以下文章为机器翻译，人工做了初步校对，错误在所难免，希望广大哲友指出错译。这是一次有风险的尝试，哲学讲究严谨和准确，但机器翻译可能会不尽人意。希望哲友们包容并提出宝贵意见。

Informal Logic 非形式逻辑

• 1. History  1. 历史
• 2. Systems of Informal Logic

  
  

  非形式逻辑系统
• 3. Standardizing Arguments

  
  

  标准化论证
• 4. Testing Arguments  测试参数
• 5. Informal Logic Within A Broader Context
  
  5.更广泛背景下的非形式逻辑
• 6. Informal Logic and Philosophy

  
  

  非形式逻辑和哲学
• Bibliography  参考书目
• Academic Tools  学术工具
• Other Internet Resources

  
  

  其他互联网资源
• Related Entries  相关条目

---

1. History  1. 历史

Puppo 2019 provides a recent collection of articles on the history of informal logic and the issues it addresses. In many ways, informal logic as we know it is a contemporary version of historical attempts to explain, systematize, assess and teach arguing for practical purposes.
Puppo 2019 提供了关于非形式逻辑的历史及其解决的问题的最新文章集。在许多方面，我们所知道的非形式逻辑是历史尝试的当代版本，旨在解释、系统化、评估和教授出于实际目的的论证。
In ancient times, the First Sophistic is a movement motivated by the notion that one can teach the art of logos in a way that can be effectively employed in public argument and debate. In the century that follows, Aristotle’s logical and rhetorical works — notably the Prior Analytics and the Rhetoric — provide a systematic account of logic and argument which is applicable to an impressively broad range of real life arguments. Today, they remain important works that inform discussions of informal logic.
在古代，第一智者派是一场运动，其动机是人们可以以一种可以有效地应用于公共争论和辩论的方式教授罗格斯艺术。在接下来的一个世纪中，亚里士多德的逻辑和修辞著作——尤其是《前分析篇》和《修辞学》——提供了对逻辑和论证的系统描述，适用于令人印象深刻的广泛的现实生活论证。如今，它们仍然是为非形式逻辑讨论提供信息的重要著作。
In modern times, The Port Royal Logic (Arnauld and Nicole 1662, originally titled Logic or the Art of Thinking) is an attempt to outline a logic that can guide everyday reasoning. It is a celebrated (and often disdained) introduction to the art of arguing which has been published in more than fifty French editions and five popular English translations. It understands “logic” as “the art of directing reason aright, in obtaining the knowledge of things, for the instruction both of ourselves and others” (25). In keeping with this, it provides a practical account of good and poor argument, discussing fallacies, syllogisms, definitions, and deductive and probable reasoning, emphasizing real rather than concocted examples of argument (see Finocchiaro 1997).
在现代，《皇家港口逻辑》（Arnauld and Nicole 1662，最初标题为《逻辑或思维的艺术》）试图概述一种可以指导日常推理的逻辑。这是一本著名的（但常常被人鄙视的）关于辩论艺术的入门书，已出版了五十多个法文版本和五种流行的英文译本。它将“逻辑”理解为“正确引导理性的艺术，获得事物的知识，以指导我们自己和他人”（25）。与此相一致的是，它提供了好的论证和差的论证的实际说明，讨论了谬误、三段论、定义、演绎和可能推理，强调论证的真实例子而不是捏造的例子（参见Finocchiaro 1997）。
One finds other analogues of contemporary attempts to study and teach informal reasoning in nineteenth century textbooks on logic and rhetoric. Richard Whately is of special note in this regard. He began his career as a professor of political economy at Oxford, was appointed Archbishop of Dublin, and attempted to establish a national non-sectarian system of education, writing texts on reasoning that could promote this cause. In many ways, Whately’s Elements of Logic and Elements of Rhetoric (1826, 1830) are close analogues of early versions of today’s informal logic textbooks.
人们在十九世纪的逻辑和修辞学教科书中发现了当代研究和教授非形式推理的其他类似尝试。理查德·惠特利（Richard Whately）在这方面特别值得注意。他的职业生涯始于牛津大学政治经济学教授，后来被任命为都柏林大主教，并试图建立一个全国性的非宗派教育体系，撰写了可以促进这一事业的推理文本。在许多方面，沃特利的《逻辑原理》和《修辞原理》（1826、1830）与当今非形式逻辑教科书的早期版本非常相似。
Another important text, critical of Whately, but in the same broad tradition is Mill’s A System of Logic (1882) (see Godden 2014). It defines logic as the “art and science of reasoning,” stipulating that “to reason is simply to infer any assertion from assertions already admitted.” The end result is a broad account of inference which is, like systems of informal logic, designed to inform real life instances of argument.
另一篇批评惠特利但具有同样广泛传统的重要文本是穆勒的《逻辑系统》（A System of Logic，1882）（参见 Godden 2014）。它将逻辑定义为“推理的艺术和科学”，规定“推理只是从已经承认的断言中推断出任何断言”。最终结果是对推理的广泛描述，就像非形式逻辑系统一样，旨在为现实生活中的论证实例提供信息。
The first use of the term “informal logic” occurs in the last chapter of Gilbert Ryle’s book Dilemmas (1954). He introduces it in an attempt to distinguish between formal logic and the more varied, less strict, and less defined ways in which we need to assess many of the arguments that are used in philosophical discussion.
“非形式逻辑”一词的首次使用出现在吉尔伯特·赖尔 (Gilbert Ryle) 的著作《困境》(1954) 的最后一章。他引入它是为了区分形式逻辑和更多样化、不那么严格、更不明确的方式，我们需要用这些方式来评估哲学讨论中使用的许多论证。
In North America, the rise of informal logic as it is now understood is tied to educational trends rooted in the 1960s — a time of social upheaval and protest (most notably, against the War in Vietnam) which produced calls for an education relevant to the issues of the day. This fueled an interest in the logic of everyday argument and the teaching of introductory logic, which was at the time taught with textbooks like Copi’s popular Introduction to Logic (1953).
在北美，人们现在所理解的非形式逻辑的兴起与 20 世纪 60 年代的教育趋势有关--那是一个社会动荡和抗议（最著名的是反对越南战争）的时代，人们要求教育与当时的问题相关。这激发了人们对日常论证逻辑和入门逻辑教学的兴趣，而当时的入门逻辑教学使用的是科匹（Copi）广受欢迎的《逻辑学导论》（1953 年）等教科书。
In Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life (1971), Kahane more fully embraced instances of real life arguing, discussing a wide range of examples in newspapers, the mass media, advertisements, books, and political campaigns. Other attempts to provide a general introduction to logic — by Carney and Scheer (1964), Munson (1976), and Fogelin (1978) — employed the term “informal logic” to distinguish between formal logic and other methods of argument analysis which lay outside of it.
在《逻辑与当代修辞学》（Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric：在《逻辑与当代修辞学：日常生活中的理性运用》（The Use of Reason in Everyday Life，1971 年）一书中，卡恩更全面地介绍了现实生活中的论证实例，讨论了报纸、大众媒体、广告、书籍和政治活动中的各种例子。Carney 和 Scheer（1964 年）、Munson（1976 年）和 Fogelin（1978 年）等人也曾尝试提供逻辑学的一般介绍，他们使用了 "非形式逻辑 "一词来区分形式逻辑和形式逻辑之外的其他论证分析方法。
The idea that informal logic should be developed as a distinct field of inquiry was championed by Johnson and Blair at the University of Windsor. They published a popular textbook, Logical Self-Defense (1977); organized and hosted “The First International Symposium on Informal Logic” and edited the proceedings (Blair and Johnson, 1980); established the Informal Logic Newsletter (1978-1983); and ultimately turned the newsletter into the journal Informal Logic (subtitled “Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice”). In this and other ways, they established informal logic as a field for study, research and development. Their contributions (and those of colleagues at Windsor and in Ontario and Canada) is reflected in the notion that informal logic is a Canadian (or, more narrowly, Windsor) school of argument (see Puppo 2019).
温莎大学的约翰逊和布莱尔倡导非形式逻辑应该发展为一个独特的探究领域的想法。他们出版了一本受欢迎的教科书《逻辑自卫》（1977）；组织和主办“第一届非形式逻辑国际研讨会”并编辑会议记录（Blair and Johnson，1980）；创办《非形式逻辑通讯》（1978-1983）；并最终将时事通讯变成了《非形式逻辑》杂志（副标题为“理论与实践中的推理与论证”）。通过这种方式和其他方式，他们将非形式逻辑建立为研究、探索和开发的领域。他们的贡献（以及温莎、安大略省和加拿大的同事的贡献）反映在以下观念中：非形式逻辑是加拿大（或更狭义地说，温莎）论证流派（参见 Puppo 2019）。
《给青少年的漫画逻辑学》
原价200元

特惠价：99元
适读年龄：8~12岁
点击下图购买
Much of the discussion that has shaped the evolution of informal logic as a field has taken place in a number of journals that have played a major role in its development. They include Informal Logic, Argumentation, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Argumentation and Advocacy (formerly the Journal of the American Forensic Association), Teaching Philosophy, and (more recently) Cogency and Argument and Computation.非形式逻辑作为一个领域，其发展过程中的许多讨论都是在一些期刊上进行的，这些期刊在非形式逻辑的发展过程中发挥了重要作用。这些期刊包括《非形式逻辑》、《论证》、《哲学与修辞学》、《论证与辩护》（前身为《美国法医学会期刊》）、《教学哲学》以及（最近出版的）《逻辑性》和《论证与计算》。
A key catalyst that promoted the development of informal logic was the “Critical Thinking” Movement within education (well described in Siegel 1988, Ennis 2011, and Blair 2021). The movement pushed (and continues to push) for educational developments which make the critical scrutiny of our beliefs and assumptions a fundamental goal, highlighting the significance of reasoning, inference, argument and critical assessment.
促进非形式逻辑发展的关键催化剂是教育领域的“批判性思维”运动（Siegel 1988、Ennis 2011 和 Blair 2021 中有详细描述）。该运动推动（并将继续推动）教育发展，使对我们的信念和假设进行批判性审查成为一个基本目标，强调推理、推论、论证和批判性评估的重要性。
In 1980, a California State University Executive Order promoted the teaching of critical thinking and informal logic by requiring post secondary institutions to include formal instruction in critical thinking in their curriculum. According to the order: “Instruction in critical thinking is to be designed to achieve an understanding of the relationship of language to logic, which should lead to the ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief” (Dumke 1980, Executive Order 338).
1980 年，加州州立大学的一项行政命令要求高等教育机构将批判性思维的正式教学纳入其课程，从而促进批判性思维和非形式逻辑的教学。根据该命令：“批判性思维的教学旨在实现对语言与逻辑关系的理解，从而培养分析、批评和倡导思想的能力，归纳和演绎推理的能力，以及得出事实的能力。”或基于从明确的知识或信念陈述中得出的合理推论得出的判断结论”（Dumke 1980，行政命令 338）。
The accounts of argument that informal logic and the Critical Thinking movement provide are tied to pedagogical attempts to teach students and learners how to reason well. One result has been hundreds (perhaps thousands) of introductory textbooks used to teach logic, critical thinking, and argumentation skills to university and college students in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Chile, and other countries.
非形式逻辑和批判性思维运动提供的论证说明与教导学生和学习者如何进行良好推理的教学尝试紧密相关。其中一项成果是，加拿大、美国、英国、意大利、波兰、智利和其他国家的数百本（也许数千本）入门教科书用于向大学生教授逻辑、批判性思维和论证技能。
Textbooks in English offer many theoretical and pedagogical innovations. Established texts include Battersby 2016 (Is That a Fact? A Field Guide for Evaluating Statistical and Scientific Information, 2nd ed.); Bowell and Kemp 2014 (Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide, 4th ed.); Browne and Keeley 2018 (Asking the Right Questions, 12th ed.); Govier 2019 (A Practical Study of Argument, 7th ed.); Groarke, Tindale and Carozza 2021 (Good Reasoning Matters!, 7th ed.); Hughes, Lavery and Doran 2014 (Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills, 7th ed.); Seay and Nuccetelli 2012 (How to Think Logically, 2nd ed.); Weston 2018 (A Rulebook for Arguments, 5th ed.); and Wilson 2020 (A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating Intellectual Virtues, 2nd ed.).
英语教科书提供了许多理论和教学创新。既定文本包括 Battersby 2016（这是事实吗？评估统计和科学信息的现场指南，第二版）；Bowell 和 Kemp 2014（批判性思维：简明指南，第四版）；Browne 和 Keeley 2018（提出正确的问题，第 12 版）；Govier 2019（论证实践研究，第 7 版）；Groarke、Tindale 和 Carozza 2021（良好的推理很重要！，第 7 版）；Hughes、Lavery 和 Doran 2014（批判性思维：基本技能简介，第 7 版）；Seay 和 Nuccetelli 2012（如何逻辑思考，第二版）；Weston 2018（论证规则手册，第 5 版）；和 Wilson 2020（良好推理指南：培养智力美德，第二版）。
In Poland, Ajdukiewicz’s Pragmatic Logic (1974) is an introduction to an independently developed “pragmatic logic” which shares similar goals, teaching and promoting tools of logic as a central element of a general education. Its application aims to ensure that students think clearly and consistently, express their thoughts and ideas systematically and precisely, and justify their claims with proper inferences (see Koszowy 2010).
在波兰，Ajdukiewicz 的《实用逻辑》（1974）介绍了独立开发的“实用逻辑”，其目标相似，将逻辑工具作为普通教育的核心要素进行教学和推广。其应用旨在确保学生清晰一致地思考，系统而准确地表达他们的思想和观点，并通过适当的推论来证明他们的主张（参见Koszowy 2010）。
In part because reasoning and argument are ubiquitous and of interest across many disciplines, informal logic has in many ways been influenced by cognate fields which analyze argumentation in some way. The latter include formal logic, speech communication, rhetoric, linguistics, artificial intelligence, discourse analysis, feminism, semiotics, cognitive psychology, and computational modelling. Considered in this broader context, informal logic is a subfield of a broader multi-disciplinary attempt to develop a comprehensive account of real life arguing which is commonly called “argumentation theory.”
部分原因是推理和论证无处不在，并且在许多学科中都引起人们的兴趣，非形式逻辑在很多方面受到以某种方式分析论证的同源领域的影响。后者包括形式逻辑、言语交流、修辞学、语言学、人工智能、话语分析、女权主义、符号学、认知心理学和计算建模。在更广泛的背景下考虑，非形式逻辑是更广泛的多学科尝试的一个子领域，旨在对现实生活中的争论进行全面的描述，通常称为“论证理论”。
Informal logic and argumentation theory have been highlighted at numerous international conferences hosted by organizations committed to the study of argument. Key conferences include nine Amsterdam conferences (and a tenth conference in Zhenjiang) hosted by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA); twelve Windsor conferences hosted by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA); six Tokyo Conferences on Argumentation hosted by the Japanese Debate Association; three meetings of the European Conference on Argumentation (ECA); eight meetings of the International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (hosted by COMMA), and many workshops on issues of argumentation, dialogue, and persuasion organized by the Polish group ArgDiaP.
非形式逻辑和论证理论在致力于论证研究的组织主办的众多国际会议上得到了强调。主要会议包括国际论证研究学会（ISSA）主办的九次阿姆斯特丹会议（以及第十次镇江会议）；由安大略省论证研究学会（OSSA）主办的十二次温莎会议；日本辩论协会主办的六次东京辩论会议；欧洲论证会议（ECA）的三次会议；国际论证计算模型会议（COMMA 主办）的八次会议，以及波兰团体 ArgDiaP 组织的许多关于论证、对话和说服问题的研讨会。

