Argumentation, Education and Reasoning 

ROBERTW. BINKLEY The University a/Western Ontario 

Key words: logic, reasoning, arguing, argumentation, argumentation theory, reckoning, 
rhetoric, dialogue. 
Abstract: To find the place of Argumentation (argumentation theory) in education one must 
sort out its relationship to Logic. The key point is that the two stand in different relations to 
reasoning. Logic is the normative study of reasoning, and provides the standards for correct 
reasoning. Argumentation studies the activity of arguing, and is related to reasoning only in 
that arguing involves the attempt to get an audience to reason in a certain way; correctness is 
not essential. 

Reasoning is here understood as the process of organizing one's thoughts into a structure 
here called a reckoning. This may be done privately by an individual, or several people may 
collaborate on a reasoning project, in which case there occurs the social activity of dialogue. 
Confusion between dialogue and arguing is a source of confusion between Logic and 
Argumentation. 

Reasoning and dialogue on the one hand, and arguing on the other, are both worthwhile, and 
education in Logic and Argumentation can help people to do them better. But the educating 
should be done in a way that maintains the distinction between them. 

1. Introduction 

You will have noticed that for the title of my paper I have taken the title of our 
conference, "Argumentation and Education", and added a word-"Reasoning", 
and perhaps the best way to explain why I have done that is to confess openly 
here at the outset that I do not properly belong in the field of Argumentation at 
all; I have merely been swept up into it, and, like Dorothy newly arrived in Oz, 
wander about, gaping at the many marvels I encounter while searching for the 
Wizard. 

In this way I have come to understand that by the word "Argumentation" 
(with a capital "A") we mean the study of argument, where "argument" is 
understood not in the logician's sense of a premise-conclusion combination, but 
rather in the sense of arguing, that is, the interpersonal activity that goes on when 
people argue. 

I have also encountered an alternative terminology which uses 
"argumentation" (lower case "a") to refer to the arguing activity itself, and uses 
"argumentation theory" to name the study of it. But either way, I take it that it is 
argumentation theory, Argumentation with a capital "A", the relationship of 
which to Education is the subject of our conference. 

I have further found Argumentation to be a branch of Rhetoric which, by 
one definition, is "the Art and Science of the effective use of language" (Brooks 
& Warren, 1970: 6), and this explains why Argumentation comes into 
undergraduate university Education (the only kind of Education I shall be 
discussing) as the subject of courses taught in academic units bearing the name of 
Rhetoric, or related names such as Speech or Communication or Composition. 

Informal Logic Vol. 17, No.2 (Spring 1995): 127-143 © Informal Logic 1995 



128 Robert W. Binkley 

Since my own university has no such academic unit, and offers no such courses, I 
have unfortunately been denied direct access to the Argumentation industry in 
Education, and have had to study it from a distance. 

My own academic field and unit has been Philosophy, and this forms the 
Kansas background, so to speak, for my adventures in Oz. In some ways this is 
not at all a good background for the purpose, for as you know, whenever 
philosophers learn that something is mixed up with Rhetoric they will hear 
ancestral voices prophesying war, and will view the thing with a most pronounced 
and nervous suspicion. Plato in the Gorgias is perhaps the most prominent 
ancestor in this connection. 

I will return to the ancestral voices below, but first I should point out that 
within Philosophy I have, among other things, worked in the area of Logic, both 
Formal and especially Informal, and this has relieved my philosopher's concern to 
some extent by drawing my attention to the close and complex interrelationships 
which have connected Logic and Rhetoric, including Argumentation, throughout 
their histories. 

But in spite of these close relationships, and retaining at least some respect 
for the ancestors, I have concluded that Logic and Argumentation really are 
distinct disciplines; they study different objects, and serve different functions in 
Education. In a nutshell, my view is that while Argumentation studies the activity 
of arguing, and aims to teach students how to argue better, Logic studies the 
process of reasoning. and aims to teach students how to reason better. But to 
make this claim intelligible I need first of all to develop a suitable concept of 
reasoning, and that is why I have added that word to my title. 

My plan, accordingly, is, first look a bit more closely at the ancestral 
warnings. Then I will sketch the outlines of this concept of reasoning. Along with 
it I shall propose a rather broad understanding of Logic as the normative science 
that sets the standards for correct and adequate reasoning. And to provide the 
proper comparison with arguing I will suggest a concept of dialogue. as the form 
of social interaction involved when people collaborate on a reasoning project. 

Armed with these notions, I will then tum to Argumentation, and the activity 
which it studies. I will discover arguing to be very similar to dialogue in that it is 
a social activity involved with reasoning. But it is involved in its own special way, 
and I will find important differences between arguing and dialogue, difference 
which confirm the ancestral concerns. I will then conclude with a few 
observations about the relation of all this to undergraduate Education. 

