A Practical Reasoning Approach to Legal Doctrine

Newell, Sara E.; Rieke, Richard D.

doi:10.1080/00028533.1986.11951322

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientists and medical doctors often interpret the results of tests and procedures as objective. These communities expect that as the evidence is acquired and the explanations are tested through argument, the social "truth" will emerge (Hollihan, Riley, & Freadhoff, 1986;Newell & Rieke, 1986).…”

Section: Research Question Twomentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving arguments accurately

Allen

Burrell

1990

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This empirical investigation examined how ordinary language users resolved disagreements over the solutions to categorical syllogisms. Forty-six participants completed puzzles in logic. After completing the puzzles, participants were then randomly paired into 23 to compare their answers and to resolve 159 disagreements. Results indicate that the most frequently used strategies for resolving disagreements centered on: (a) arguing over the merits of the position (47% of the time) and (b) appealing to past solutions as a means of addressing current disputes (28% of the time). In addition, the data revealed that the most frequently used strategy (arguing the merits of the positions) was no more effective than random choice (52% increase in correct solutions) while the strategy of appealing to past solutions significantly aided dyads in reaching correct solutions (70% increase in correct solutions).KEY WORDS: Resolving argument, logic, rationality, discourse, syllogisms.Argumentation involves two general processes: an internal or intrapersonal decision-making procedure, and an external process of social interaction where reasons are provided to persuade others. Scholars studying argumentation are interested in describing how ordinary and specialized actors use these two processes to draw conclusions and resolve disagreements. In this empirical investigation, we examined how an individual's conclusions were tested during social interaction. We examined how ordinary language users resolved disagreements about the solutions to categorical syllogisms.One test of any individually reasoned conclusion is the acceptability of the conclusion after interaction with others. The arguer will not always convince others or be convinced by others. Many arguments between individuals remain unresolved. During the argumentation process, individuals consider the interests, concerns, and reasoning of others in deciding whether or not to modify their positions.Research by Jacobs, Jackson, Allen, and Patrell (1985) showed that when individuals were solving abstract categorical syllogisms, they could recognize a valid conclusion argued for by others even when their initial conclusion was incorrect. Participants in this research had no prior experience with formal logic or with categorical syllogisms.

show abstract

Section: Research Question Twomentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving arguments accurately

Allen

Burrell

1990

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a series of previous essays, I have suggested that courts be viewed from the perspective of an evolving group interaction (Werling and Rieke, 1985;Newell and Rieke, 1986;Rieke, 1986Rieke, , 1987. Briefly, I have claimed that courts are open systems, receiving energy (information, rhetoric, etc.)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The judicial dialogue

Rieke

1991

Argumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of theoretical positions are emerging to explain the judicial process from such perspectives as hermeneutics, semiotics, critical theory and argumentation/ rhetoric. They ask such questions as these: What is the source of judicial authority? How do judges arrive at their decisions? By what logic are decisions to be tested? In this essay I argue that a focus on decisions and their justifications alone masks the broader process in which judges, along with all the other relevant groups, engage in a continuing and evolving dialogue to structure their normative universe through the complementary processes of dialectic and rhetoric. Contemporary concepts of argumentation can serve to analyze this process critically.

show abstract

Toulmin’s Argumentation Model

Feteris

1999

Argumentation Library

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Practical Reasoning Approach to Legal Doctrine

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Resolving arguments accurately

Resolving arguments accurately

The judicial dialogue

Toulmin’s Argumentation Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About