1.1 Formal and Informal Logic
1.1 形式逻辑和非形式逻辑

One of the driving forces behind the early development of informal logic was a desire for a logic which contained tools of analysis and assessment above and beyond the standard formal methods of the day: propositional logic, truth tables, syllogisms, the predicate calculus, and so on. Johnson emphasizes a “dissatisfaction with formal logic as the vehicle for teaching skill in argument evaluation and argument formation” and a “desire to provide a complete theory of reasoning that goes beyond formal deductive and inductive logic” (2014, p. 11). Though Ryle never developed a detailed account of what he meant by “informal logic,” his comments point in a similar direction.
非形式逻辑早期发展的一个主要动力是对一种包含分析和评估工具的逻辑的渴望，这些工具超越了当时的标准形式方法：命题逻辑、真值表、三段论、谓词演算等。约翰逊强调了“对作为教授论证评估和论证形成技巧的工具的形式逻辑的不满”以及“提供一种超越形式演绎和归纳逻辑的完整的推理理论的渴望”（2014年，第11页）。尽管赖尔从未详细阐述他所指的“非形式逻辑”是什么，但他的评论指向了一个类似的方向。
Philosophers and logicians teaching general courses on argument have often managed the issues that this raises by mixing formal and informal methods of analysis. Though the artificial examples of argument that characterize early editions of Copi (and some other texts that emphasize formal logic) have been roundly criticized (see Johnson 1996 and Blair 2015), other authors more successfully meld classical formal logic and examples of real argument. Harrison 1969 is an example. So are the texts of Pospesel, which contain many examples of real life reasoning which illustrate the patterns of inference associated with propositional and syllogistic logic (Pospesel and Marans 1978, Rodes and Pospesel 1991, and Pospesel 2002). Little 1980 develops an approach to critical thinking and decision making that integrates propositional and syllogistic reasoning.
教授一般论证课程的哲学家和逻辑学家经常通过混合形式和非形式的分析方法来解决由此引发的问题。尽管 Copi 早期版本（以及其他一些强调形式逻辑的文本）所特有的人为论证例子受到了严厉批评（参见 Johnson 1996 和 Blair 2015），但其他作者更成功地融合了经典形式逻辑和真实论证的例子。哈里森 1969 就是一个例子。Pospesel 的文本也是如此，其中包含许多现实生活推理的例子，说明了与命题逻辑和三段论逻辑相关的推理模式（Pospesel 和 Marans 1978，Rodes 和 Pospesel 1991，以及 Pospesel 2002）。Little 1980 开发了一种整合命题推理和三段论推理的批判性思维和决策方法。
Some informal logicians moved in an opposite direction, developing versions of informal logic that were independent of formal logic, appealing to alternative accounts of argument borrowed from or influenced by philosophical reflection, or by other fields that study argument (notably, rhetoric, dialectics, and speech communication). Toulmin’s 
The Uses of Argument
 (1958) and Hamblin’s 
Fallacies
 (1970) became theoretical touchstones for those looking for an informal logic rooted outside of formal logic.

一些非形式逻辑学家走向了相反的方向，他们发展了独立于形式逻辑的非形式逻辑版本，借鉴或受到哲学思考的影响，或受到其他研究论证的领域的影响（特别是修辞学、辩证法和演讲交流）。图尔敏的《论证的用途》（1958年）和汉布林的《谬误》（1970年）成为那些寻找扎根于形式逻辑之外的非形式逻辑的理论基石。
Even in these latter cases, systems and accounts of informal logic shared some core notions with their formal cousins. Most significantly, formal and informal logic assume (i) a premise, inference, and conclusion conception of argument; (ii) the notion that a good argument has premises which are true (or “acceptable”) and a conclusion which follows from them (making the inference the argument depends on “valid” in some way); and (iii) the idea that many arguments can be assessed by treating them as instances of more generalized forms of argument (“schemes of argument” which include standard deductive patterns of reasoning).
即使在后一种情况下，非形式逻辑的系统和解释也与它们的形式逻辑有一些共同的核心概念。最重要的是，形式逻辑和非形式逻辑假设
(i)论证的前提、推论和结论概念；
(ii) 一个好的论证具有真实的（或“可接受的”）前提和由此得出的结论（使论证在某种程度上依赖于“有效”的推论）；
(iii)认为许多论证可以通过将它们视为更广义的论证形式的实例来评估（“论证方案”，其中包括标准的演绎推理模式）。
Today, informal logic is “informal” rather than “formal” primarily because it studies arguments as they occur in natural language discourse, and not in formal languages of the sort that characterize formal logic. The latter are notable for their rigorously defined syntax, semantics, and grammar, and precisely defined proof procedures. In contrast, arguments as they occur in real life discourse are notable for their use of everyday language; for the many different norms that apply to them in different contexts; and for the diverse ways of making meaning (using pictures, facial expressions, non-verbal sounds, music, etc.) that they employ.
今天，非形式逻辑之所以是“非形式的”而非“形式的”，主要是因为它研究的是自然语言话语中出现的论证，而不是特征化形式逻辑的那种形式语言。后者以其严格定义的句法、语义和语法，以及精确定义的证明程序而著称。相比之下，真实生活话语中出现的论证以其使用日常语言；在不同语境下适用的众多不同规范；以及它们所采用的制造意义的多样方式（使用图片、面部表情、非言语声音、音乐等）而显著。
The emphasis that informal logic and its historical precursors place on natural language argument is in keeping with the social and pedagogical goals that motivate their development. The latter are best served by an easily understood, broadly disseminated, understanding of the difference between strong and weak instances of real life argument. Formal methods (Venn diagrams, probability theory — see Zenker 2013, different kinds of formal logic, etc.) can at times support this goal, especially in analyses of particular kinds of argument, but the overriding aim is natural language discourse guided by the principles of successful reasoning.
非形式逻辑及其历史先驱对自然语言论证的重视与促进其发展的社会和教学目标是一致的。后者最好通过易于理解、广泛传播、对现实生活论证中强实例和弱实例之间差异的理解来实现。形式方法（维恩图、概率论——参见 Zenker 2013、不同类型的形式逻辑等）有时可以支持这一目标，特别是在分析特定类型的论证时，但最重要的目标是受这些原则指导的自然语言话语成功的推理。
《给青少年的漫画逻辑学》
原价200元

特惠价：99元
适读年龄：8~12岁
点击下图购买

1.2 Argumentation Theory
1.2 论证理论

Argumentation theory is a broad interdisciplinary field that studies real life argument. Developments in argumentation theory have been greatly influenced by formal and informal logic; pragma-dialectics (developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst and their Dutch or “Amsterdam” school of argumentation); the Critical Thinking Movement; American speech communication; rhetoric; pragmatics; and the Polish School of Argument (which has published a relevant manifesto). In its attempt to understand argument, argumentation theory does not hesitate to make use of these and other related disciplines: cognitive psychology, computational modeling, semiotics, discourse analysis, the history of art, AI, and so on.论证理论是一个广泛的跨学科领域，研究现实生活中的论证。论证理论的发展受到了形式逻辑和非形式逻辑的极大影响；受到了由范·埃默伦和格罗滕多斯特及其荷兰或“阿姆斯特丹”学派的论证理论的影响；受到了批判性思维运动的影响；受到了美国的演讲交流、修辞学、语用学；以及波兰论证学派（已发表了相关宣言）的影响。在试图理解论证的过程中，论证理论不惜利用这些和其他相关学科：认知心理学、计算建模、符号学、话语分析、艺术史、人工智能等。
Above and beyond their study of general methods of argument analysis, argumentation theorists investigate arguments in a variety of ways: by exploring particular aspects of arguing (e.g., onus, burden of proof, or the norms that govern arguments in specific contexts); by analyzing arguments from historical, social, political or feminist points of view; by studying particular kinds of argument (e.g., those expressed in works of art, or those that arise in specific legal contexts); and by investigating the assumptions, conditions (philosophical, epistemological, social, political, institutional, psychological, educational, etc.) which give rise to disagreement, arguing and argument in the first place. In many ways, such endeavors intersect with informal logic.
除了对论证分析的一般方法的研究之外，论证理论家还以多种方式研究论证：通过探索论证的特定方面（例如责任、举证责任或在特定背景下管理论证的规范）；从历史、社会、政治或女权主义的角度分析论点；通过研究特定类型的论点（例如，艺术作品中表达的论点，或在特定法律背景下出现的论点）；并通过调查首先引起分歧、争论和论证的假设、条件（哲学、认识论、社会、政治、制度、心理、教育等）。在许多方面，此类努力与非形式逻辑相交叉。
Theoretically, argumentation theory incorporates three approaches to argument that have been associated with logic, rhetoric, and dialectics since ancient times. Logic understands an argument as an attempt to justify a conclusion, emphasizing its probative or epistemic merit. Rhetoric treats an argument as an attempt to persuade, emphasizing its persuasive force. Dialectics understands an argument as an element of an exchange between interlocutors with opposing points of view, emphasizing its place in an interaction between arguers who argue back and forth.
从理论上讲，论证理论融合了自古以来与逻辑、修辞学和辩证法相关的三种论证方法。逻辑将论证理解为证明结论合理性的尝试，强调其证明性或认知性的优点。修辞学将论证视为一种说服的尝试，强调其说服力。辩证法将论证理解为持相反观点的对话者之间交换的一个要素，强调其在来回争论的论证者之间的互动中的地位。
Like other forms of logic, informal logic emphasizes the epistemic merit of an argument. That said, its development has been greatly influenced by rhetorical and dialectical considerations, for successful real life arguments must convince their intended audiences (the public, scientists, the Members of Parliament, the readers of a particular magazine, etc.) and (as Johnson 2000 emphasizes) include answers to reasonable objections made by those with opposing points of view. Bermejo Luque 2011 has proposed a relevant theory of argument which aims to accommodate logical, rhetorical and dialectical points of view.
与其他形式的逻辑一样，非形式逻辑强调论证的认知价值。也就是说，它的发展很大程度上受到修辞和辩证考虑的影响，因为成功的现实生活论证必须说服其目标受众（公众、科学家、议会议员、特定杂志的读者等）并且（正如约翰逊2000 强调）包括对持相反观点的人提出的合理反对意见的答复。Bermejo Luque 2011提出了一种相关的论证理论，旨在容纳逻辑、修辞和辩证的观点。

2. Systems of Informal Logic
2. 非形式逻辑系统

As Hansen (2012) emphasizes, there are many different methods that informal logicians use to analyze instances of argument. An account of informal logic needs to make room for the different approaches this implies, at the same time that it explains how they constitute a shared field of inquiry. I will attempt to provide such an account by emphasizing systems of informal logic.
正如 Hansen (2012) 所强调的那样，非形式逻辑学家使用许多不同的方法来分析论证实例。对非形式逻辑的解释需要为这意味着不同的方法腾出空间，同时解释它们如何构成一个共同的探究领域。我将尝试通过强调非形式逻辑系统来提供这样的解释。
I understand an informal logic system to be a collection of principles and methods designed for the analysis and assessment of real life arguments. Considered from this point of view, informal logic can be described as a field devoted to the creation, study and application of systems of informal logic (or, more simply, “informal logics”) and the issues that this raises.
我理解非形式逻辑系统是为分析和评估现实生活论证而设计的原则和方法的集合。从这个角度来看，非形式逻辑可以被描述为致力于非形式逻辑系统（或更简单地“非形式逻辑”）的创建、研究和应用以及由此引发的问题的领域。
The first textbook that described itself as an informal logic textbook was Munson’s The Way of Words: An Informal Logic (1976). As his title emphasizes, his book aims to teach a specific informal logic (a specific informal logic system) which outlines one approach to the analysis and assessment of real life argument. Other approaches and other systems are developed in other textbooks and in scholarly discussion.
第一本自称为非形式逻辑教科书的教科书是 Munson 的《The Way of Words: An Informal Logic》（1976）。正如他的书名所强调的那样，他的书旨在教授一种特定的非形式逻辑（一种特定的非形式逻辑系统），概述了分析和评估现实生活论证的一种方法。其他教科书和学术讨论中还开发了其他方法和其他系统。
Different systems of informal logic vary in a number of ways — often, by incorporating formal, rhetorical, dialectical and other methods of analysis to a greater or lesser extent. Many systems propose unique approaches or mix methods that they borrow from other systems. Groarke 2020 has outlined a “BLAST” approach to the identification and definition of systems of informal logic. It defines a specific informal logic system I, as I = {B,L,A,S,T}, where:
不同的非形式逻辑系统在很多方面都有所不同——通常是或多或少地结合了形式、修辞、辩证和其他分析方法。许多系统提出了从其他系统借用的独特方法或混合方法。Groarke 2020 概述了一种识别和定义非形式逻辑系统的“BLAST”方法。它定义了一个特定的非形式逻辑系统I，为I = {B,L,A,S,T}，其中：
• B

   = the theoretical background that informs 

  I

  ,

  
  B = I 的理论背景，
  L

   = the language used to express the arguments 

  I

   analyzes,

  
  L = 用于表达我分析的论点的语言，
  A

   = a concept of argument,

  
  A = 论证的概念，
  S

   = a way to “standardize” arguments, and

  
  S = 一种“标准化”论点的方法，和
  T

   = tools and methods for testing the strength of arguments evaluated using 

  I

  .