2. Philosophy and Rhetoric 

Philosophy has traditionally wanted to distance itself from Rhetoric. I shall not 
here attempt any general survey of this long and tangled history, but instead, to 
suggest the general attitude, I shall just mention two typical and somewhat 
unflattering philosopher's views of Rhetoric. They can be put in the form of two 
analogies. 



Argument, Education and Reasoning 129 

2. J The donut shop 

The first I call the analogy of the donut shop. It is to be found in Plato's Gorgias. 
(465 c-d) where, you will recall, Socrates employed the following analogy: 
Rhetoric, he said, stands to the Soul as Cookery to the Body. But both Rhetoric 
and Cookery are mere arts of flattery; they aim at pleasure rather than the true 
good. The corresponding arts aiming at the good are Justice in the case of the 
Soul and Medicine in the case of the Body. Therefore, as I construe it, to ask the 
philosopher to enter into Rhetoric, is like asking the nutritionally well-informed to 
abandon the health food store for the donut shop. 

Enlarging upon this just a bit, and equating the Good and the True, as I 
believe in a Platonic spirit we may, we arrive at this view: Philosophy (and so 
Science), though often painful, pursue the Truth; Rhetoric provides only a cheap, 
easy and pleasant, but in the end unsatisfactory, imitation of that pursuit. 

2.2 Packaging 

The second analogy I call the analogy of packaging. Consider gift giving, for 
example: I wish for some reason to give someone a present, but often I do not just 
hand the thing over; instead, convention dictates that I wrap it up in pretty paper 
and ribbons. I deliver this package to the recipient who then unwraps it to get at 
the gift itself. In other cases, packaging may serve more utilitarian purposes, such 
as the safe transmission of the object through the postal system. Or again, it may 
serve ulterior purposes, as when commercial products are packaged so as to seem 
bigger and better than they really are. 

The point of the analogy is that, as viewed by Philosophy, Rhetoric is merely 
an art of gift wrapping or packaging-the packing may indeed be pleasant and 
useful in many ways, but it is still the thing inside that is of real value and 
importance. 

Philosophers are not the only ones who view Rhetoric in this way; indeed, in 
the present day when one encounters the word "rhetoric" it is usually used against 
some such background as this analogy, as when people speak of stripping away 
or cutting through the rhetoric of some politician's speech in order to get at the 
substance. 

And this packaging notion connects, I believe, with an older tradition of 
viewing Rhetoric as a sort of long-winded Logic. Here is an example from the 
16th century, Thomas Wilson's The Rule of Reason, containing the Art of Logic, 
set forth in English (Wilson, 1970),1 which was the first Logic textbook in the 
English language. In his introduction, Wilson provides a description in verse of 
the seven liberal arts; here is what he says about the Trivium, the part which 
contains Grammar, and also both Logic and Rhetoric: 

Grammar doth teach to utter words, 
To speak both apt and plain, 

Logic by art sets forth the truth, 
And doth tell us what is vain. 



130 Robert W Binkley 

Rhetoric at large paints well the cause, 
And makes that seem right gay, 

Which Logic spake but at a word, 
And taught as by the way. 

Rhetoric, we see, takes what Logic gives, and packages it, applying gay 
colours, and also doing this at large, thus providing the padding needed for safe 
shipment. A page later, in the same vein, Wilson cites Zeno's famous 
characterization of the difference between Logic and Rhetoric: 

... Zeno being asked the difference between Logic and Rhetoric, made answer 
by Demonstration of his Hand, declaring that when his hand was closed, it 
resembled Logic, when it was open and stretched out, it was like Rhetoric? 

3. Reasoning and Logic 

Reasoning, in the sense I have in mind, is an intellectual process, and Logic is the 
discipline that studies it, not descriptively, as psychology or cognitive science 
might study it, but normatively; Logic supplies the standards by which the 
correctness and adequacy of reasoning is assessed. I shall first try to characterize 
this process, and then say a bit about the standards. 

3. J Reasoning as building a reckoning 

Reasoning, I want to suggest, is not at all a mechanical process of working 
through an algorithm, like doing a problem in long division or running through a 
chain of syllogisms. It is not like cooking with a recipe. It is instead a creative 
process, one of building, of constructing, of making-like painting a picture, 
writing a poem or a computer program, composing a piece of music, building a 
garden shed. It is, I hold, the creating of a certain kind of abstract structure. The 
ingredients for this structure are mental-your thoughts, beliefs, intentions, etc., 
both old and new. The structure is a configuration of these, an arrangement of 
them in interconnected premise-conclusion combinations. When you have 
finished building your structure your thoughts will be organized in a certain way. 

I call such a structure a reckoning,3 using this word to refer to the product of 
the operation, not the producing of it. Think of it as like the listing of credits and 
debits that come with a credit card bill, only more complicated and multi-
dimensional. To reason, then, is to construct a reckoning. The reckoning is your 
thoughts, or some subset of them as brought into some kind of systematic order. 

