Argumentation

Abstract This paper addresses the degree to which straw man arguments are perceived as persuasive by their targets. A review of the literature shows that there is a consensus on the topic, stipulating that using a straw man argument is unlikely to change a person’s views. However, the experimental evidence we have so far on the straw man fallacy only covers third-person scenarios, i.e., when participants act as an audience observing an argumentative exchange between others. This study fills this gap by discussing the second-person straw man, i.e., when the audience for the argument is the target of the straw man representation. It shows that (1) the straw man is indeed not a persuasive tactic, and (2) the political orientation of the statements and the participants also plays a role.

AbstractThis paper offers a review of the argumentation-theoretical literature on metaphor in argumentative discourse. Two methodologies are combined: the pragma-dialectical theory is used to study the argumentative functions attributed to metaphor, and distinctions made in metaphor theory and the three-dimensional model of metaphor are used to compare the conceptions of metaphor taken as starting point in the reviewed literature. An overview is provided of all types of metaphors distinguished and their possible argumentative functions. The study reveals that not all possible argumentative functions of metaphor have been taken into account, such as the role of conventional direct metaphors in standpoint and starting point. Novel direct metaphor as part of an analogy argument has received most attention, while indirect metaphor can constitute argumentative moves as well, such as the introduction of a standpoint, starting point or connection premise. The overview also shows that certain combinations of variables seem to be impossible of unlikely to occur. These results have a bearing on the analysis of metaphors in argumentative discourse and show the omission in current studies of metaphor. Being aware of these dimensions of metaphor ánd of its potential in argumentation would enrich argumentation studies and metaphor studies alike.

In the preface of Defending Copernicus and Galileo, Finocchiaro (2010) carefully explains how the book differs from the other books he has written on Galileo so far. Regarding the subject matter, the new book partially overlaps with The Galileo Affair: A