  
  T = 用于测试使用 I 评估的论证强度的工具和方法。
  
As I show below, a particular system of informal logic can be defined by outlining and explaining each of its five BLAST elements. When they have been defined, different systems of informal logic and the elements they contain can be more precisely compared, contrasted, and evaluated. Historical precursors to present day informal logic can be investigated from a similar point of view.
如下所示，可以通过概述和解释五个 BLAST 元素中的每一个来定义特定的非形式逻辑系统。当它们被定义后，不同的非形式逻辑系统及其包含的元素就可以更精确地进行比较、对比和评估。当今非形式逻辑的历史前身可以从类似的角度进行研究。

2.1 A Concept of Argument (A)
2.1 论证的概念（A）

In many ways, the third element in the BLAST list — a concept of argument (A) — is the root of all informal logics. In ordinary discourse, the word “argue” can mean “to disagree,” usually with the further implication that someone does so aggressively. Informal logics, like other logics, assume a narrower conception of argument (so called “argument-1”), which understands an argument as an attempt to resolve disagreement (or potential disagreement) by providing reasons for accepting the point of view that it advances.
在许多方面，BLAST 列表中的第三个元素——论证 (A) 的概念——是所有非形式逻辑的根源。在日常对话中，“争论”一词可以表示“不同意”，通常还进一步暗示有人这样做是咄咄逼人的。与其他逻辑一样，非形式逻辑采用更狭义的论证概念（所谓的“论证-1”），它将论证理解为通过提供接受其提出的观点的理由来解决分歧（或潜在分歧）的尝试。
This notion of argument is “evidentiary” in the sense that it understands an argument as an attempt to provide evidence in support of some conclusion. The premises in the argument convey the evidence which provides those who consider the argument reasons for accepting the conclusion. As Hitchcock 2007 puts it, an argument is “a claim-reason complex” consisting of (1) premises, (2) a conclusion, and (3) an inference from the premises to the conclusion (and the implied claim that the conclusion is true, likely true, plausible or should in some other way be accepted).
这种论证概念是“证据性的”，因为它将论证理解为试图提供证据来支持某些结论。论证中的前提传达了证据，为那些考虑论证的人提供了接受结论的理由。正如 Hitchcock 2007 所说，论证是“一个主张-理由复合体”，由 (1) 前提、(2) 结论和 (3) 从前提到结论的推论（以及结论的隐含主张）组成。真实的、可能真实的、合理的或应该以其他方式被接受）。
The following sentence, taken from an article in the Houston Chronicle (Devra Gartenstein 28/01/19) is a simple example of argument in this sense.
以下句子摘自《休斯敦纪事报》（Devra Gartenstein 28/01/19）中的一篇文章，是这个意义上的论证的一个简单示例。

EXAMPLE 1: Small businesses are important because they provide opportunities for entrepreneurs and create meaningful jobs with greater job satisfaction than positions with larger, traditional companies.
示例 1：小型企业很重要，因为它们为企业家提供了机会，并创造了有意义的工作，与大型传统公司的职位相比，其工作满意度更高。

In this example, the word “because” is an inference indicator. It tells us that the initial statement in the sentence (“Small businesses are important”) is a conclusion backed by a premise (that small businesses “provide opportunities...”) that provides a reason for believing it to be true.
在这个例子中，“因为”这个词是一个推理指示符。它告诉我们，句子中的最初陈述（“小企业很重要”）是一个由前提（小企业“提供机会......”）支持的结论，该前提提供了相信它为真的理由。
The example below is taken from an opinion piece (in the Western Courier 25/10/08) which criticizes conservative groups opposed to research using human embryos.
下面的例子取自一篇评论文章（2008 年 10 月 25 日《西方信使》），该文章批评反对使用人类胚胎进行研究的保守团体。

EXAMPLE 2: This [opposition to embryonic research] is shortsighted and stubborn. The fact is, fetuses are being aborted whether conservatives like it or not. Post-abortion, the embryos are literally being thrown away when they could be used in lifesaving medical research.... Lives could be saved and vastly improved if only scientists were allowed to use embryos that are otherwise being tossed in the garbage.
例2：这种[反对胚胎研究]是短视且顽固的。事实上，无论保守派是否喜欢，胎儿都在被堕胎。堕胎后，胚胎本来可以用于挽救生命的医学研究，但实际上却被扔掉了……如果科学家被允许使用原本被扔进垃圾箱的胚胎，生命就可以得到挽救并大大改善。

We can summarize the elements of this argument as follows.
我们可以将这一论点的要点总结如下。

Premise

: Fetuses are being aborted anyway (whether conservatives like it or not).


前提：无论如何，胎儿都会被堕胎（无论保守派是否喜欢）。
Premise

: Lives could be saved and vastly improved if scientists were allowed to use embryos that are otherwise being tossed in the garbage.


前提：如果科学家被允许使用原本会被扔进垃圾箱的胚胎，那么生命就可以得到拯救并得到极大的改善。
Conclusion

: The conservative opposition to embryonic research is shortsighted and stubborn.


结论：对胚胎研究的保守派反对是短视且顽固的。

This is another example of a simple argument. In real life arguing, complex arguments may contain tens (or even hundreds) of premises, and are usually made up of layers of inference that proceed from initial premises to intermediate conclusions which function as premises for further conclusions, culminating in a “main” or “principal” conclusion.
这是简单论证的另一个例子。在现实生活中的争论中，复杂的论证可能包含数十个（甚至数百个）前提，并且通常由从初始前提到中间结论的推理层组成，中间结论充当进一步结论的前提，最终形成“（关于人的）主要”或“（关于物的）主要”结论。
All systems of informal logic are attempts to understand and assess arguments in the premise/conclusion sense. In view of this, the core value of A in the BLAST definition is shared by all informal logics, though there are many variations that occur when informal logicians expand this conception by adding other elements to it. This can be done by understanding an argument as a premise-conclusion complex which is directed at an audience, or backed by a warrant, or provided as an answer to an opponent who has an opposing point of view. When they expand the definition of argument in these ways, systems of informal logic make an audience, warrant, and/or dialectical context an essential element of a case of argument.
所有非形式逻辑系统都试图在前提/结论的意义上理解和评估论证。鉴于此，BLAST 定义中 A 的核心价值是所有非形式逻辑所共有的，尽管当非形式逻辑学家通过添加其他元素来扩展这一概念时，会出现许多变化。这可以通过将论证理解为前提-结论复合体来完成，该论证是针对观众的，或者有依据的支持，或者作为对持相反观点的对手的答案。当他们以这些方式扩展论证的定义时，非形式逻辑系统使观众、保证和/或辩证语境成为论证案例的基本要素。
《给青少年的漫画逻辑学》
原价200元

特惠价：99元
适读年龄：8~12岁
点击下图购买

2.2 Theoretical Background (B)
2.2 理论背景（B）

Other elements recognized in the BLAST definition are notable for the extent to which they vary from one informal logic to another. The different theoretical backgrounds that inform different systems of informal logic (B in the BLAST definition) are of special note, for they reflect the extent to which the development of informal logic has been a search for new and novel methods of analysis that can be applied to real life arguing. In a particular case, this search may end in Aristotle, in feminist theories of argument, in rhetoric, in dialogue theory, in speech communication, in formal logic, or in some combination of these and/or other theoretical points of view.
BLAST 定义中认可的其他元素因其从一种非形式逻辑到另一种非形式逻辑的不同程度而值得注意。不同的非形式逻辑系统（BLAST 定义中的 B）的不同理论背景是特别值得注意的，因为它们反映了非形式逻辑的发展在多大程度上是对可应用的新的和新颖的分析方法的探索。到现实生活中的争论。在特定情况下，这种搜索可能以亚里士多德、女权主义论证理论、修辞学、对话理论、言语交流、形式逻辑或这些和/或其他理论观点的某种组合结束。
The theoretical background that characterizes systems of informal logic can be used to identify, not only specific systems, but also families of systems which share key theoretical elements. Many informal logicians have, to take one example, turned to fallacy theory in their attempt to find a logic that can account for real life arguing. In some cases, the result has been fallacy oriented textbooks which introduce tens or hundreds of fallacies used to dismiss straw man reasoning, hasty generalizations, slippery slope reasoning, and so on (see, e.g., Bennett 2018).
表征非形式逻辑系统的理论背景不仅可用于识别特定系统，还可用于识别共享关键理论元素的系统族。举个例子，许多非形式逻辑学家转向谬误理论，试图找到一种可以解释现实生活中争论的逻辑。在某些情况下，结果是教科书以谬误为导向，引入了数十或数百个谬误，用于驳斥稻草人推理、仓促概括、滑坡推理等（例如，参见 Bennett 2018）。
Systems of informal logic that adopt a fallacy approach can be summarized as instances of I in which I = {B, L, A, S, T}, where: B = Fallacy Theory, and T = a set of fallacies used to judge instances of argument. An even narrower set of (“Hamblin”) systems can be defined as systems in which B = Hamblin. This is a family of systems which is rooted in the account of fallacies proposed in Hamblin 1970.
采用谬误方法的非形式逻辑系统可以概括为 I 的实例，其中 I = {B, L, A, S, T}，其中：B = 谬误理论，T = 用于判断实例的一组谬误的论证。更窄的一组（“Hamblin”）系统可以定义为 B = Hamblin 的系统。这是一个植根于 Hamblin 1970 提出的谬误解释的一系列系统。
Systems of informal logic that combine fallacy theory with other methods of testing arguments can be understood as systems which define T in a way that includes a specific a set of fallacies along with other criteria for argument evaluation (e.g., Johnson and Blair’s ARS criteria).
将谬误理论与其他测试论证方法相结合的非形式逻辑系统可以被理解为以包括一组特定谬误以及其他论证评估标准（例如约翰逊和布莱尔的 ARS 标准）的方式定义 T 的系统。

2.3 Language (NL and NL+)
2.3 语言（NL 和 NL+）

One key element of informal logic is its focus on arguments as they occur within natural rather than formal languages.
非形式逻辑的一个关键要素是它关注在自然语言而不是形式语言中出现的论证。
Initially, informal logic texts defined natural language arguments as verbal arguments: i.e. as arguments expressed and conveyed in words associated with some established natural language. This is an important focus given that arguments of this sort are a staple in the kinds of arguing that informal logic emphasizes — in letters to the editor; parliamentary debate; court proceedings; and in essays and books written in defense of some point of view (that humans could colonize Mars, President Trump was misunderstood, socialism is the best political system, and so on).
最初，非形式逻辑文本将自然语言论证定义为口头论证：即用与某些已建立的自然语言相关的单词表达和传达的论证。这是一个重要的焦点，因为此类论证是非形式逻辑强调的论证类型的主要内容——在给编辑的信中；议会辩论；法庭诉讼；以及为捍卫某些观点而撰写的论文和书籍（人类可以殖民火星、特朗普总统被误解、社会主义是最好的政治制度等等）。
When a system of informal logic is designed to analyze and assess verbal arguments of this sort, the language of argument they assume (L in the BLAST definition) consists of the words and sentences (and the rules governing them) associated with some natural language (“NL”). This makes the language of argument a complex and nuanced system of meaning which expands the possibilities of argument beyond the “informative” statements of fact that authors like Copi took to be the only legitimate realm of argument. One notable feature of the expanded realm that informal logic studies is the extent to which metaphor and other figures of speech are used to support conclusions — something that must be accounted for in a comprehensive account of informal reasoning.
当非形式逻辑系统被设计来分析和评估此类言语论证时，它们假设的论证语言（BLAST 定义中的 L）由与某种自然语言相关的单词和句子（以及管理它们的规则）组成（ “NL”）。这使得论证语言成为一种复杂而微妙的意义系统，它将论证的可能性扩展到超出像科匹这样的作者认为唯一合法的论证领域的“信息性”事实陈述之外。非形式逻辑研究的扩展领域的一个显着特征是隐喻和其他修辞手法用于支持结论的程度——这是在非形式推理的全面说明中必须考虑的因素。
As the scope of informal logic has expanded to provide a more comprehensive account of ordinary argument, this verbal paradigm has frequently been expanded to make room for real life arguments which depend on non-verbal elements. Paradigm examples of these non-verbal elements are photographs, illustrations, drawings, videos, etc. which are used to provide evidence in support of some conclusion -- as when a photograph or video is used to prove someone’s identity, or produced in court to give the court a reason to believe that they were present at the scene of a crime. As Hitchcock (2002) notes, “a poster with a giant photograph of a starving emaciated child and the words ‘make poverty history’ can reasonably be construed as an argument.”
随着非形式逻辑的范围不断扩大，为普通论证提供了更全面的解释，这种语言范式也经常得到扩展，为依赖于非语言元素的现实生活论证腾出空间。这些非语言元素的典型示例是照片、插图、图画、视频等，它们用于提供支持某些结论的证据——例如当照片或视频用于证明某人的身份，或在法庭上出示以证明某人的身份时，让法庭有理由相信他们出现在犯罪现场。正如希区柯克（Hitchcock，2002）指出的那样，“一张海报上有一张饥饿的瘦弱儿童的巨幅照片，上面写着‘让贫困成为历史’，这可以合理地被解释为一种论点。”
Arguments that employ premises and/or conclusions that arguers convey using non-verbal visual elements are commonly called “visual” arguments. I leave for elsewhere the question whether such arguments are visual in some deeper sense. In most cases, they have verbal as well as visual elements and can, in view of this, be described as arguments which are expressed as an amalgam of verbal and non-verbal (visual) elements.
采用论证者使用非语言视觉元素传达的前提和/或结论的论证通常称为“视觉”论证。我把这些论点在更深层次上是否是视觉的问题留给了其他地方。在大多数情况下，它们具有言语和视觉元素，并且鉴于此，可以将其描述为以言语和非言语（视觉）元素的混合体表达的论点。
The two photographs in EXAMPLE 3 (below), taken by the NASA Mars rover Phoenix, were part of a visual argument proposed by the NASA scientists who directed the Phoenix mission. The first photo provides an initial view of a dig made by the rover; the second a view of the same dig four Martian days (sols) later. When we look at the bottom left hand corner of the first photograph and compare it to the bottom left hand corner of the second photograph, we can see white crust in the first photograph but not the second. According to the NASA scientists, the only way to plausibly explain this change is by understanding the crust as water ice which evaporated when the dig exposed it to the sun.
示例 3（如下）中的两张照片由 NASA 凤凰号火星探测器拍摄，是指导凤凰号任务的 NASA 科学家提出的视觉论证的一部分。第一张照片提供了火星车挖掘的初步视图；第二张是四火星天（太阳系）后同一挖掘的视图。当我们查看第一张照片的左下角并将其与第二张照片的左下角进行比较时，我们可以在第一张照片中看到白色外壳，但在第二张照片中看不到。根据美国宇航局科学家的说法，合理解释这种变化的唯一方法是将地壳理解为水冰，当挖掘将其暴露在阳光下时，水冰就会蒸发。

EXAMPLE 3 实施例3
We can summarize the argument as follows.
我们可以将论点总结如下。

EXAMPLE 3:   实施例3：


(Visual) Premise

: What we see in the bottom left hand corner of the first photograph of the dig.