A good way of picturing a reckoning is provided by the arrow diagram as 
studied in Informal Logic. This is simply a diagram in which arrows proceed from 
symbols representing reasons to symbols representing what they are reasons for. I 
want something a little richer than this, though, since I allow not only arrows 
leading from reasons to what they are reasons for, but also arrows of a different 
type proceeding from reasons to what they are reasons against. The kind of 
reckoning I have in mind is a total reckoning, one that includes all the pros and 
cons. 



Argument, Education and Reasoning 131 

Of course, the considerations which are the reasons may come individually 
or in bundles. Further, any consideration, or bundle of them, may have many 
arrows proceeding from it as well as many aiming at it. And arrows can aim at 
other arrows too, when there are reasons why some other reasons do or do not 
support what they are supposed to. Diagrams can show all this. 

Of course, not just any reckoning structure will be acceptable; there are two 
conditions that must be met. First, the reasoning must be logically correct; that is, 
every arrow must truly lend the support claimed for it. Second, the reckoning 
must be logically adequate; it must fulfill the purpose for which the reasoning was 
undertaken. 

There is an analogy here to English composition. In writing, the text you 
produce must first conform to various standards of grammatical and 
orthographical correctness. Second, it must be adequate to the purpose for which 
it was composed--a novel, a philosophical essay, a letter to your mother, or 
whatever. 

And, just as in composition, the method used to compose a reckoning is 
generally one of trial and error; one throws in something that seems likely to 
work, checks the result against the standards, and tries again. But here the 
standards come from Logic. 

3.2 Logic in the broad sense 

When I speak of Logic determining the standards of correctness and adequacy for 
reasoning I mean Logic in a very broad sense, though I believe still a legitimate 
one. I mean it to include much more than formal or deductive logic, syllogism, 
propositional and predicate logic, etc., as found in the textbooks. 

Many writers now restrict the word "logic" to this narrow formal sense. One 
example is Gilbert Harman in his insightful discussion of reasoning in Change in 
View (Harman, 1986).· Those who wish to stick to this narrow sense of "Logic" 
will have to find some other phrase for my notion; for example, they might call it 
"Normative Epistemology." 

In invoking this broad conception of Logic, I revert to an earlier period in 
the history of the subject, the 17th and 18th centuries, a period which, to be sure, is 
now commonly regarded as a low point in the history ofJormallogic.4 Consider, 
for example, the very influential 17th century Port-Royal Logic, the actual title of 
which translates to, 

Logic or the Art of Thinking: Containing, besides the common Rules, several 
new Observations concerning the Formation of the Judgment ([Arnauld and 
Nicole], 1662). 

I think it fair to say that the "thinking", and the "formation of judgment" 
referred to here are very much the same thing as my "reasoning". Or consider 
Isaac Watts in the next century, 1725, whose title makes even more explicit the 
idea of Logic as setting correctness and adequacy standards for reasoning: 



132 Robert W Binkley 

Logick: or the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry after Truth, with a Variety of 
Rules to guard against Error, in the Affairs of Religion and Human Life as well 
as in the Sciences (Watts, 1775). 

I shall mention just two of the respects in which this broad conception goes 
beyond conventional formal logic: 

3.2.1 Induction and degrees of strength 

Among other things, I mean Logic to include inductive logic, and this means that 
it does not deal only with the black and white categories of True and False, Valid 
and Invalid; there are also all the grays. Each element of a reckoning has 
associated with it a degree of strength. In the case of a consideration, this is the 
degree of confidence I, the reasoner, have in it. In the case of an arrow there is the 
degree to which I take the items at the tail to support, or refute, the item at the 
head. 

3.2.2 Action and practical reasoning 

A second feature of this broad sense of Logic can be put in Kantian terms: it 
covers not only theoretical but also practical reason. That is, it includes reasoning 
to a decision about what to do as well as reasoning to a judgment about what is 
the case. This inclusion of practical reason is important not only because so much 
of our reasoning is aimed ultimately at a practical purpose, but also, as we will 
see, because even our theoretical reasoning itself is subject in certain respects to 
the verdicts of practical reason. 

3.3 Correctness and adequacy 

3 .3.1 Correctness 

The correctness of a reckoning consists in each arrow truly lending the degree of 
support which is claimed for it. The key rule is formulated by Watts: 

If we proportion our assent in all things to the degree of evidence, we do the 
utmost that human nature is capable of in a rational way to secure itself from 
error (Watts, 1775: 177). 

That is to say, the degree of confidence in supported items must be properly 
related to the strengths of the items giving support taken together with the 
strengths of the arguments through which they give support. Because of the 
interconnections in a reckoning, a change in the strength of one element will most 
likely have ramifications throughout the reckoning, requiring changes for many 
other elements. 

