The main objectives of the course are to provide:
The theory of argumentation is currently a field of multi- and interdisciplinary studies. Its focus is the argumentative discourse: a conversation in which we seek to account for something to someone and/or before some other, with the aim of achieving their understanding and gain their assent.
The subject of Argumentation theory: prospects and problems is intended to facilitate the access and transit, and eventually the domain of this broad and rough terrain. With this purpose, it offers a helpful map according to four "cardinal points" considered as thematic blocks
I. The current field of argumentation.
Its learning goal is to introduce students in this field of studies through the consideration of some basic assumptions and main current approaches. My assumptions are: (i) a capital notion of argumentative practice; (ii) three ontological constituents of argumentation: arguers as argumentative agents, arguing as procedure and process in some context and framework, and argument as a product.
The approaches are those corresponding to classical endogenous perspectives within the Argumentation Theory tradition (logic, dialectic, rhetoric), as well as the new exogenous approaches (from his pragmatic background and following his socio-institutional projections in the public sphere of discourse).
II. Good argument and its perspectives.
Its objective is to study the well-founded or accredited as solid arguments and, in general, the good argumentation in the light of the criteria and standards proposed by the three traditional perspectives on the field.
III. The fallacies and their problems of detection and treatment.
Its aim is to be in a certain way complementary to the earlier to deal with the discourse that passes, or you want to masquerade, by a good argument when in fact it is a pseudo-argument, or a failed and even fraudulent argument. Also in this case, the points of view and the criteria in this regard can be associated with the above perspectives.
IV. The new perspective socio-institutional of public discourse.
Its objective is to take charge of a new perspective on the speech that, without fail to take certain ancient roots, has been developed in the heat of various programs (for example, ethical, socio-institutional or political philosophy) concerned with paradigmatic issues, such as the collective deliberation, and with the health and rationality of the public discourse.
The discussion of these topics will run according to the following program content.
I. The current field of argumentation.
1. The revival of studies of argument in the second half of the twentieth century. 2. An overview of the field of argumentation.3. Assumptions and theoretical perspectives. A warning about perspectivism. 4. Arguers, arguing and argument.
II. The good argumentation and its prospects.
5. From a good argument to arguing well 6. The logical point of view on the sound argument. 7. The dialectical point of view of arguing well. 8. The rhetorical point of view about the good argumentative resources. Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse.
III. The fallacies and their problems of detection and treatment.
9. Preliminary notions: fallacies, sophisms and paralogisms. 10. The logical perspective on the fallacies. 11. The dialectical perspective on the fallacies. 12. The rhetorical perspective about the fallacies.
IV The new social-institutional perspective on public discourse
13. The takeoff of the interest in the public sphere of discourse. 14. Mass media communication, persuasion and manipulation of the speech. 15. Deliberation as a paradigm.
* Luis Vega & Paula Olmos, Eds. (2011). Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica. Madrid: Trotta, 20122nd.
* Frans H. van Eemeren et al. Eds. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
BS6. To have a strong knowledge base that allows students to innovate in the development and/or implementation of ideas, especially for research purposes.
BS7. The ability to apply the knowledge they have acquired and their ability to solve problems in new or little known areas within wider (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to their field of study.
BS8. The ability to integrate knowledge and deal with the complexities of forming opinions based on incomplete or limited information, including reflections on social responsabilities and ethics.
BS9. The ability to clearly and unambiguously communicate conclusions and the knowledge and reasons behind them to specialized and non-specialized audiences.
BS10. Learning skills to carry out further studies in a self-directed and autonomous way.
GS1. Students should be able to produce readable, detailed and technically correct documents and research work that meets the current international standards for the disciplines.
SS1. The ability to identify traditional and current knowledge specific to the field of logic and philosophy of science, as well as the different trends of thought and tradition involved.
SS2. Mastery of the analytical tools provided by philosophy to facilitate the clear identification of the semantic, logical, epistemological, ontological, axiological and ethical factors that are present in science and technology.
SS3. The ability to assess disputes, considering and overviewing alternatives to decide upon the better justified and reasoned parts.
SS4. To be able to identify arguments as they appear in texts, dialogues and discussions, assessing their accuracy, acceptability and persuasiveness.
There are complementary courses that are highly recommended. In particular, those involved in the analyses and evaluation of arguments should follow Concepts and techniques for the analysis of arguments; those interested in the sphere of public discourse, Argumentation in social and institutional contexts; and those interested in fallacious argumentation, Fallacies.
In any case, it is good to leaf through some of the major journals in this area, such as: Informal Logic (1984), Argumentation (1987), Argumentation and Advocacy (1988), Argumentation et Analyse du Discours (2008), Cogency (2009), Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación (2011), Journal of Argumentation in Context (2012).