（视觉）前提：我们在第一张挖掘照片的左下角看到的东西。
(Visual) Premise

: What we see in the bottom left hand corner of the second photograph of the dig.


（视觉）前提：我们在第二张挖掘照片的左下角看到的东西。
(Verbal) Premise

: The most plausible way to explain the changes we see (the disappearance of the white crust) is by understanding it as water ice.


（口头）前提：解释我们所看到的变化（白色外壳消失）的最合理的方法是将其理解为水冰。
Conclusion

: There is water on the planet Mars.


结论：火星上有水。

This argument can be described as visual and verbal. Visual because our looking at the photographs and seeing the difference between them is a non-verbal component of the argument that provides key evidence that supports the conclusion. At the same time the argument is verbal because it contains a key verbal component provided by the scientists’ explanation of what we must be seeing. The conclusion is established by combining these visual and verbal components.
这种争论可以用视觉和言语来形容。视觉，因为我们看照片并看到它们之间的差异是论证的非语言组成部分，它提供了支持结论的关键证据。同时，这个论证是口头的，因为它包含了科学家对我们必须看到的东西的解释所提供的关键口头成分。结论是通过结合这些视觉和语言成分而得出的。
When a system of informal logic recognizes visual arguments of this sort, the value of L in its BLAST definition can be understood as NL+, where the + indicates that the language of argument includes words and non-verbal elements like photographs and other non-verbal visual images.
当非形式逻辑系统识别此类视觉论证时，BLAST 定义中的 L 值可以理解为 NL+，其中 + 表示论证的语言包括单词和非语言元素，例如照片和其他非语言元素。视觉图像。
One might compare the expansion of informal logic to account for visual arguments to the attempt to expand the language of formal logic (and, some argue, the notion of argument it embraces) to allow visual deductions (see Barwise and Etchemendy 1998). Visual premises can be used in geometric proofs, in legal arguments (to proving that someone committed a crime, that the murder was heinous, etc.), in reasoning about planets, stars and black holes, and in aesthetic criticism and evaluation. In ornithology, a well authenticated, clear photograph of a rare species (say, the Ivory Billed Woodpecker) is widely accepted as the proper proof that the species is not extinct.
人们可以将非形式逻辑的扩展以解释视觉论证与扩展形式逻辑的语言（以及一些人认为它所包含的论证概念）以允许视觉演绎的尝试进行比较（参见 Barwise 和 Etchemendy 1998）。视觉前提可用于几何证明、法律论证（证明某人犯罪、谋杀是令人发指的等）、行星、恒星和黑洞的推理以及美学批评和评价。在鸟类学中，一张经过充分验证的稀有物种（例如象牙嘴啄木鸟）的清晰照片被广泛认为是该物种尚未灭绝的适当证据。
In other cases, a visual image may serve as a conclusion which is backed by visual and/or verbal premises. A forensic artist concludes that their drawing of a suspect correctly depicts what they look like by inferring this from verbal and visual evidence which is provided by the witnesses they interview.
在其他情况下，视觉图像可以作为由视觉和/或口头前提支持的结论。一位法医艺术家根据他们采访的证人提供的口头和视觉证据推断，他们对嫌疑人的描绘正确地描绘了他们的外貌。
Kjeldsen 2015 has provided a comprehensive overview of the study of visual arguments. Informal logics that recognize visual arguments do so for the same reason that they recognize verbal arguments: in order to account for the kinds of arguing that play an important role in real life discourse and exchange. Visual arguments are increasingly significant at a time when digital communication facilitates the creation and distribution of visual images, enhancing and increasing the use of arguments which employ photographs, videos, art, political cartoons, virtual reality, 3D modeling and other kinds of visuals (see Godden, Palczewski, and Groarke, 2016).
Kjeldsen 2015 对视觉论证的研究提供了全面的概述。识别视觉论证的非形式逻辑与识别言语论证的原因相同：为了解释在现实生活的话语和交流中发挥重要作用的论证类型。当数字通信促进视觉图像的创建和传播，增强和增加使用照片、视频、艺术、政治漫画、虚拟现实、3D 建模和其他视觉效果的论证时，视觉论证变得越来越重要（参见Godden、Palczewski 和 Groarke，2016）。
As is the case with words, the images used in visual arguments may, as Kjeldsen and other rhetoricians point out, not be intended as literal depictions of something they represent, but function as visual metaphors which characterize some situation in an argumentatively charged way.
与文字的情况一样，正如凯耶德森和其他修辞学家指出的那样，视觉论证中使用的图像可能不是对其所代表的事物的字面描述，而是作为视觉隐喻，以充满争议的方式描述某些情况。
The cartoon of Napoleon III below (EXAMPLE 4) appeared in Punch on Feb. 19, 1859.
下面拿破仑三世的漫画（示例 4）出现在 1859 年 2 月 19 日的 Punch 上。

EXAMPLE 4 实施例4
This is a clever caricature, but it is something more than a simple caricature, for the cartoonist uses a drawing of Napoleon-as-porcupine to convey a reason to doubt his profession of peace. We might summarize his point as the suggestion that Napoleon’s actions -- his amassing of the armaments which encircle him like quills on a porcupine -- are not the actions of someone committed to peace. The dissonance between his actions and his profession of peace invites the viewer to respond to him as they would respond to an actual porcupine -- with caution, concern and suspicion, wary of what he might do with his weapons (even though he has an “inoffensive” posture and makes an inoffensive sound).
这是一幅巧妙的漫画，但它不仅仅是一幅简单的漫画，因为漫画家用拿破仑作为豪猪的图画来表达怀疑他的和平信仰的理由。我们可以将他的观点概括为这样的观点：拿破仑的行为——他像豪猪身上的羽毛一样集结军备包围着他——不是一个致力于和平的人的行为。他的行为与他所宣称的和平之间的不协调让观众像对待一只真正的豪猪一样对待他——谨慎、关心和怀疑，警惕他可能用他的武器做什么（尽管他有“无害的”姿势并发出无害的声音）。
In this case the visual image in the argument is not an attempt to literally replicate some state of affairs. The core argument we might extract from the cartoon can be understood as follows.
在这种情况下，论证中的视觉图像并不是试图从字面上复制某种事态。我们可以从漫画中提取的核心论点可以理解如下。

Premise

: Napoleon declares that “The Empire embodies peace” (“L’Empire c’est la paix”).


前提：拿破仑宣称“帝国体现和平”。
Premise

: Napoleon has surrounded himself with many armaments.


前提：拿破仑在自己周围配备了许多武器。
Conclusion

: Napoleon may sound inoffensive when he says that “The Empire embodies peace,” but his build up of armaments suggests we should be wary of the empire he has built.


结论：拿破仑说“帝国体现了和平”，这听起来可能没什么冒犯性，但他的军备建设表明我们应该对他建立的帝国保持警惕。

This is a visual argument (and the second premise a visual premise) at least in the sense that it is conveyed visually (and not with the words in our paraphrase). The verbal paraphrase summarizes the argument, though the non-verbal visual elements the cartoonist uses must be replicated if we want to exactly replicate their act of arguing. This is especially important when such arguments are open to contrary interpretations or have meanings that are difficult to convey in words.
这是一个视觉论证（第二个前提是视觉前提），至少从视觉传达的意义上来说（而不是用我们释义中的文字）。口头释义总结了争论，尽管如果我们想准确地复制他们的争论行为，则必须复制漫画家使用的非语言视觉元素。当此类论点容易出现相反的解释或具有难以用语言表达的含义时，这一点尤其重要。
In the case of the Punch cartoon, we might interpret it in a second way by adding to our initial paraphrase, understanding the Napoleon III-as-porcupine caricature as an allusion to another famous “Louis” King of France: Louis XII, who ruled from 1498 to 1515. Popularly known as the “porcupine” King of France, he adopted the animal as his royal emblem, portraying the French kingdom as a porcupine -- an animal he chose because it was popularly believed (to some extent now as well as then) that it could shoot its quills, symbolizing the offensive and defensive capabilities of the king’s army.
就《潘趣》漫画而言，我们可以通过在最初的释义中添加第二种方式来解释它，将拿破仑三世作为豪猪的漫画理解为对另一位著名的“路易”法国国王的暗示：路易十二，他统治了法国从 1498 年到 1515 年。法国国王普遍被称为“豪猪”，他采用这种动物作为王室标志，将法兰西王国描绘成一只豪猪——他选择这种动物是因为人们普遍相信它（在某种程度上现在也如此） （当时）它可以射出羽毛，象征着国王军队的进攻和防御能力。
If we understand the cartoonist’s depiction as an allusion to Louis XII, the argument in the cartoon is plausibly assigned another premise that reminds the viewer of the rule of Louis XII, a king who was famous for rebuilding the French army, which he then employed in a series of wars against his neighbors (his general strategy is criticized by Machiavelli in The Prince). The additional premise can be summarized as the suggestion that Napoleon is acting like Louis XII did — something which provides another reason to be wary of him.
如果我们将漫画家的描绘理解为对路易十二的暗示，那么漫画中的论点似乎被赋予了另一个前提，让观众想起路易十二的统治，这位国王因重建法国军队而闻名，然后他将这支军队用于军事行动。一系列针对邻国的战争（他的总体策略在《君主论》中受到马基雅维利的批评）。额外的前提可以概括为拿破仑的行为就像路易十二那样——这提供了另一个对他保持警惕的理由。
In many circumstances, the visual elements of an argument (like verbal elements in arguments which are ambiguous or vague) are open to multiple interpretations. This raises issues of representation and interpretation. In the Napoleon example, it is difficult to say whether the cartoonist or his audience understood his depiction to be a reference to Louis XII. In such circumstances, the simplest strategy is one that identifies and evaluates all the plausible interpretations of an argument.
在许多情况下，论证的视觉元素（如论证中不明确或模糊的语言元素）可以有多种解释。这就提出了表述和解释的问题。在拿破仑的例子中，很难说漫画家或他的观众是否理解他的描绘是指路易十二。在这种情况下，最简单的策略是识别并评估某个论点的所有合理解释。
Visual metaphors are common in works of art, political propaganda, and political cartooning. One popular motif depicts politicians with a growing Pinocchio nose, suggesting that they are, like the childhood hero, preposterous liars (see Tseronis and Forceville 2017). In cases such as this, visual images can have rhetorical as well as logical significance, allowing arguers to convey their arguments in rhetorically powerful ways.
视觉隐喻在艺术作品、政治宣传和政治漫画中很常见。一个流行的主题描绘了政客们长着越来越大的匹诺曹鼻子，这表明他们就像童年英雄一样，是荒谬的骗子（参见 Tseronis 和 Forceville 2017）。在这种情况下，视觉图像可以具有修辞意义和逻辑意义，使辩论者能够以强有力的修辞方式表达他们的论点。

2.4 Modes of Arguing
2.4 争论的方式

Informal logicians who advocate for systems of informal logic that broaden the language of argument from NL to NL+ sometimes expand the standard notion of argument even further, beyond verbal and visual arguments, to make room for other ways of arguing.
提倡将论证语言从 NL 扩展到 NL+ 的非形式逻辑系统的非形式逻辑学家有时会进一步扩展论证的标准概念，超越口头和视觉论证，为其他论证方式腾出空间。
The role of non-verbal carriers of meaning in real life discourse allows many different semiotic modes to contribute to informal arguments. In view of this, some argue that a fully comprehensive account of argument must include a “multimodal” account of meaning which recognizes many different modes of arguing (see Groarke 2015). The latter may employ gestures, facial expressions, sounds of different sorts, tastes, smells, musical notes, and a host of other non-verbal phenomena.
现实生活话语中意义的非语言载体的作用允许许多不同的符号模式为非形式争论做出贡献。鉴于此，一些人认为，对论证的全面全面的解释必须包括对意义的“多模式”解释，它承认许多不同的论证模式（参见 Groarke 2015）。后者可以使用手势、面部表情、不同种类的声音、味道、气味、音符和许多其他非语言现象。
Groarke 2018, Kišiček 2018, and Eckstein 2018 have investigated “auditory” (or “acoustic”) modes of reasoning that depend on non-verbal sounds. Examples are situations in which the sound of a siren is pointed to as evidence that the police are on their way, or the sound of an automobile engine (or an irregular heart) is the basis of an inference to the conclusion that it has a leaky valve.
Groarke 2018、Kišiček 2018 和 Eckstein 2018 研究了依赖于非语言声音的“听觉”（或“声学”）推理模式。例如，警报声被认为是警察正在赶来的证据，或者汽车发动机（或不规则的心脏）的声音是推断其存在泄漏的结论的基础。阀门。
Other modes of arguing invoke the senses in other ways. In 2019, Space Cargo Unlimited and the University of Bordeaux’s wine institute (the ISVV) sent fourteen bottles of Château Petrus to the International Space Station to determine how a year in space would affect their taste and character. A year later, the wine returned to earth where it was analyzed. A key element of this analysis was a blind tasting conducted by 12 professional tasters who compared the wine from space to bottles of the same vintage which had remained on earth. The sommeliers concluded that the wine which had been in space had a different, distinct (“more evolved”) taste, inferring their conclusion from their two tastings (which functioned as ‘taste premises’).
其他争论模式以其他方式调用感官。2019 年，Space Cargo Unlimited 和波尔多大学葡萄酒研究所 (ISVV) 将 14 瓶柏图斯酒庄 (Château Petrus) 送往国际空间站，以确定在太空中度过一年将如何影响其口味和品质。一年后，葡萄酒返回地球并进行分析。这项分析的一个关键要素是由 12 名专业品酒师进行盲品，他们将来自太空的葡萄酒与留在地球上的同一年份的葡萄酒进行比较。侍酒师从两次品尝（充当“味道前提”）中推断出他们的结论，认为在太空中的葡萄酒具有不同的、独特的（“更进化的”）味道。
Here is another example from a wine tasting.
这是品酒会上的另一个例子。