3.3.2 Ideal and human reasoning 

Before considering the adequacy condition I must draw a distinction, which, 
though sometimes overlooked is of fundamental importance, between a logically 
ideal reasoner and us poor human reasoners. Ideally, reasoning takes no time and 

.. 



Argument, Education and Reasoning 133 

is cost free; for us this is not so. The ideal reasoner has the entire reckoning in 
mind at once; we must scan it piece by piece. Ideally, we would be totally clear 
about what information we already have and what we do not; we, with our 
defective memory and wandering attention, must be often uncertain even about 
that The ideal reasoner can include all logical consequences in a perhaps infinite 
reckoning; we must observe what Harman calls the "Clutter Avoidance" 
principle--not cluttering one's mind with trivialities (Harman, 1986: 12). Ideally, 
all our ideas would be sharply defined, and could be exactly expressed in our 
language; actually, our ideas are fuzzy and confused, and our language gives us 
only rough means of expressing them. Again, when the ideal reasoner changes 
some feature of a reckoning the necessary adjustments are made instantly through 
the whole reckoning; for us, this is adjustment is hit or miss. And so on. 

Because of these limitations, we humans must usually resort to shortcuts, 
simplifications, approximations and heuristics. And this makes a difference to the 
types of reasoning we undertake, and so to the conditions of adequacy. It also 
gives us more things to reason about, since the question of which shortcuts, etc., 
to employ may itself have to be addressed by reasoning. 

3.3.3 Adequacy and the aims of reasoning 

In addition to being logically correct, a reckoning must be logically adequate to 
the purpose for which the reasoning is undertaken, and this is another dimension 
of the breadth of Logic as I conceive it. . 

Reasoning will always begin with some body of already accumulated 
information, perhaps already structured into a partially completed reckoning. This 
will be true even of our first reasoning, which will begin with information 
acquired by processes other than reasoning. 

I call this body of information the database. There may actually be more to it 
than information strictly speaking since in view of the possibility of practical 
reasoning, the database may contain intentions, commitments, preferences as well 
as practical, even ethical, principles. 

This database may be both supplemented and truncated hypothetically; this 
happens when I reason from a database differing in some respect from my own. 
Such reasoning can serve many useful purposes, but to simplify things I shall here 
pass over all forms of hypothetical reasoning, and consider just the case in which 
one reasons for real on the basis of the data one has, or thinks one has. 

The purpose of reasoning will always, in one way or another, be to add to or 
in some other way to modify the database. The adequacy of the reasoning will 
depend on the exact purpose for which the reasoning was undertaken. There are 
three main types of case: 

To improve the database. A common occasion for reasoning is the arrival of 
new information, either sought or unsought The project is then to incorporate this 
new information into the database, making such further adjustments as may be 
required. 



134 Robert W. Binkley 

A special case of this is when I have no new information, but suspect that 
my existing database may be defective in some way, and want to correct it. 

In both these cases, the reasoning will take the form of structuring all or part 
of the database into a reckoning, and the test of adequacy will be the coherence of 
the resulting database. Even ideal reasoners may have new information thrust 
upon them, and so will have to engage in this type of reasoning. 

To answer a question. In this case we reason in order to derive from our 
database an answer to a question we have raised. The question may be theoretical 
or practical. Here, adequate reasoning will generate a reckoning that extends the 
database to include an answer to the question, a reckoning in which all relevant 
possible extensions have been developed. Ideal reasoners would have no need for 
this type of reasoning since they would already have worked out the answers to 
all the questions for which their databases implied answers. 

Meta-reasoning. It is, of course, possible to reason about one's reasoning. 
There can, for example, be practical reasoning about how to conduct one's 
reasoning. Should one start reasoning about an issue at all, or just guess? Should 
one continue to reason or settle for the results reached so far? Should one use this 
or that approximation or shortcut? These are all practical issues, and reasoning 
about them will take the form of balancing the costs of reasoning in various ways 
against the benefits. This is a place where practical reason can dictate to 
theoretical reason. 

And' at another level, there can be reasoning about what are the proper 
standards for reasoning. Ideal reasoners already know this, of course, but the rest 
of us, even logicians, may find ourselves caught up in it on occasion. 

It should be noted that while these meta-issues can be reasoned about, they 
don't always have to be. Reasoning can start, stop and switch in an unreasoned 
way, and anyhow, at some point it must simply commence. 

3.4 Dialogue 

I have so far spoken of reasoning as a reckoning building project to be carried out 
by a single reasoner, but of course it is also possible for two or more individuals 
to collaborate in constructing a common reckoning. This could be compared, say, 
to several authors collaborating on the writing of a book. It will require a form of 
communication between the reasoners which I call dialogue. 

