Argumentation is a structured series of speech acts, and norms of good argumentation therefore differ from norms of good argument, such as deductive validity. Some norms of factual argumentation are “folk rules” of conversation (overlapping with Gricean principles), and are vindicated by their tendency to advance the cause of knowledge. Argumentative norms have the prospect of increasing knowledge not simply because conformity with them increases the probability of convincing the audience, but because conformity increases the chance of convincing the audience of truths. The veritistic approach explains why so‐called fallacies have that status, and is otherwise shown to be superior to alternative approaches to good argumentation.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.