EXAMPLE 5:   实施例5：




A wine steward attempts to convince a customer that Napa Valley “Frogs Leap PS 2015” is an exceptional Petite Syrah by quoting high praise in a wine guide, and by handing them a glass, inviting them to taste it.
一名葡萄酒管家试图通过引用葡萄酒指南中的高度赞扬，并递给顾客一杯酒，邀请他们品尝，让顾客相信纳帕谷“Frogs Leap PS 2015”是一款出色的小西拉。

In this case, the steward provides evidence for their claim that Frogs Leap PS 2015 is an exceptional Petite Syrah in two ways: (i) via a verbal premise that cites the authority of a wine guide, and (ii) via a taste test that aims to support this conclusion. In the first case, the result is a verbal appeal to authority, in the second an argument by taste.
在本案中，管理者通过两种方式提供了证据，证明 Frogs Leap PS 2015 是一款出色的小西拉：(i) 通过引用葡萄酒指南权威的口头前提，以及 (ii) 通过品尝测试旨在支持这一结论。在第一种情况下，结果是口头诉诸权威，在第二种情况下，结果是根据品味进行争论。
In real life arguing different modes are often mixed. In the case of verbal arguments, the meaning of oral arguments is often notable for its dependence on the sound of the human voice — which can convey meaning above and beyond that implied by words. As Gilbert (1997) notes, uttering the sentence “Fine, fine, you’re right, I’m wrong, we’ll do it your way,” “can indicate agreement with what has been said if presented flatly and intended sincerely, or, if accompanied by an expression of anger, can mean that the respondent does not agree at all, but is capitulating.” (pp. 2–3) Kišiček 2014 has highlighted the important role that the paralinguistic features of oral arguments play in many instances of verbal argument.
在现实生活中，不同的争论模式常常是混合在一起的。就口头辩论而言，口头辩论的意义通常因其依赖于人声而引人注目——人声可以传达超越言语所暗示的意义。正如吉尔伯特（Gilbert，1997）指出的那样，说出这句话“好吧，好吧，你是对的，我错了，我们会按照你的方式去做”，“如果坦率地表达并真诚地表达，可以表明对所说的话的同意，或者，如果伴随着愤怒的表情，则可能意味着受访者根本不同意，而是投降。” （第 2-3 页）Kišiček 2014 强调了口头辩论的副语言特征在许多口头辩论实例中所发挥的重要作用。
Gilbert 1997 was the first informal logician to suggest that there are different modes of arguing that need to be distinguished. His “multi-modal” theory of “coalescent” argument accepts the traditional conception of argument as one mode, adding to it “emotional,” “visceral” (physical) and “kisceral” (intuitive) modes of arguing. He pairs this with a very broad account of arguing which understands it as an attempt to resolve conflicting attitudes, beliefs, feelings and intuitions in a way that brings about the “coalescence” of competing points of view.
Gilbert 1997 是第一位提出需要区分不同论证模式的非形式逻辑学家。他的“合并”论证的“多模态”理论接受传统的论证概念作为一种模式，并添加了“情感”、“本能”（物理）和“kisceral”（直觉）论证模式。他将这一点与对争论的非常广泛的解释结合起来，将争论理解为试图以一种导致相互竞争的观点“融合”的方式解决相互冲突的态度、信仰、情感和直觉的尝试。
According to Gilbert’s account, an argument may consist of sentences and/or expressions of emotion, physical demonstrations and difficult to define intuitions. This allows a forlorn look or tears to count as premises in an argument insofar as they provide evidence that promotes coalescence (and inference in this broad sense). As Gilbert argues, his non-traditional modes of arguing may, in real life situations, provide effective ways of resolving the disagreement that gives rise to argument.
根据吉尔伯特的说法，论证可能由句子和/或情感表达、物理演示和难以定义的直觉组成。这使得绝望的表情或眼泪可以被视为论证中的前提，因为它们提供了促进合并（以及广义上的推论）的证据。正如吉尔伯特所说，他的非传统争论模式可能在现实生活中提供有效的方法来解决引起争论的分歧。
Gilbert’s account of modes radically expands our understanding of argument beyond “language” as it is traditionally conceived. In an account of the “anthropology” of argument, Tindale 2021 defends the alternative “logics” this makes possible. In doing so, he promotes informal logics that recognize verbal arguments (and in this sense L) but add to it a much broader range of everyday communication which can convey the substance of an argument via expressions of emotion, physical actions (including non-verbal means of communication like so called “body language”), and difficult to define intuitions. This expands the language of argument far beyond words and sentences, in a way that maximizes the breadth of L+.
吉尔伯特对模式的解释从根本上扩展了我们对论证的理解，超越了传统意义上的“语言”。在对论证的“人类学”的描述中，《Tindale 2021》捍卫了这种可能性的替代“逻辑”。在这样做的过程中，他提倡非形式逻辑，这种逻辑可以识别言语论证（在这个意义上是L），但又增加了更广泛的日常交流范围，可以通过情感表达、身体动作（包括非言语）来传达论证的实质内容。沟通方式，如所谓的“肢体语言”），并且很难定义直觉。这将论证的语言扩展到了单词和句子之外，从而最大化了 L+ 的广度。

3. Standardizing Arguments
3. 标准化论证

The ultimate goal of informal logic is normative: i.e. systems of logic that provide us with tools that can be used to evaluate real life arguments and the key components they contain. Because real life discourse often fails to present the latter clearly, most systems of informal logic prepare the way for argument evaluation by explicitly identifying an argument’s premises, conclusions, and inferences. The process of doing so is commonly called “standardizing” (S in the BLAST definition).
非形式逻辑的最终目标是规范性的：即逻辑系统为我们提供可用于评估现实生活中的论点及其包含的关键组成部分的工具。由于现实生活中的话语往往无法清楚地表达后者，因此大多数非形式逻辑系统通过明确识别论证的前提、结论和推论来为论证评估做好准备。这样做的过程通常称为“标准化”（BLAST 定义中的 S）。
In the process of standardization, informal logics aim to untangle issues that obscure the structure and content of real life arguments. Arguments in ordinary discourse are, for example, frequently vague, ambiguous or in other ways unclear. Premises and conclusions can be conveyed by rhetorical questions (“Can anyone seriously believe...?” “Could the defendant have been in two places at once?”) and the key components of an argument may be interspersed with irrelevant digressions and repetition. When we extract an argument from the context in which it occurs, it can be important to recognize what is implicit but relevant at the same time that we discard what is explicit but irrelevant.
在标准化过程中，非形式逻辑旨在解决掩盖现实生活论证的结构和内容的问题。例如，普通话语中的论点常常是模糊的、模棱两可的或以其他方式不清楚的。前提和结论可以通过反问句来表达（“有人能认真相信……吗？”“被告可能同时出现在两个地方吗？”），论证的关键组成部分可能会散布着不相关的离题和重复。当我们从其出现的上下文中提取一个论点时，重要的是要认识到什么是隐含的但相关的，同时我们丢弃什么是明确的但不相关的。
Standardizing clarifies the structure of an argument in ordinary discourse by:
标准化通过以下方式澄清普通话语中论证的结构：
• discarding irrelevant and distracting digressions, repetition, and remarks (“noise”) which do not play a role in the reasoning the argument contains;
  丢弃不相关和分散注意力的离题、重复和评论（“噪音”），这些内容在论证所包含的推理中不起作用；
• restating the content of rhetorical questions and other stylistic devices that may obscure the meaning of the argument’s components;
  重述反问句和其他可能模糊论证组成部分含义的文体手段的内容；
• clarifying incomplete, vague or ambiguous claims and utterances; and/or
  澄清不完整、含糊或模棱两可的主张和言论；和/或
• recognizing components of the argument which are not explicitly expressed.
  认识到论证中未明确表达的组成部分。
Systems of informal logic may standardize arguments in a variety of ways. In its simplest form, a standardized argument is a list of premises and a conclusion (the argument’s inference is the implicit move from the premises to the conclusion). EXAMPLE 1 above can be standardized as follows.
非形式逻辑系统可以通过多种方式标准化论证。最简单的形式是，标准化论证是一系列前提和结论（论证的推论是从前提到结论的隐含移动）。上述示例1可以标准化如下。

EXAMPLE 1: Small businesses are important because they provide opportunities for entrepreneurs and create meaningful jobs with greater job satisfaction than positions with larger, traditional companies.
示例 1：小型企业很重要，因为它们为企业家提供了机会，并创造了有意义的工作，与大型传统公司的职位相比，其工作满意度更高。

Premise: [Small businesses] provide opportunities for entrepreneurs and create meaningful jobs with greater job satisfaction than positions with larger, traditional companies. Conclusion: Small businesses are important.
前提：[小企业]为企业家提供机会，并创造有意义的工作，与大型传统公司的职位相比，其工作满意度更高。结论：小企业很重要。

In this example, the word “because” functions as an “inference indicator” which tells us that the claim that follows is a premise offered in support of the conclusion which precedes it. In other cases, words like “for,” “given that,” “since,” are ways of introducing premises, while words like “so,” “hence,” “thus,” “therefore,” are used to introduce conclusions.
在这个例子中，“因为”一词起到了“推理指示符”的作用，它告诉我们后面的主张是为支持前面的结论而提供的前提。在其他情况下，“for”、“given that”、“since”等词语是引入前提的方式，而“so”、“hence”、“thus”、“therefore”等词语则用于引入结论。
Verbal inference indicators are an important, but not necessary or sufficient, sign of argument. For indicator words can be used in other ways (“because” may indicate an explanation rather than an argument, a causal connection, emphasis of some sort, a temporal order, etc.), and are not necessary when a context makes it clear that someone is providing reasons for a conclusion.
言语推理指标是一个重要的论证标志，但不是必要或充分的。指示词可以以其他方式使用（“因为”可能表示解释而不是论证、因果关系、某种强调、时间顺序等），并且当上下文明确表明以下情况时，指示词是不必要的：有人正在为结论提供理由。

3.1 Implicit Premises and Conclusions
3.1 隐式前提和结论

One issue that is frequently addressed in standardization is an argument’s dependence on premises and conclusions which are assumed but not explicitly stated.
标准化中经常解决的一个问题是论证对假设但未明确说明的前提和结论的依赖。
The following report from the New Hampshire Rockingham News (30/8/2002) comments on a court case which sent the organizer of dog fights to jail for cruelty to animals.
以下来自新罕布什尔州罗金厄姆新闻报（2002 年 8 月 30 日）对一起法庭案件的评论，该案件将斗狗组织者因虐待动物而入狱。

EXAMPLE 6: A co-ordinator for the Humane Society supported a prison sentence, claiming that the minor penalties normally associated with misdemeanor convictions are not a sufficient deterrent in this case.
示例 6：人道协会的协调员支持判处监禁，声称通常与轻罪定罪相关的轻罚在本案中不足以起到威慑作用。

We can standardize the co-ordinator’s argument as follows.
我们可以将协调者的论点标准化如下。

Premise

: The minor penalties normally associated with misdemeanor convictions are not a sufficient deterrent in this case.


前提：通常与轻罪定罪相关的轻微处罚在本案中不足以起到威慑作用。
Implicit Premise 1

: Penalties for crimes should have a deterrent effect.


隐含前提一：对犯罪行为的处罚应当具有震慑作用。
Implicit Premise 2

: Prison is a sufficient deterrent.


隐含前提2：监狱是一个充分的发掘。
Conclusion

: A prison sentence, but not the minor penalties normally associated with misdemeanor convictions, is appropriate.


结论：监禁是适当的，但不是通常与轻罪定罪相关的轻罚。

It is important to recognize the assumption which is rendered as Implicit Premise 1 (which is, in Toulmin’s words, “a warrant”) for it is a claim that the argument depends on when the arguer concludes that the penalties normally associated with misdemeanors are not a sufficient deterrent in this case. The remaining part of the conclusion — the suggestion that a prison sentence is appropriate — depends on Implicit Premise 2, which recognizes the further assumption that this will have a deterrent effect.
重要的是要认识到隐含前提 1 的假设（用 Toulmin 的话来说，就是“授权令”），因为它是论证所依赖的主张，即论证者得出结论认为通常与轻罪相关的处罚并不存在。在这种情况下具有足够的震慑力。结论的其余部分——监禁刑罚是适当的建议——取决于隐含前提 2，它承认这将产生威慑作用的进一步假设。
Recognizing the argument’s implicit premises prepares the way for argument evaluation, for they, like the argument’s explicit premise, need to be evaluated when the argument is assessed. If we reject the implicit premises (by, e.g., arguing that the goal of criminal penalties should be retribution, not deterrence), then the argument fails to provide convincing evidence for its conclusion.
认识论证的隐含前提为论证评估做好了准备，因为它们与论证的显性前提一样，在评估论证时也需要评估。如果我们拒绝隐含的前提（例如，主张刑事处罚的目标应该是报应，而不是威慑），那么该论证就无法为其结论提供令人信服的证据。
Arguments with implicit premises or conclusions are recognized in ancient discussions of enthymemes: syllogisms with unstated premises. A contemporary example is American Vice-President Dick Cheney’s defense of the Bush administration’s decision not to try foreigners charged with terrorism offenses as prisoners of war (something that would guarantee legal protections for those accused of terrorism).
具有隐含前提或结论的论证在古代的推理素讨论中得到认可：具有未陈述前提的三段论。当代的一个例子是，美国副总统迪克·切尼为布什政府不将被指控犯有恐怖主义罪的外国人作为战俘进行审判（这将保证那些被指控犯有恐怖主义罪的人得到法律保护）的决定进行辩护。

EXAMPLE 7 (from a report in the 

New York Times

, 15/11/2001):


实施例7（来自《纽约时报》的报道，2001年11月15日）：


“The basic proposition here is that somebody who comes into the United States of America illegally ... is not a lawful combatant.... They don’t [therefore] deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war.”