For a common reckoning, the database too must be shared, at least in those 
parts which figure in the reckoning. If those engaged in dialogue find that they 
cannot build a common reckoning because of differences in their databases, then 
they must resolve those differences or abandon dialogue. Thus the procedure 
which Locke, though not we, would call argumentum ad hominem, that in which 
you "press a man with Consequences drawn from his own Principles or 
Concessions," is not dialogue unless you yourself accept those principles and 
concessions. (Locke, 1985: 686) 



Argument, Education and Reasoning 135 

It must be remembered as well that what was said before about human 
reasoning, shortcuts and approximations, and so on, applies also to dialogue; 
those engaged in dialogue may reasonably settle for approximate agreement in 
database. 

Not only must there be, or come to be, a common database for dialogue to 
succeed; success also requires that the common reckoning constructed be 
logically correct and adequate; the same standards apply here as in the reasoning 
of an individual. This success condition, as I shall urge in a moment, is a respect 
in which dialogue differs from those forms of argument which might otherwise 
resemble it. 

4. Argumentation 

I come now to Argumentation, the discipline which studies the activity of 
arguing. For some general orientation in discovering just what this activity is, I 
begin with a couple of definitions by argumentation theorists. The first is by 
Charles Willard: 

Argument is a form of interaction in which two or more people maintain what 
they construe to be incompatible positions (Willard, 1989: I). 

Van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Kruiger give a somewhat more detailed 
statement: 

Argumentation is a social, intellectual, verbal activity serving to justifY or 
refute an opinion, consisting of a constellation of statements directed towards 
obtaining the approbation of an audience (Van Eemeren, Grootendorst and 
Kruiger, 1987: 7). 

From it we learn that arguing has both an aim, gaining the approbation of an 
audience, and a method, producing a constellation of statements. But for purposes 
of this Conference on Argumentation and Education, we need a still more fine 
grained account, and a first point to settle is what kind of study of arguing we 
have in mind when we speak of Argumentation. 

4. J How studied 

The arguing activity, like other human activities, can be studied from many 
different points of view, and by many different methods and disciplines. As a 
human interaction, arguing is fair game for the social sciences. As involving the 
exercise of mind, it can be studied by psychology. As involving the use of 
language, it can be studied by all the disciplines, from linguistics to literary 
criticism that have a concern with the use of language. And so on. That arguing 
can be studied in a bewildering variety of ways is a thing we can learn from the 
Proceedings of the 1986 Amsterdam Conference on Argumentation (Van 
Eemeren, et aI., 1987). 

However, for purposes of this conference, which emphasizes Education, I 
believe the mode of study to consider is that fostered by those undergraduate 
courses to which I referred above. And in those courses, as near as r can make 



136 Robert w: Binkley 

out, Argumentation is taught with a primarily practical purpose; the chief object is 
to teach students how to argue better, how to participate in the activity in a more 
competent way. The primary, though not exclusive, emphasis appears to be on 
written argument; thus the main thing is for students to learn how to write good 
argumentative prose. Of course, a certain amount of theory must come into such 
courses as well; here as everywhere, theory assists practice. 

In this respect, Argumentation may be compared to the study of other human 
activities, such as, say, dancing. Dancing too, as a social phenomenon, may be 
studied from many different points of view: we could ask why humans do it, and 
what purpose it serves in society; we could catalogue the various dance steps, and 
explore the connection with different types of music. Or we could study it with 
the aim of learning how to dance. In these terms, my claim is that university 
courses in Argumentation function as Arthur Murray Schools of Argument. 

I do not, of course, have any special expertise about these courses, having 
never either taken or taught one. Still, I've picked up a few clues. 

4.1.1 The teachers 

One clue has to do with the teachers of these courses, at least some of them, and 
how they themselves are taught. I cite a recent posting on an e-mail Rhetoric list 
about this: a Director of Graduate Studies in English wrote: 

At my university, the doctoral program in English requires a course about how 
to teach argumentative writing to undergraduates. Since the graduate students 
don't know much about argument theory themselves, the course covers matters 
such as: deduction/induction, the Toulmin model, classical stasis theory and 
modern adaptations of it, fallacy theory, schematic textual analysis of 
arguments, GASCAP modes (generalization, authority, sign, causation, 
analogy, principle). 

It also deals with pedagogical issues like course design, writing assignments, 
evaluation etc. 

Here we see that while a number of different aspects of argumentation 
theory are covered, the main point of the courses which these doctoral English 
students are being prepared to teach is to teach people how to write 
argumentatively, though many of the topics listed are ones that might equally well 
be assigned to Logic. 

4.1.2 The text books 

I have also looked at a few of the text books that seem to be designed for these 
courses. I list three of them here since the titles themselves are informative, and 
shall make a few comments about them later. 
John C. Reinard, Foundations of Argument: Effective Communication for Critical 

Thinking, 1991. 

Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell, The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and 
Reader. 1995. 



Argument, Education and Reasoning 137 

John D. Ramage and John C. Bean, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, 3
rd 

edition, 1995. 

