摘要
论证有两种类型:一是指作为结果的论证,二是指作为过程的论证。哈贝马斯把前者称为"论证",后者称为"论辩"。然而,20世纪上半叶,论证结构被理想化了。数学证明被人们当作成功论证的范式,论证完全被从自然语言的语境中抽象出来,论证研究者们主要关注的是作为结果的论证。事实上,从20世纪40年代开始,斯特劳森、澳斯汀、塞尔等哲学家就开始关注论证评价的语用要素。遗憾的是,他们的工作对蒙太古及其追随者们发展起来的形式语义学影响极小。基于非形式逻辑的论证评价被宣称为针对日常生活中真实论证的分析评价模型,但在这个模型中,论证仍然被当作结果而非过程来处理。从这个意义上讲,非形式逻辑对真实论证的处理不是成功的。
There are two types of argument: one is the argument as product and another as process. Habermas called the former'argument' and the latter'argumentation'. In the first half of the 20th century, however, the structures of argument had mainly been idealized, so mathematical proofs had been taken as a paradigm of successful argument. Arguments were entirely abstracted away from the context of natural language. Beginning in 1940s, as a matter of fact, philosophers such as Strawson, Austin, Searle et al focused on the pragmatic elements in assessing arguments. It is a pity that their works had little developed on the formal semantics by Richard Montague and his followers. The aim of argument evaluation model based on informal logic is alleged to assess a real argument in everyday life, but an argument is treated as a product rather than a process. Therefore, informal logical model is not successful while evaluating a real argument.
出处
《学术研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2007年第9期73-79,共7页
Academic Research
基金
2006年国家社科基金项目"基于非形式逻辑的法律论证研究"(06BZX049)
2004年广东省高校人文社会科学重大项目"人文社会科学中的逻辑方法研究"(04ZD72001)的研究成果