“这里的基本主张是，非法进入美利坚合众国的人……不是合法的战斗人员……他们[因此]不应该被视为战俘。”

We can standardize the argument as:
我们可以将论证标准化为：

EXAMPLE 8:   实施例8：


Premise

: Somebody who comes into the United States of America illegally ... is not a lawful combatant.


前提：非法进入美利坚合众国的人……不是合法的战斗人员。
Implicit Premise

: Someone who is not a lawful combatant doesn’t deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war.


隐含前提：非合法战斗人员不应该被视为战俘。
Conclusion

: They don’t deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war.


结论：他们不应该被当作战俘对待。


As in many other cases, the argument’s implicit premise identifies the link that ties the explicit premise to the conclusion. When we evaluate the argument, it raises a number of questions. How should a “lawful combatant” be defined? Why are combatants who illegally enter a country for the purpose of war (in undertaking surveillance or going behind enemy lines) widely recognized as prisoners of war? What are our moral obligations to combatants, lawful and unlawful?
与许多其他情况一样，论证的隐含前提确定了将显式前提与结论联系起来的联系。当我们评估这个论点时，它提出了许多问题。“合法战斗人员”应如何定义？为什么出于战争目的（进行监视或深入敌后）非法进入一个国家的战斗人员被广泛视为战俘？我们对合法和非法的战斗人员负有哪些道德义务？
In other enthymemes, the conclusion of an argument may be unstated. In a debate over the question whether witnesses to a crime can be trusted, an arguer might state: “They are friends of the accused, and no friends of the accused can be trusted.” Such claims clearly suggest that “They cannot be trusted,” a claim that needs to be recognized as an implicit conclusion in an attempt to standardize and evaluate the argument.
在其他的推理模因中，论证的结论可能是不言而喻的。在关于犯罪证人是否可信的辩论中，辩论者可能会说：“他们是被告的朋友，但被告的朋友都不可信。”这些主张清楚地表明“他们不可信”，这种主张需要被视为隐含的结论，以试图标准化和评估论点。
As in the case of verbal arguments, implicit premises and conclusions play an important role in many visual and multimodal arguments. In EXAMPLE 9 (below), the title “Just Add Vodka” is superimposed over a gigantic bottle of vodka pouring its contents on the scene below. Outside the vodka splash, one sees a sleepy hamlet. Inside the vodka splash, it is transformed into a bustling cityscape which boasts skyscrapers and a nightlife with lights, people, nightclubs, bars, and restaurants.
与口头论证一样，隐含的前提和结论在许多视觉和多模态论证中发挥着重要作用。在示例 9（如下）中，标题“Just Add Vodka”叠加在下面场景中的一大瓶伏特加酒上。在伏特加酒外，人们看到的是一个沉睡的小村庄。在伏特加的泼洒下，它变成了繁华的城市景观，拥有摩天大楼和灯光、人群、夜总会、酒吧和餐馆的夜生活。

EXAMPLE 9 实施例9
The image in this advertisement is a visual metaphor which suggests that vodka can transform one’s life in the way that it transforms the scene in the advertisement, turning the (dreary) life one lives in a sleepy hamlet into the kind of exciting nightlife one finds in a cosmopolitan urban center. Insofar as this message is featured in an advertisement, we can plausibly understand this message as a proposed reason to buy the vodka in question.
这则广告中的图像是一种视觉隐喻，表明伏特加可以像改变广告中的场景一样改变一个人的生活，将一个人在沉睡的小村庄里的（沉闷的）生活变成人们在夜生活中发现的令人兴奋的夜生活。国际化的城市中心。只要这条消息出现在广告中，我们就可以合理地将这条消息理解为购买相关伏特加的建议理由。
We might standardize the argument this implies as follows.
我们可以将这暗示的论点标准化如下。

EXAMPLE 9:   实施例9：


(Visual) Premise

: If you drink our vodka, it can transform your night life in the way it transforms the village in the photograph: into an exciting major city.


（视觉）前提：如果您喝我们的伏特加，它可以像照片中的村庄一样改变您的夜生活：变成一座令人兴奋的大城市。
Implicit Premise

: A life of urban excitement is preferable to the quiet life of a village.


隐含前提：城市的热闹生活胜过乡村的安静生活。
Conclusion

: You should “Just Add Vodka” to your life.


结论：您应该在生活中“添加伏特加”。

I have summarized the first premise in the argument in a way that refers to the image because it is difficult to fully capture the (almost magical) transformation the advertisement promises if we try to translate it into words. The implicit premise in the standardization is a key part of the argument because it is a key assumption made in the move from the (visually) explicit premise to the conclusion. So understood the argument can be analyzed and evaluated as an argument which has a questionable explicit and implicit premise (and an inference which is an instance of the fallacy “Affirming the Consequent”).
我以图像的方式总结了论证中的第一个前提，因为如果我们试图将其翻译成文字，就很难完全捕捉到广告所承诺的（几乎神奇的）转变。标准化中的隐式前提是论证的关键部分，因为它是从（视觉上）显式前提到结论的过程中做出的关键假设。因此，可以将论证理解为具有可疑的显式和隐式前提（以及作为“肯定结果”谬误实例的推论）的论证进行分析和评估。
The attempt to identify implicit premises or conclusions in an argument can raise some significant theoretical questions when it is standardized. All arguments rely on many assumptions, raising the question whether and when and how they should be recognized. In cases in which it is clear that an unstated premise or conclusion needs to be recognized, it can often be interpreted in different ways.
当论证标准化时，试图识别论证中隐含的前提或结论可能会引发一些重要的理论问题。所有论点都依赖于许多假设，提出了是否、何时以及如何应承认它们的问题。在明确需要承认未陈述的前提或结论的情况下，通常可以用不同的方式解释它。
One principle that many systems of informal logic use to choose between alternative interpretations of implicit argument components is the “Principle of Charity.” It favors an interpretation of an argument which makes it as credible as possible. In many situations, this can best be accomplished by attributing it a “logical minimum,” understood as the weakest implicit component needed to successfully connect the argument’s premises to its conclusion.
许多非形式逻辑系统用来在隐含论证成分的替代解释之间进行选择的一项原则是“慈善原则”。它赞成对论证进行尽可能可信的解释。在许多情况下，最好通过将其归因于“逻辑最小值”来实现这一点，将其理解为成功将论证的前提与其结论联系起来所需的最弱的隐含组件。

3.2 Key Component Tables and Diagrams
3.2 关键部件表和图

Standardizing arguments by listing their premises and conclusions is one way to delineate the content of an argument and prepare it for evaluation. But standardizing of this sort has a major shortcoming, for it does not distinguish between different kinds of inferences an argument may contain. One way to address the issues that this raises is by standardizing an argument with a table that catalogues an argument’s premises and conclusions (a Key Component or “KC” table) and combining it with an argument diagram (a “mapping”) that depicts the structure of its inferences.
通过列出论证的前提和结论来标准化论证是描述论证内容并为评估做好准备的一种方法。但这种标准化有一个主要缺点，因为它没有区分论证可能包含的不同类型的推论。解决由此引发的问题的一种方法是，使用一个对论证的前提和结论进行分类的表格（关键组件或“KC”表）来标准化论证，并将其与描述论证的论证图（“映射”）相结合。其推论的结构。
In EXAMPLE 10 (below), I have used this method to standardize an argument that Kretzmann uses in his account of the medieval philosopher William of Sherwood, where he concludes that it is likely that William was a Master at the University of Paris. The first column of the KC table lists the premises and conclusion of the argument; the second assigns them their role as premise or conclusion; the third lists the source from which they are derived. The diagram that follows depicts the relationships between the argument’s key components, using arrows to indicate the inferences it includes.
在示例 10（如下）中，我使用了这种方法来标准化 Kretzmann 在描述中世纪哲学家舍伍德的威廉时使用的一个论点，其中他得出的结论是威廉很可能是巴黎大学的硕士。KC表的第一列列出了论证的前提和结论；第二个将它们指定为前提或结论；第三个列出了它们的来源。下图描述了论证的关键组成部分之间的关系，使用箭头表示它包含的推论。

EXAMPLE 10 实施例10
This standardization shows that the Sherwood argument is supported by three “convergent” premises which provide three independent reasons that support the argument’s conclusion in different ways.
这种标准化表明，舍伍德的论证得到了三个“收敛”前提的支持，这些前提提供了三个独立的理由，以不同的方式支持论证的结论。
In other instances of argument, two or more “linked” premises combine to support a conclusion with a single inference. The argument “The murderer was very strong, so George cannot be the murderer.” is an enthymeme which assumes that “George is not very strong.” Using square brackets ([ ]) to indicate this implicit component, we can standardize the argument with the following KC table and diagram. In this case, the linked premises are indicated with a plus sign (“+”) that connects them in the diagram. It indicates that they support a conclusion (only) when combined.
在其他论证实例中，两个或多个“相关”前提结合在一起，通过单个推论来支持结论。论点“凶手非常强大，所以乔治不可能是凶手”。是一个假设“乔治不是很强壮”的推理模因。使用方括号（[ ]）来表示这个隐式组件，我们可以用下面的 KC 表和图来标准化该参数。在这种情况下，链接的前提用加号（“+”）表示，在图中将它们连接起来。它表明它们（仅）在组合时支持一个结论。

EXAMPLE 11 实施例11
The use of KC tables and diagrams is not limited to purely verbal arguments. When arguments have non-verbal key components, visual and multimodal premises and conclusions can be recognized in a key component table by ostension, or by reproducing them in some way. Once they are identified in a KC table, the inferences such arguments depend on can be mapped in standard ways.
KC 表格和图表的使用不仅限于纯粹的口头论证。当论证具有非语言关键成分时，可以通过显指或通过以某种方式再现它们，在关键成分表中识别视觉和多模态前提和结论。一旦它们在 KC 表中被识别，这些参数所依赖的推论就可以以标准方式映射。
The following table and diagram standardizes EXAMPLE 3, which contains an inference from three linked premises (two visual and one verbal) to the conclusion that there is water on the planet Mars.
下表和图表对示例 3 进行了标准化，其中包含从三个相互关联的前提（两个视觉和一个口头）得出的结论：火星上有水的推论。

KC table are not the only way to diagram the structure of real life arguments. Diagramming (mapping) has its own history, which incorporates many different ways of diagramming arguments. The usefulness of diagramming is already recognized in Whately 1826 and, in the early twentieth century, in Wigmore 1913, who develops a form of mapping (“evidence charts”) designed to portray and analyze complex chains of judicial reasoning.
KC 表并不是描绘现实生活中论证结构的唯一方法。图表（映射）有其自己的历史，它包含了许多不同的图表论证方式。图表的有用性已经在 Whately 1826 年和 20 世纪初的 Wigmore 1913 中得到认识，后者开发了一种绘图形式（“证据图表”），旨在描绘和分析复杂的司法推理链。
The development of informal logic has kindled a renewed interest in different kinds of diagrams which are supported by the development of associated software (Rationale, Reason!Able, Araucaria, Athena, Compendium, Theseus) and online aids (Debate Mapper, TruthMapping.Com, Argunet, Agora).
非形式逻辑的发展激起了人们对不同类型图表的新兴趣，这些图表由相关软件（Rationale、Reason!Able、Araucaria、Athena、Compendium、Theseus）和在线辅助工具（Debate Mapper、TruthMapping.Com、阿古内特，阿戈拉）。