4.2 The arguing activity 

Now for the activity which these courses aim to make their students better at. 
Here I shall simplifY somewhat since these courses cover a number of different 
forms of argument, and I shall consider just the one which I consider to be their 
primary concern. I will find this to be a combination of two components--pure 
argument, as I call it, to which are added supplemental persuasive devices. 

4.2. I Pure argument 

In identifYing the arguing activity we have noticed that there are two dimensions 
to be dealt with-the aim and the method. 

The aim-injluencing judgment. Arguing, especially the main line arguing I 
am here considering, is an activity with a characteristic goal; one engages in the 
activity in order to achieve a certain result. The characteristic result aimed at in 
arguing is that an audience think in a certain way, where this includes practical as 
well as theoretical thinking. The audience may be another participant in an 
arguing encounter or it may be some third party, such as a judge or jury. The 
audience may start from a position of opposition, from a neutral position, or, in 
the case of a possibly defecting audience, from a position of agreement. In all 
these cases I shall refer to getting the audience to think in the desired way as 
injluencing the judgment of the audience. 

The method-15iving reasons. But not every means of influencing 
someone's judgment counts as arguing; hypnosis and drugs, for example, do not 
count. Arguing is a linguistic activity; its result must be achieved through the use 
of language, or at least through some equivalent of language such as gesture or 
drawing pictures; there must be something amounting to a constellation of 
statements. 

Using Austin's categories, we may say that the judgment is to be influenced 
through the performance of various locutionary and iIIocutionary acts. To argue, 
thus, is to attempt to perform a certain perlocutionary act, that of influencing; you 
succeed in performing that act if you succeed in actually producing the desired 
state of mind in the audience. 

But not even every linguistic means of achieving this aim counts as 
argument. To merely inform someone of something, for example, is not to argue, 
though it may influence judgment. To argue is to seek to influence judgment 
linguistically by giving reasons. 

But what is meant by "giving a reason"? Here, I believe, is where my 
account of reasoning as constructing a reckoning proves its value as a bridging 
concept between arguing and reasoning. To give a reason, I suggest, is to make a 



138 Robert W. Binkley 

statement with the intention that the audience incorporate it as a premise in a 
reckoning which the audience itself is constructing. 

The arguer, that is, seeks to influence judgment by getting the audience to 
construct a reckoning supporting the desired judgment, and the arguer does this 
by supplying the audience with ingredients for such a reckoning. When I argue 
with you it is as in should try to get you to make a cake by plying you with eggs, 
flour, sugar and baking powder; in the end, I hope, you will do your own mixing 
and baking. This is why it is that, when your judgment has been influenced by 
someone's successful arguing, you have the feeling that not only that person, but 
reason itself, has persuaded you. 

4.2.2 Pure argument plus persuasion 

What I have defined so far is a rather rarefied and rationalistic notion of arguing. 
To mark it off from other notions with which we will have to deal, I shall call it 
pure argument; pure argument is the activity of seeking to influence judgment by 
providing an audience with ingredients for an appropriate reckoning. 

But pure argument, I think, is only a part, not the whole, of the activity 
which Argumentation courses teach. Thus the arguing activity we are seeking is a 
combination of pure argument plus this other thing. One label that can be used for 
this second factor is "persuasion," but that word has several different uses in this 
context, and to avoid confusion I think it will help to take a slight detour through 
classical Rhetoric. 

Logos, Ethos and Pathos. In his Rhetoric Aristotle lists three "proofs" 
which are available to the speaker: 

Now the proofs furnished by the speech are of three kinds. The first depends 
upon the moral character of the speaker [Ethos], the second depends on putting 
the hearer into a certain frame of mind [later identified with Pathos], the third 
upon the speech itself [Logos], in so far as it proves or seems to prove. (I.ii.3, 
I356a). 

and these three are usually mentioned in the textbooks for these Argumentation 
courses. Ramage and Bean, for example, refer to them as "The Rhetorical 
Triangle" (Ramage and Bean, 1995: 86). 

Logos may, in this context, be at least roughly equated with the reasons 
given, and so with the pure argument described above. Ethos has to do with the 
character of the speaker, which is to be established as trustworthy. Pathos has to 
do with the passions of the audience, which are to be aroused as required. 

I remark here in passing that as a visitor in the Oz land of Argumentation, I 
am tempted to think of Logos as the Scarecrow, Ethos as the Lion and Pathos as 
the Tin Man, all of them helping the arguer along the yellow brick road to 
judgment influence. 

In any event, I find that Argumentation as taught deals with all three of 
these, so I conclude that the arguing activity we are concerned with is a 

...-



Argument. Education and Reasoning 139 

combination of pure argument together with the persuasive techniques associated 
with Ethos and Pathos. 

