly popular Bayesian view, see the papers in Zenker (2013).
- 3.
How these are understood in practice is another matter. See Shapiro (1991) and Demougin and Fluet (2006).
- 4.
This is precisely the confusion which led Barry Joule to mistakenly destroy a Francis Bacon picture described to him by the artist as ‘the one on the left’ (Joule 2015). Had he been more alert to the possibilities of ambiguity, that work would have been worth many millions of pounds today.
- 5.
It is as well to reiterate at this point that while over time the ‘no deal’ camp came to stand for the position of the UK’s not leaving the European Union unless there was a deal, from which perspective the rejection of a no-deal exit makes perfect sense, the original quotation in Chapter 8 comes from an earlier period in the debate where all major parties were still backing an exit and the rejection of no-deal meant a commitment to a deal, which had not yet been offered and might never be.
- 6.
Note also, that even if this incoherence were missed, the implication that a deal must be accepted would be revealed at the next stage of analysis, and the argument would have to be reconsidered in light of that.
- 7.
See A.C. Graham’s Disputers of the Tao (1989) for a full discussion of such debates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hinton, M. (2021). CAPNA—The Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation. In: Evaluating the Language of Argument. Argumentation Library, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61694-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61694-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61693-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61694-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)