3.3 Supplemented Diagrams
3.3 补充图

KC tables and diagrams prepare the way for argument evaluation by clarifying the internal structure and content of an argument. Other aspects of an argument that may need to be considered in argument assessment can be included in a “supplemented” diagram which adds an account of the context in which it is embedded. Three aspects of arguments merit note in this regard.
KC 表格和图表通过阐明论证的内部结构和内容，为论证评估做好准备。在论证评估中可能需要考虑的论证的其他方面可以包含在“补充”图中，该图中添加了对其嵌入的上下文的说明。在这方面，三个方面的论点值得注意。
The first is the audience to which an argument is addressed. Most real life arguments are used in an attempt to convince some intended audience of some point of view. In view of this, successful arguments must be built with this in mind.
第一个是争论的听众。大多数现实生活中的论点都是为了试图说服某些目标受众接受某些观点。鉴于此，成功的论证必须牢记这一点。
A convincing argument for the conclusion that the United Nations cannot be trusted must address different issues when it is directed at a Chinese, Norwegian, Kenyan, Israeli, Swiss, Palestinian, etc. audience. As rhetoric has emphasized since its beginnings, this means that successful arguers must construct their arguments in ways that recognize the beliefs, attitudes and values of their intended audience (and in this sense ‘speak’ to them). Tindale (1999, 2004, 2010) has imported this notion into informal logic, advocating an informal logic that incorporates an analysis of audience.
得出“联合国不可信任”这一结论的令人信服的论据必须在针对中国、挪威、肯尼亚、以色列、瑞士、巴勒斯坦等受众时解决不同的问题。正如修辞学从一开始就强调的那样，这意味着成功的论证者必须以认识到目标受众的信仰、态度和价值观的方式构建他们的论点（并在这个意义上与他们“交谈”）。Tindale (1999, 2004, 2010) 将这一概念引入非形式逻辑中，提倡纳入受众分析的非形式逻辑。
A second contextual factor relevant to the evaluation of an argument is the goal of the arguer. As Hitchcock 2002 points out, acts of arguing may make a declaration (“The evidence shows that you committed an assault, so I find you guilty as charged.”); command or make a request (“You were there, so you must tell us what happened.” “The children are shivering, so please close the door.”); make a promise (“I know it matters to you, so I promise to go tomorrow.”); express a sentiment (“What we did was inexcusable, so we beg your forgiveness”); and function in many other ways.
与论证评估相关的第二个背景因素是论证者的目标。正如希区柯克 2002 年指出的，争吵行为可能会做出一种声明（“证据表明你犯了攻击罪，所以我认为你有罪”）；命令或提出请求（“你当时在那里，所以你必须告诉我们发生了什么事。”“孩子们在发抖，所以请关上门。”）；做出承诺（“我知道这对你很重要，所以我保证明天就去。”）；表达一种情绪（“我们所做的事情是不可原谅的，所以我们请求您的原谅”）；并以许多其他方式发挥作用。
As Pinto and Gilbert have emphasized, this means that a successful argument (which is successful in the sense that it accomplishes the arguer’s purpose in presenting the argument), may produce a withholding of assent (or full assent) to some proposition, a particular attitude, an emotional state like fear or hope, or a certain kind of behavior (by, e.g., as when an argument demands that people take up arms against a foe or take action in support of social change). When one bargains, the goal of argument is not truth, but a bargain that serves one’s interests. As Hoffman 2016 notes, an argument may not aim to resolve disagreement, but to promote reflection and the raising of important questions.
正如平托和吉尔伯特所强调的，这意味着一个成功的论证（成功是指它实现了论证者提出论证的目的），可能会产生对某些命题的拒绝同意（或完全同意），一种特定的态度，一种情绪状态，如恐惧或希望，或某种行为（例如，当争论要求人们拿起武器反对敌人或采取行动支持社会变革时）。当一个人讨价还价时，争论的目标不是真理，而是符合自己利益的讨价还价。正如 Hoffman 2016 指出的那样，争论的目的可能不是解决分歧，而是促进反思和提出重要问题。
The different goals arguer’s try to achieve via argument may make their success and legitimacy turn on norms and rules that add to (or subtract from) the traditional strictures that guide argument evaluation. In some circumstances, it makes ultimatums, exaggerations, threats and insults a permissible element of arguing. In sharp contrast, they are unacceptable in attempts to determine what is true from a scientific point of view, where such behaviors are instances of the fallacy ad baculum.
争论者试图通过论证实现的不同目标可能会使他们的成功和合法性取决于规范和规则，这些规范和规则增加（或减少）指导论证评估的传统限制。在某些情况下，它使最后通牒、夸大其词、威胁和侮辱成为争论的允许因素。与此形成鲜明对比的是，他们试图从科学的角度来确定什么是真实的，这是不可接受的，因为这种行为是错误的例证。
Walton 2007 accommodates the different goals associated with real life arguments by distinguishing between different kinds of dialogues in which arguing occurs. The rules for a particular kind of dialogue define what types of argumentative moves are allowed, what kinds of questions and responses are permitted, and what norms arguments must adhere to.
Walton 2007 通过区分发生争论的不同类型的对话来适应与现实生活争论相关的不同目标。特定类型对话的规则定义了允许哪些类型的论证动作、允许哪些类型的问题和回答以及论证必须遵守哪些规范。
The seven basic types of dialogue he distinguishes can be summarized as follows.
他区分的七种基本对话类型可以总结如下。

Type 类型	Situation 情况	Arguers’ Goal 争论者的目标	Dialogue Goal 对话目标
Persuasion 劝说	Conflict of Opinion 意见冲突	Persuade Other Party 说服对方	Resolve Issue 解决问题
Inquiry 询问	Need to Have Proof 需要有证明	Verify Evidence 核实证据	Prove Hypothesis 证明假设
Discovery 发现	Need for Explanation 需要解释	Find a Hypothesis 找到一个假设	Support Hypothesis 支持假设
Negotiation 谈判	Conflict of Interests 利益冲突	Secure Interests 保障利益	Settle Issue 解决问题
Information 信息	Need Information 需要信息	Acquire Information 获取信息	Exchange Information 交换信息
Deliberation 审议	Practical Choice 实用选择	Fit Goals and Actions 适合的目标和行动	Decide What to Do 决定做什么
Eristic 埃里斯蒂克	Personal Conflict 个人冲突	Attack an Opponent 攻击对手	Reveal Deep Conflict 揭示深层冲突

In dialogues of inquiry, arguments are used as tools in an attempt to establish what is true. So understood, arguments must adhere to strict standards that determine what counts as evidence and counter-evidence for some point of view. In eristic dialogue, arguing is combat and the aim is to vanquish one’s opponent (and humiliate them, ideally by wowing one’s audience with one’s mental gymnastics). In doing so, sophistical tricks and fallacious reasoning are welcome if they serve this end.
在探究对话中，论证被用作试图确定真相的工具。如此理解，论证必须遵守严格的标准，以确定某些观点的证据和反证据。在演说对话中，争论就是战斗，目的是打败对手（并羞辱他们，最好是通过用心理体操让观众惊叹不已）。在这样做的过程中，如果能达到这个目的，那么高深莫测的技巧和错误的推理是受欢迎的。
Walton’s dialogue typology leaves room for more narrowly defined kinds of dialogue. Collective bargaining is a specific kind of negotiation dialogue which is governed by legal rules and well established practices that very precisely delineate what is and is not allowed in bargaining. Different subdialogues are associated with different norms, rules and practices.
沃尔顿的对话类型为更狭义的对话类型留下了空间。集体谈判是一种特殊的谈判对话，受法律规则和既定惯例的约束，这些规则和惯例非常精确地界定了谈判中允许和不允许的内容。不同的子对话与不同的规范、规则和实践相关。
A third contextual factor that may warrant comment in a supplemented diagram is the dialectical context in which an argument occurs. In his account of argument, Johnson 2000 distinguishes between the “illative” core of an argument and the argument’s “dialectical tier,” understanding the former as a “proto-argument” which consists of a set of premises offered in support of some conclusion. It is the kernel of an argument, but he considers it an argument in the full sense only if it fully engages the dialectical tier, considering alternative points of view, addressing objections to the conclusion it proposes.
在补充图表中可能值得评论的第三个上下文因素是争论发生的辩证上下文。在他对论证的描述中，约翰逊 2000 区分了论证的“非议论”核心和论证的“辩证层”，将前者理解为“原始论证”，它由一组为支持某些结论而提供的前提组成。它是一个论证的核心，但只有当它完全涉及辩证层面，考虑不同的观点，解决对其提出的结论的反对意见时，他才认为它是一个完整意义上的论证。

4. Testing Arguments  4. 测试参数

The ultimate goal of informal logic is normative: an account of argument and systems of informal logic that can be used to determine when and whether real life arguments are strong or weak, good or bad, convincing or unconvincing. Standardizing prepares arguments for such assessment. This makes T in the BLAST definition — the tools and methods which are used to test argument strength — the most important defining element in a system of informal logic.
非形式逻辑的最终目标是规范性的：对非形式逻辑的论证和系统的解释，可用于确定现实生活中的论证何时以及是否强或弱、好或坏、令人信服或不令人信服。标准化为这种评估准备了论据。这使得 BLAST 定义中的 T（用于测试论证强度的工具和方法）成为非形式逻辑系统中最重要的定义元素。
Almost all informal logics understand a good (strong) argument to be an argument with “acceptable” premises and a “valid” inference — i.e. a conclusion that follows from them. Hansen 2012 has argued that informal logic should follow classical logic, and not concern itself with the assessment of premise acceptability, but its engagement with real life arguments (and the desire to evaluate them in a fulsome way) has produced a field that includes this within argument evaluation. In this and in other regards, systems of informal logic adopt many different approaches to argument assessment.
几乎所有的非形式逻辑都将一个好的（强有力的）论证理解为具有“可接受的”前提和“有效”的推论的论证——即从中得出的结论。Hansen 2012 认为非形式逻辑应该遵循经典逻辑，而不关心对前提可接受性的评估，但它与现实生活论证的接触（以及以充实的方式评估它们的愿望）已经产生了一个领域，其中包括这一领域论证评价。在这方面和其他方面，非形式逻辑系统采用许多不同的方法来评估论证。

4.1 AV Criteria 4.1 AV 标准

In classical logic, an argument is (deductively) valid if it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false. On this account, the ultimate aim of arguing is a “sound” argument: i.e. a valid argument with true premises.
在经典逻辑中，如果一个论证的前提不可能为真且其结论不可能为假，则该论证（演绎地）有效。因此，论证的最终目的是“合理”论证：即具有真实前提的有效论证。
Within informal logic, the simplest criterion for good arguments is an informal analogue of soundness. It understands a good argument to be an argument that justifies its conclusion by providing good (strong, credible, etc.) reasons for believing it. Within the argument, this implies premises which are “acceptable” and a conclusion that follows from them. We can summarize this basic criterion as T = {A,V}, where A is an account of premise acceptability, and V is an account of informal validity which determines when a conclusion follows from premises in a way that is approved of (deductively, inductively, conductively, and/or abductively, etc.).
在非形式逻辑中，好的论证的最简单标准是健全性的非形式类比。它将好的论证理解为通过提供良好的（强有力的、可信的）理由来证明其结论的论证。在论证中，这意味着“可接受”的前提以及由此得出的结论。我们可以将这个基本标准总结为 T = {A,V}，其中 A 是对前提可接受性的说明，V 是对非形式有效性的说明，它决定何时以被认可的方式从前提得出结论（演绎地，感应地、传导地、和/或溯因地等）。
Following Johnson and Blair (1977, 1994), many systems of informal logic adopt an ARS version of these AV criteria, making “Acceptability, Relevance and Sufficiency” the requirements for good argument. On this account, premises are acceptable when they are true or acceptable in some other way; relevant when they provide some (i.e. any) support for the conclusion of the argument; and sufficient when they provide enough support to warrant its acceptance — as likely, true, plausible, etc.
继 Johnson 和 Blair（1977，1994）之后，许多非形式逻辑系统采用了这些 AV 标准的 ARS 版本，使“可接受性、相关性和充分性”成为良好论证的要求。因此，当前提是真实的或以其他方式可接受时，前提就是可接受的；当它们为论证的结论提供一些（即任何）支持时，相关；当他们提供足够的支持来保证其接受时，即是充分的——可能、真实、合理等。

Premise Acceptability 前提可接受性

Within informal arguments, premises may be acceptable in a variety of ways. In many circumstances, they are acceptable if they are likely true and unacceptable if likely false.
在非形式论证中，前提可以通过多种方式被接受。在许多情况下，如果它们可能是真实的，则它们是可以接受的；如果它们可能是错误的，则它们是不可接受的。
It is worth noting that this truth criterion can be expanded to apply to visual premises. An image functioning as a visual premise may, for example, be evaluated as a “true” or “false” depiction of what it represents. A photograph or an image may be unacceptable because it is untrustworthy or categorizes a situation in a misleading way. Photographs are often ‘doctored’ or in other ways designed to present things in ways that do not accurately reflect what is photographed. Other kinds of multimodal premises can be understood as likely true to the extent that they are a reliable basis for an inference.
值得注意的是，这个真理标准可以扩展到适用于视觉前提。例如，充当视觉前提的图像可以被评估为其所代表内容的“真实”或“错误”描述。照片或图像可能是不可接受的，因为它不可信或以误导性的方式对情况进行分类。照片经常被“篡改”或以其他方式设计，以无法准确反映拍摄内容的方式呈现事物。其他类型的多模态前提可以被理解为可能是正确的，只要它们是推理的可靠基础。
In some kinds of dialogue — in the exchanges that characterize negotiation, bargaining, eristic, and persuasion — acceptable premises may not need to be true. In bargaining (“haggling”) a buyer may claim that “I will not give you a penny more than $300 for that lamp” as a premise in support of the conclusion that the seller should agree to a lower price. This counts as an acceptable premise even if it is an idle threat that the buyer will never carry out, for threats of this sort are an acceptable element of the arguments that take place in this kind of dialogue.
在某些类型的对话中——在以谈判、讨价还价、议论和说服为特征的交流中——可接受的前提可能不需要是真实的。在讨价还价（“讨价还价”）时，买方可能会声称“我不会给你超过 300 美元的那盏灯一分钱”作为支持卖方应同意较低价格的结论的前提。这算作一个可接受的前提，即使它是买方永远不会执行的闲置威胁，因为此类威胁是此类对话中发生的争论的可接受要素。
In other cases, informal logics use acceptability rather than truth as a criterion for judging premises in contexts in which it is difficult to judge premises as true or false. In such cases, acceptable premises may be plausible (or exploratory) hypotheses, claims that can only be said to be generally accepted or assumed, or ethical or aesthetic judgments which are not easily categorized as true or false.
在其他情况下，非形式逻辑在难以判断前提真假的情况下使用可接受性而不是真理作为判断前提的标准。在这种情况下，可接受的前提可能是合理的（或探索性的）假设，只能说是普遍接受或假设的主张，或者是不易归类为真或假的伦理或审美判断。
In still other circumstances, truth may be required for acceptability, but only one of a number of conditions that must be satisfied. Even when a premise is true, it may be unacceptable because it violates the rules of interaction that govern the dialogue in which it is embedded. In a legal proceeding or a formal hearing, premises and arguments must not entertain premises that violate rules of procedure.
在另一些情况下，可能需要真实性才能被接受，但这只是必须满足的众多条件之一。即使前提是正确的，它也可能是不可接受的，因为它违反了控制其所嵌入的对话的交互规则。在法律程序或正式听证会上，前提和论点不得接受违反程序规则的前提。
In situations in which arguments are attempts to convince a specific audience of a conclusion, an acceptable premise may need to be true, but also acceptable to the members of this audience. As Aristotle suggests in the Rhetoric, successful arguments may need to have premises that are in keeping with the pathos of an audience (and do so in a way that does not undermine the character — the ethos — of the arguer). As Gilbert 1997, 2014 has emphasized, there are many real life circumstances in which the emotional acceptability of a premise is required for argument success.
在论证试图说服特定受众相信结论的情况下，可接受的前提可能需要是真实的，但也能为该受众的成员所接受。正如亚里士多德在《修辞学》中所指出的，成功的论证可能需要有符合观众情感的前提（并且这样做的方式不会损害论证者的性格——精神）。正如 Gilbert 1997, 2014 所强调的，在许多现实生活中，论证的成功需要前提的情感可接受性。
One of the first VR productions by the New York Times was “Kiya,” a production which recreated an incidence of domestic abuse in an attempt to provide support for the importance of attempts to address issues of domestic violence. Its producer describes it as an attempt to use “the immersive power of virtual reality: its ability to generate intense empathy on the part of the viewer; to wring from the audience the intense emotional connection that these stories deserve” (NYT, Jan 21, 2016).
《纽约时报》的首批 VR 作品之一是《Kiya》，该作品再现了家庭暴力事件，试图为解决家庭暴力问题的重要性提供支持。它的制作人将其描述为利用“虚拟现实的沉浸式力量：它能够让观众产生强烈的同理心；从观众那里汲取这些故事应有的强烈情感联系”（纽约时报，2016 年 1 月 21 日）。