Convincing and persuading. Some books reach essentially the same result 
by a slightly different route; they distinguish convincing from persuading, with 
convincing taking over the role of Logos, and persuading covering the other two. 
In the nineteenth century, Richard Whately's Elements of Rhetoric, first published 
in 1828, followed this line, with one main part of the book devoted to 
"Conviction" and another to "Persuasion" (Whately, 1830).5 Among current texts, 
Crusius and Channell follow this path, with chapters on "Making Your Case: 
Arguing to Convince" (p. 74), and "Appealing to the Whole Person: Arguing to 
Persuade" (p. 108). 

5. Education 

Having now characterized both the reasoning and the arguing activities, and 
having associated them with their respective studies, Logic and Argumentation, I 
can now conclude with a few remarks about the relevance of all this to Education. 
This will also give me occasion to refer again to the ancestral voices. 

5.1 University courses 

It seems clear that reasoning and arguing are both important activities, and so 
since, as we like to think, skills in both can be improved by study at university 
level, there are good grounds for giving instruction in both of them at that level. 
There are important pedagogical issues here as to whether they should be taught 
in courses dedicated to them or taught incidentally in other courses, and if in 
dedicated courses, whether there should be a single combined course or separate 
courses for each. To simplify matters, I shall just assume that it has been decided 
to have separate dedicated courses for each. That's the way it seems to be in many 
universities, though in mine, while there are dedicated Logic courses, 
Argumentation is taught only incidentally in courses dedicated to other subjects. 

It is important to notice, though, that even though the courses are separate, 
some degree of combination will still be required. That is, there will be a need to 
include some Argumentation in the Logic course, and some Logic in the 
Argumentation course. 

5.1.1 Argumentation in the Logic course 

Argumentation will be required in the Logic course since, as the study of 
reasoning, ~ogic will have to give some consideration to the reasoning that is 
stimulated by the arguing activity. I am thinking here of reasoning on the part of 
the audience at whom the arguing is directed. The audience will receive some 
combination of pure argument plus persuasion, and will then have to separate out 
the pure argument for logical evaluation. 



140 Robert W Binkley 

Logic already deals with this, at least to some extent, in its discussion of 
infonnal fallacies, where the student is warned, for example, against the ad 
hominem (in the contemporary sense) which is the persuasive device of 
undennining the Ethos of an opponent. And as to Pathos, Logic already labels the 
appeal to pity as the ad misericordiam fallacy, and could similarly handle any 
other passion for which a Latin name could be found. 

Still, I think it very likely that Logic courses would benefit from a more 
systematic treatment of these matters than they ordinarily provide, and that this 
could come from Argumentation, but I shall not explore that project here. 

Instead, I shall just observe how this fits in with the ancestral philosophical 
warning about packaging. Arguing wraps up pure argument in Ethos and Pathos, 
and what Logic has to say about this is that you should always unwrap a package . 
before seeking to deal with its content. 

5.1.2 Logic in the Argumentation course 

One needs Logic in the Argumentation course because of the pure argument 
component. This component seeks to get the audience to construct a certain 
reckoning. But for the purpose of Argumentation, must this reckoning be 
logically correct and adequate? 

It is not, I think, an intrinsic part of the aim of the arguing activity that the 
reckoning it induces be correct and adequate; one wants the audience to reach the 
desired conclusion by reasoning, but one needn't care about the correctness of 
that reasoning. 

Even so, the Argumentation books counsel against the use of incorrect 
argument, giving two main reasons for this. One is that the promotion of incorrect 
reasoning would be ethically wrong (E.g., Crusius, Channell, 1995: 9), and I 
suppose the argument for that would be that the promotion of bad reasoning 
would not serve the larger social purpose which these books see arguing as 
having. 

The other reason given is that arguing will be more effective if it is logically 
correct. There are several reasons why logically incorrect argument might be less 
effective. First, the audience may have some logical sense, and may detect the 
incorrectness. Second, if you are actually caught in the act of pushing an incorrect 
argument it will seriously damage your Ethos. Finally, one of the books cites a 
study showing that under certain circumstances, people, or at any rate students, 
while they may be as easily persuaded by invalid as by valid arguments, remain 
persuaded longer when the arguments are valid. (Reinard, 1991: 214). 

Thus the need to avoid incorrect reasoning is external to the arguing 
activity--either as an external principle, as the need not to shoot people is an 
external principle applying to the activity of gun using, or as a matter of 
efficiency, as the need not to insult customers applies to the activity of selling 
used cars. With dialogue, on the other hand, the need for correctness of reasoning 
is of the essence. 

-



-

Argument. Education and Reasoning 141 

Still, correctness is a consideration for the arguer, who will at least usually 
want to promote logically correct and adequate reckonings, and so will need the 
assistance of Logic, which should therefore be included in these courses. 

5.2 Maintaining the distinction 

But in spite of these interconnections, Logic and Argumentation are still distinct 
subjects, and should be kept so. Logic teaches standards for assessing the 
correctness and adequacy of reckonings; Argumentation teaches techniques of 
influencing judgment by offering reasons. I here invoke another philosophical 
ancestor, Bishop Butler of the eighteenth century, and a remark of his which has 
been relayed to the twentieth century by G. E. Moore: "Everything is what it is, 
and not another thing." 

