Deductivism as an Interpretive Strategy: A Reply to Groarke's Recent Defense of Reconstructive Deductivism

Analogical Argument Schemes and Complex Argument Structure

“…19 Moreover, there is another route you can take. You could deny that an author of argumentation that employs a substantial argument scheme is committed to the logical minimum as presupposition, and claim that the author is rather committed to claims like: "my arguments are good grounds for the standpoint," or "these reasons are good ones," etc., (Godden 2005, makes this point p. 179).…”

“…There are many problems with deductivism (Godden 2005) 12 , and one reason against deductivism is that arguments with deductive architecture only preserve truth and certainty, they fail to preserve plausibility, probability and likelihood (Godden 2005). 13 Another problem are those arguments that are 12 Several of them are advanced by Godden (2005) and refers to Govier.…”

“…There are many problems with deductivism (Godden 2005) 12 , and one reason against deductivism is that arguments with deductive architecture only preserve truth and certainty, they fail to preserve plausibility, probability and likelihood (Godden 2005). 13 Another problem are those arguments that are 12 Several of them are advanced by Godden (2005) and refers to Govier. The standard objections are: (i) deductivism prevents contrasting degrees of evidential support between premises and conclusions; (ii) deductivism fails to provide an account of fallacies, or the account it provides is a faulty account of fallacies; (iii) deductivism does not do justice to the structure of natural language arguments.…”

Denying Antecedents and Affirming Consequents: The State of the Art

“…Granting that DA and AC are deductively invalid forms of argument, we allow that there can, nevertheless, be cogent, yet invalid forms of argument. Some invalid arguments have more probative merit than others, and sometimes the degree of probative strength provided by an invalid argument can meet some situationally appropriate standard of evidence (Godden, 2005). We proceed to explore the cogency of DA and AC arguments by detailing the conditions on which their probative merits depend.…”

Deduction without Dogmas:The Case of Moral Analogical Argumentation

“…Deductivism, as defended by argumentation theorists such as Leo Groarke (1999) or Dale Jacquette (1996,2009), is the view that in order to determine whether an argument is good or bad, we must make it fit a deductively valid argument schema. As David Godden (2005) has pointed out, deductivism involves both a thesis on the interpretation of natural language arguments (interpretative deductivism) and a thesis on the standard of argument goodness (evaluative deductivism). These two theses are related; for the deductivist, we must interpret natural language arguments so as to make them fit deductively valid schemas because this is a means to show that their conclusions cannot be false if their corresponding premises are true.…”