Tras la diferencia entre argumentación y explicación

  1. Gascón, José Ángel 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Journal:
Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

ISSN: 0495-4548

Year of publication: 2023

Volume: 38

Issue: 1

Pages: 87-105

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1387/THEORIA.23752 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Arguments and explanations are two kinds of speech that have not always been properly distinguished. Currently, emphasis has been placed, both in the pedagogy of science and in argumentation studies, on the necessity of differentiating them in order to properly grasp the nature of explanations and arguments. Demarcation criteria between both of them have been most explicitly proposed in argumentation theory. However, here I will argue that the criteria that are typically used in argumentation theory to distinguish between an argument and an explanation (which I call the “standard distinction”) suffer from several problems. On the one hand, in certain relevant cases the criteria provide no guidance or yield questionable results. On the other hand, the criteria of distinction have been limited to the domain of theoretical argumentation, ignoring the peculiarities of the practical domain.

Bibliographic References

  • Alvarez, M. (2010). Kinds of reasons: An essay in the philosophy of action. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Brem, S. K. & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24(4), 573-604.
  • Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the difference between explanation and argument matters to science education. Science & Education, 25(3-4), 251-275.
  • Copi, I. M. & Cohen, C. (2007). Introducción a la lógica. México: Limusa.
  • Dufour, M. (2017). Argument or explanation: Who is to decide? Informal Logic, 37(1), 21-39.
  • Gascón, J. A. (2021). Why did you really do it? Human reasoning and reasons for action. Organon F, 28(4), 845-866.
  • Goodwin, J. (2007). Argument has no function. Informal Logic, 27(1), 69-90.
  • Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  • Govier, T. (2018). Reasons why arguments and explanations are different. En Problems in argument analysis and evaluation (2ª ed., pp. 242-270). Windsor, CA: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
  • Hempel, C. G. & Oppenheim, p. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
  • Johnson, R. H. & Blair, J. A. (1994). Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Marraud, H. (2020). En buena lógica: Una introducción a la teoría de la argumentación. Guadalajara, MX: Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara.
  • Mayes, G. R. (2010). Argument-explanation complementarity and the structure of informal reasoning. Informal Logic, 30(1), 92-111.
  • Mayes, G. R. (2011). Beware the convincing explanation. Think, 10(28), 17-26.
  • McKeon, M. W. (2013). On the rationale for distinguishing arguments from explanations. Argumentation, 27(3), 283-303.
  • Osborne, J. F. & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.
  • Salmon, M., Jeffrey, R. C. & Greeno, J. G. (1971). Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Vega Reñón, L. & Olmos, p. (Eds.). (2012). Compendio de lógica, argumentación y retórica. Madrid: Trotta.
  • von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Data source: Dialnet