5.3 Pure argument and dialogue 

As we have seen, arguing as taught in Argumentation is a combination of pure 
argument plus the persuasive devices of Ethos and Pathos. The addition to pure 
argument of these extra elements is what the philosophical ancestors were 
complaining about when they invoked what I have called the packaging analogy. 
But setting that to one side, I now conclude with an observation about the 
distinction between pure argument and dialogue. 

When you are on the receiving end of pure argument it is very much like 
being a participant in dialogue; in both cases, another party is proposing that you 
reason in a certain way, and you are pondering whether to construct your 
reckoning in the way suggested. 

But of course, the two situations are different. Argument, even pure 
argument, as we have seen, is not essentially concerned about the correctness of 
the reckoning, and does not care whether the database on which it is built is 
satisfactory; dialogue cares about both of these. In the case of the argument 
receiver it is always "buyer beware!"; for the sender the question is, "will it sell?" 
In dialogue there is genuine cooperation in a search for the right answer. 

This is what worried the philosophical ancestors when they call up the other 
analogy, that of the donut shop. Argument, as taught by Argumentation, imitates 
something that it actually is not, namely dialogue. Indeed, very often the appeal to 
Ethos takes the form of encouraging the illusion that dialogue is going on. But it 
is dialogue, real dialogue, not argument, that aims at the True and Good. And so it 
is dialogue, not argument, that provides a proper diet. 

And it is dialogue that brings us back to philosophy, so that the philosopher, 
returning from a visit to Argumentation, will agree with Dorothy's remark on 
departing Oz: "There's no place like home." 

I I have modernized Wilson's spelling. 

2 The source for this story appears to be Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors 2.7. (Long 
and Sedley, 1987: 185). 



142 Robert W. Binkley 

3 I press the word "reckoning" into service here being unable to find a better. "Case" is an 
alternative to consider, but with its background in the adversarial forensic context, it suggests 
too strongly a contrast between the "case for" and the "case against", whereas the reckoning 
must include both. "Position" is another candidate, but it is too closely associated with a 
public stance adopted in some kind of social exchange; a reckoning has to do with the 
ordering of one's own thoughts. 

4 See, for example, W. and M. Kneale's Development o/Logic (1962) p. 307, where the authors 
refer to "the marked decline of interest in formal logic which occurred during the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries." 

S Note that Whately defines the subject of his Rhetoric book as "Argumentative composition, 
generally and exclusively," (p. 6) so that his is really an Argumentation book in our sense of 
the word. 

References 
Aristotle. 1982 <1926>. The "Art" of Rhetoric. Trans. John Henry Freese. The Loeb 

Classical Library No. 193: Aristotle, vol. xxxiii. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 
University Press. 

[Arnauld, A., and P. Nicole]. 1662. La Logique ou ['art de penser: contenant, outre les 
Regles. communes, plusieurs observations nouvelles propres a former Ie judgement. 
Paris. <Facsimile: Hildesheim: Georg alms, 1970>. 

Brooks, Cleanth, and Robert Penn Warren. 1970 <1949, 1958>. Modern Rhetoric. 3rd ed. 
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. 

Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. 1995. The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric 
and Reader. Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, eds. 
1987. Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline (Proceedings of the Conference 
on Argumentation 1986). 3 vols. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3, 3A, 3B. 
Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, and Tjark Kruiger. 1987 <A translation from 
the Dutch of Argumentatietheorie, 2nd edition, 1981>. Handbook of Argumentation 
Theory: A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies. Studies in 
Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis (PDA). Dordrecht-Holland: 
Foris Publications. 

Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: 
Bradford, MIT Press. 

Kneale, William, and Martha Kneale. 1962. The Development of Logic. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press. 

Locke, John. 1985 <1689>. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Peter H. 
Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol. I. Translations of 
the Principle Sources with Philosophical Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Ramage, John D., and John C. Bean. 1995. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 
Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Reinard, John C. 1991. Foundations of Argument: Effective Communication for Critical 
Thinking. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown. 



Argument, Education and Reasoning 143 

Watts, Isaac. 1775 <1725>. Logick: Or, the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After 
Truth. London. 

Whately, Richard. 1830. Elements of Rhetoric. 3d ed. Oxford: J. Parker, London: John 
Murray. 

Willard, Charles Arthur. 1989. A Theory of Argumentation. Studies in Rhetoric and 
Communication. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: The University of Alabama Press. 

Wilson, Thomas. 1970 <London, 1551>. The Rule of Reason. Facsimile. The English 
Experience No. 261. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis in Terrarum. 

ROBERT W. BINKLEY 
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY 

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO 
LONDON, ONTARIO N6A 3K7 

(J