IL30.1 Review of Van Eemeren et al TB rev © George Boger. Informal Logic, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2010). pp. 112-115. Book Review Frans H. van Eemeren, Frans H. and Bart Garssen (Eds.). 2009. Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues. Series: Argumentation Li- brary, Vol. 14. Dordrecht: Springer. (Pp. xxii, 306 p. 9 illus.; Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4020-9164; US$ 199.00) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation is another fine volume in the long list of publications edited by Frans H. van Eemeren, here with Bart Garssen. The volume collects 20 essays that were pre- sented, save for one (Jacobs), at the 2006 ISSA conference in Am- sterdam and then published in the Proceedings of the Sixth Confer- ence of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat 2007). Under the rubric problems of argumentation, van Eemeren and Garssen have divided the 20 essays equally into five sub-headings: • Argumentative strategies—treating the interface between dialectical and rhetorical insights into the pragmatics of discourse and discourse analysis: F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, M.A. van Rees, C. Ilie. • Norms of reasonableness and fallaciousness—treating concerns of continuing to define fallacies outside formal assessment as a kind of argumentative move, as also the re- lationship between their formal and pragmatic analyses: S. Jacobs, D.J. O’Keefe, T. Govier, D. Jacquette. • Types of argument and argument schemes—treating the relationships between various kinds of arguments and their purposes, where their schematization provides an assess- ment of the support relationship: M. Kraus, B. Garssen, M. Doury, E. Rigotti. • Structure of argumentation—treating concerns to clarify the character of complex arguments consisting in multiple arguments, whether linked or convergent, whether inde- pendent or dependent, with a pervasive theme to amend Toulmin’s probability concept, even with the case of visual arguments: G.C. Goddu, J.B. Freeman, A. Rocci, L. Groarke. Review of Pondering on Problems of Argumentation 
 
 113 • Rules for advocacy and discussion—treating concerns, especially within a dialectical perspective, that formulate discussion rules according to certain normative ideals, whether aiming at epistemic or rhetorical goals: E.C.W. Krabbe, J. Gough, G.T. Goodnight, J. Goodwin. The authors will be familiar to scholars who have been following the modern argumentation movement since its inception in the 1970s. There is an editors’ introduction of eleven pages that pro- vides a nice prospectus of the book, the 20 essays consisting in 298 pages, and at the close a two-page list of contributors and a four- page index that principally catalogs names mentioned throughout. As the editors indicate at the outset, a principal criterion for se- lecting these essays is to provide a multidisciplinary outlook on theoretical issues discussed within the international community of philosophers of argument. It may be no surprise that together these essays lean decidedly toward broadly treating the pragmatics of argumentative discourse. In this connection, then, the kinds of theoretical issues are generally circumscribed by pragma- dialectical and rhetorical approaches that address issues relating to • assessing strategic maneuvering in dialectical discussion (van Eemeren & Houtlosser) and in relation to rhetorical questioning (Snoeck Henkemans), examining whether with dissociation reasonableness is compromised (van Rees), and assessing refutation strategies (Ilie). • taking the critical discussion approach to managing argu- mentative discourse where, for example, the notion of fal- lacy turns generally on abiding normative (moral) rules, to assessing concerns of advocacy (O’Keefe, Goodnight), the contextual acceptability, or reasonableness, of using falla- cies (Jacobs), finding a middle way between composition and division (Govier), and negotiating the opening of an argumentative exchange (Krabbe) and conditions for ap- propriately closing an argument Goodwin). • parsing arguments/argumentations to develop typologies according to their objectives, in which the pervasive force of contrarium is assessed rhetorically (Kraus), treating the power of figurative analogy within a pragma-dialectical framework (Garssen), discussing comparative analyses of argument-kinds (Doury), and incorporating classical topics within contemporary augmentation theory (Rigotti). George Boger 114 • assessing the reasonableness of rhetorical and dialectical moves in argumentative situations (Snoeck Henkemans, van Rees, Jacobs, Govier). • reassessing Toulmin’s model of argument assessment by developing the notion of ampliative probability to define sufficient argument strength (Freeman), employing the no- tion of relative modality to refine Toulmin’s notions of field-invariance and field-dependence (Rocci), and assess- ing visual arguments (political cartoons) according to Toulmin’s notion of data-warrant (Groarke). While the editors have selected essays that do not strictly repro- duce the results of empirical studies, it is nevertheless evident that these essays are especially rooted in empirical research. This is not a distracting feature of this collection, since it is broadly character- istic of how philosophers within the modern argumentation move- ment ground their analyses; indeed, it is one of the special under- pinnings of their important contributions to understanding human reasoning. The general texture of these essays, then, has an em- pirical foundation. Moreover, while these contributions extend discussions on constructing, managing, and examining argumenta- tion, each article works squarely within the contours of the argu- mentation movement that generally obviates the strictures of for- mal logic. A notable exception is Jacquette’s article that engages deductivism in assessing fallacies. The kinds of theoretical problems treated in these essays aim more at clarification of concepts and principles used by philoso- phers of argument—whether working within a pragma-dialetical, rhetorical, or informal logical perspective—than with taking up foundational philosophical problems. There are no treatments, for example, of the problems of relativism that emerge when accept- ability of premises and inferential links supplant truth conditions in argumentation, nor of the possibility of eclipsing justice when ad- hering to rules of critical discussion in cases of settling disputes. This problem is all too familiar in mediating disputants, say in set- tling accounts in a divorce or coming to agreement in a labor arbi- tration. As these essays attest, there is considerable discussion within philosophy of argument about assessing argument structures and the pragmatics of discourse. However, there is no attention to the consequences of such studies becoming just as formalistic as formal logic. With the turn to pragmatics and proliferation of stud- ies on argument schemes, whether from pragma-dialectic, informal and dialogical logic perspectives, argumentation philosophers have become just as much preoccupied with forms of discourse. Rele- vance in this context, while referencing propositional content, often subordinates the truth or falsity of that content in favor of abiding Review of Pondering on Problems of Argumentation 
 
 115 by the rules of, for example, critical discussion. Perhaps, then, the complaint about formal logic’s irrelevance might be just as appli- cable to philosophers of argument. Notwithstanding this possible shortcoming, again, falling out- side the scope prescribed by the editors, this volume is an impor- tant compendium of some focal concerns within the modern argu- mentation movement. Having used Pondering on Problems of Ar- gumentation in my seminar on argumentation for senior philosophy majors, I can attest to its valuable contribution to enriching their experiences with reasoning. Each essay is organized on the same principle, namely—providing an introduction, discussion, and then concluding remarks. This feature, in conjunction with the selection of topics and their treatment by accomplished scholars, makes the material accessible to undergraduate students eager to pursue top- ics in philosophy of argument. The essays are well written, infor- mative, and especially successful at provoking thoughtful discus- sion of important issues occupying the wide array of concerns now treated by philosophers of argument. Moreover, this collection of essays once again affirms the profound sensitivity of argumenta- tion philosophers to the complexities of the human condition, and thus it affirms the foundational humanist disposition of participants in the modern argumentation movement. George Boger Canasius College