Inference Validity 推理有效性

In its attempt to account for a broad range of real life arguing, informal logics have expanded traditional notions of premise acceptability. Something similar has happened in the case of inference validity. The end result is an expansion of both sides of the AV criteria for good argument.
在试图解释现实生活中广泛的争论时，非形式逻辑扩展了前提可接受性的传统概念。在推理有效性的情况下也发生了类似的情况。最终结果是对良好论证的 AV 标准的双方进行了扩展。
In the case of inference validity, this expansion has been accomplished by treating deductive validity as one variant of validity, and by recognizing other “defeasible,” non-deductive ways in which premises may entail conclusions. Govier 1987 dubs the deductive/inductive distinction as “the great divide,” emphasizing the latter over the former. Sometimes informal logic systems understand inductive arguments narrowly, as inductive generalizations. Sometimes more broadly, as arguments which have premises that imply that a conclusion is (only) probable or plausible, leaving open the possibility that it is false.
就推论有效性而言，这种扩展是通过将演绎有效性视为有效性的一种变体，并通过认识到前提可能得出结论的其他“可废止的”、非演绎方式来实现的。Govier 1987 将演绎/归纳的区别称为“大鸿沟”，强调后者而不是前者。有时，非形式逻辑系统将归纳论证狭隘地理解为归纳概括。有时更广泛地说，作为论证，其前提暗示结论是（仅）可能或似是而非的，因此有可能是错误的。
“Conductive” arguments support their conclusions by accumulating non-decisive reasons in their favor. They are valid when they collective enough reasons to warrant their conclusions. In a particular case, different elements of evidence may suggest but not prove that someone charged with murder is guilty but make the conclusion likely if enough evidence of this sort is accumulated (a witness claims he pulled the trigger, the ballistics report shows that the bullet came from a gun he owned, he wrote an e-mail saying he would “get” the victim, etc.).
“传导性”论点通过积累有利于他们的非决定性理由来支持他们的结论。当他们收集了足够的理由来保证他们的结论时，他们就是有效的。在特定案件中，不同的证据元素可能表明但不能证明被指控犯有谋杀罪的人有罪，但如果积累了足够的此类证据，则可能得出结论（证人声称他扣动了扳机，弹道报告显示子弹来自他拥有的一把枪，他写了一封电子邮件说他会“抓住”受害者，等等）。
Strong “abductive” arguments are convincing instances of “inference to the best explanation” (see Harman 1965). They recognize some facts, point out that they are entailed by some hypothesis, and conclude that the hypothesis is true. Taken at face value, abductive arguments appear to be instances of the deductive fallacy “affirming the consequent,” but play an important role to play in medical, scientific and legal inquiry (see Walton 2004).
强有力的“归纳”论证是“推断最佳解释”的令人信服的实例（参见 Harman 1965）。他们认识到一些事实，指出这些事实是由某些假设所蕴含的，并得出结论该假设是正确的。从表面上看，溯因论证似乎是“肯定结果”的演绎谬误的实例，但在医学、科学和法律探究中发挥着重要作用（见 Walton 2004）。

4.2 Fallacy Theory 4.2 谬误理论

AV criteria are in many ways an extension of the notion of good argument enshrined in classical logic. In the search for ways to deal with real life arguments, some informal logicians have moved in a different direction, reviving fallacy theory as an alternative. Hamblin 1970 has become a touchstone for moves in this direction.
AV 标准在很多方面都是经典逻辑中所蕴含的良好论证概念的延伸。在寻找处理现实生活争论的方法时，一些非形式逻辑学家转向了不同的方向，复兴谬误理论作为替代方案。Hamblin 1970 已成为朝这个方向发展的试金石。
Systems of informal logic that rely on fallacies test arguments by asking whether their proponents are guilty of fallacious reasoning. While there is no agreed-upon taxonomy of fallacies, many canonical fallacies have been emphasized in the analysis of informal arguments. They include formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent; and informal fallacies like ad hominem (“against the person”), slippery slope, ad baculum (“appeal to threat or force”), ad misericordiam (“appeal to pity”), “hasty generalization,” and “two wrongs” reasoning (as in “two wrongs don’t make a right”). The systems of informal logic taught in textbooks often add specialized variants of the standard fallacies (“misleading vividness” designates the misuse of vivid anecdotal evidence in hasty generalizations, and so on.)
依赖于谬误的非形式逻辑系统通过询问其支持者是否犯有错误推理来检验论证。虽然没有商定的谬误分类法，但在对非形式论证的分析中强调了许多规范谬误。它们包括形式谬误，例如肯定结果并否认前件；以及非形式的谬论，如 ad hominem（“针对个人”）、滑坡、ad baculum（“诉诸威胁或武力”）、ad Misericordiam（“诉诸怜悯”）、“仓促概括”和“两个错误”推理（如“两个错误并不能构成一个正确”）。教科书中教授的非形式逻辑系统经常添加标准谬误的专门变体（“误导性的生动性”指的是在仓促的概括中滥用生动的轶事证据，等等。）
Woods and Walton 1982 and Hansen and Pinto 1995 contain detailed discussions of the definition, analysis and assessment of fallacies. In argumentation theory, van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992 propose a “pragma-dialectical” account of fallacies which treats them as violations of rules that govern critical discussion -- dialogues that attempt to resolve a difference of opinion. Battersby and Bailin 2011 view fallacies as patterns of argument patterns “whose persuasive power greatly exceeds its probative [i.e. evidential] value,” making fallacies errors in reasoning that ordinary arguers are attracted to in view of their rhetorical appeal.
Woods 和 Walton 1982 以及 Hansen 和 Pinto 1995 包含了对谬误的定义、分析和评估的详细讨论。在论证理论中，van Eemeren 和 Grootendorst 1992 提出了一种对谬误的“实用辩证”解释，将谬误视为违反了批判性讨论（试图解决意见分歧的对话）的规则。Battersby 和 Bailin 2011 将谬误视为论证模式的模式，“其说服力大大超过其证明力[即证据]价值”，在推理中犯了谬误，普通辩论者因其修辞吸引力而被吸引。
Some fallacies — e.g., equivocation and begging the question (i.e. circular reasoning) — highlight important issues that frequently interfere with real life arguing, but fallacy theory has been criticized when it is adopted as a general account of argument. The issues this raises include its unsystematic nature, disagreements about the definition and nature of specific fallacies, and the emphasis that fallacy theory places on faulty reasoning rather than good argument. Hitchcock (1995, 324) writes that the idea that we should teach reasoning by fallacies is “like saying that the best way to teach somebody to play tennis without making the common mistakes is to demonstrate these faults in action and get him to label and respond to them” (see Feldman 2009).
一些谬误——例如模棱两可和回避问题（即循环推理）——强调了经常干扰现实生活争论的重要问题，但谬误理论在被采用作为论证的一般解释时受到了批评。这引发的问题包括其非系统性、对特定谬误的定义和性质的分歧，以及谬误理论强调错误推理而不是良好论证。希区柯克 (Hitchcock, 1995, 324) 写道，我们应该通过谬误来教授推理的想法“就像是说，教某人打网球而不犯常见错误的最佳方法是在行动中展示这些错误，并让他标记并做出反应”给他们”（参见 Feldman 2009）。
The theoretical issues raised by fallacy theory are compounded by instances of traditional fallacies which have a reasonable role to play in real life arguing. Appeals to pity and other appeals to emotion have, to take one example, a legitimate role to play in moral, political and aesthetic debate. The following examples highlight other circumstances in which arguments which fit the definition of a traditional fallacy cannot be so readily dismissed.
谬误理论提出的理论问题因传统谬误的实例而变得更加复杂，而传统谬误在现实生活的争论中发挥着合理的作用。举个例子，诉诸怜悯和其他情感诉求在道德、政治和美学辩论中发挥着合法的作用。以下例子强调了其他情况，在这些情况下，符合传统谬误定义的论点不能轻易被驳回。

EXAMPLE 12:  实施例12：




A remark from a Danish television debate over the question whether the Danish church should be separated from the Danish state (Jorgensen 1995, 369): “You should not listen to my opponent. He wants to sever the Danish church from the state for his own personal sake.” This seems a classic example of 

ad hominem

, Kahane 1995 (p. 65), describing it as a fallacy that occurs when an arguer attacks “his opponent rather than his opponent’s evidence and arguments.” But this is an accusation of conflict of interest which cannot be dismissed out of hand. If there is reason to believe that an arguer favors a point of view because they have something to gain from it (say, the purchase of a company in which they own shares), this does raise questions about the extent to which their arguments should be entertained.


丹麦电视辩论中关于丹麦教会是否应该与丹麦国家分离的问题的评论（Jorgensen 1995, 369）：“你不应该听我的对手的话。他想为了自己的个人利益而将丹麦教会与国家割裂。”这似乎是人身攻击的典型例子，Kahane 1995（第 65 页），将其描述为当辩论者攻击“他的对手而不是对手的证据和论点”时发生的谬误。但这是一项利益冲突的指控，不能立即驳回。如果有理由相信争论者支持某种观点，因为他们可以从中获益（例如，购买他们拥有股份的公司），这确实会引发关于他们的论点应该在多大程度上得到支持的问题。娱乐。

EXAMPLE 13:   实施例13：




Martin Luther King Jr., influenced by Gandhi, argued that one can justifiably break laws in a struggle for social justice. Such arguments play a central role in the civil rights movement. They cannot be summarily dismissed, though they appear to be clear cases of “two wrongs make a right.”


受甘地影响的马丁·路德·金认为，在争取社会正义的斗争中，人们可以合理地违反法律。这些论点在民权运动中发挥着核心作用。尽管它们似乎是“两个错误即一个正确”的明显案例，但不能立即驳回它们。

EXAMPLE 14:   实施例14：




The argument that “the attempt to use military force to put an end to terrorism is wrong because it will take us down a slippery slope that will end in improper interference in the affairs of independent states” cannot be dismissed because it is an instance of slippery slope reasoning. If it is true that some action will precipitate a chain of consequences that lead down an alleged slippery slope, this is a good reason to question it.


“试图使用军事力量结束恐怖主义是错误的，因为这将使我们走下滑坡，最终导致对独立国家事务的不当干涉”，这一论点不能被驳回，因为这是滑坡的一个例子。斜率推理。如果某些行动确实会引发一系列后果，从而导致所谓的滑坡，那么这就是质疑它的充分理由。

Examples of this sort have forced careful accounts of fallacies to make room for reasonable arguments which share the form of traditional fallacies.
这类例子迫使人们对谬误进行仔细的解释，以便为具有传统谬误形式的合理论证腾出空间。
In doing so, it is helpful to distinguish between fallacies which do and do not have non-fallacious instances. Equivocation, post hoc ergo propter hoc, non sequitor and hasty generalization are commonly classified as forms of argument that are inherently mistaken. In contrast, traditional fallacies like ad hominem, two wrongs reasoning, guilt by association, and appeal to pity are patterns of reasoning which can, when they are constructed in the right way, play a legitimate role within real life reasoning (and are, in view of this, sometimes treated as argument schemes rather than fallacies).
这样做，区分有非谬误实例和没有非谬误实例的谬误是有帮助的。模棱两可、事后故此、非推论和仓促概括通常被归类为本质上错误的论证形式。相比之下，诸如人身攻击、两个错误推理、联想有罪和诉诸怜悯等传统谬误都是推理模式，当它们以正确的方式构建时，它们可以在现实生活推理中发挥合法作用（并且在现实生活中）。鉴于此，有时被视为论证方案而不是谬论）。

4.3 Natural Language Deductivism
4.3 自然语言演绎主义

Natural Language Deductivism (“NLD”) is an approach to informal reasoning that retains classical logic’s focus on deductive validity (see Groarke 1999, and Govier 1987, who develops an initial account NLD, but ultimately favors a more radical break from classical logic). It suggests that we should interpret informal arguments as attempts to create deductively valid inferences which can be analyzed and assessed accordingly. In a deductivist system of informal logic, the V in the AV criteria for good arguments is this classical notion of validity.
自然语言演绎主义（“NLD”）是一种非形式推理方法，保留了古典逻辑对演绎有效性的关注（参见 Groarke 1999 和 Govier 1987，他们开发了 NLD 的初始解释，但最终倾向于与古典逻辑进行更彻底的决裂）。它建议我们应该将非形式论证解释为尝试创建可以进行相应分析和评估的演绎有效的推论。在非形式逻辑的演绎主义系统中，AV 良好论证标准中的 V 就是这种经典的有效性概念。
NLD has frequently been rejected on the basis of the common, but mistaken, notion that deductively valid arguments must have certain conclusions — a misconception that seems founded deductive validity’s historical connections to formal logic and mathematics (see Groarke 1999). It is true that ordinary arguing rarely satisfies the strict proof procedures they imply, but deductive validity is not restricted to this compass and there are many instances of ordinary argument which are clear examples of deductively valid argument.
NLD 经常被拒绝，因为普遍但错误的观念是演绎有效的论证必须有一定的结论——这种误解似乎建立了演绎有效性与形式逻辑和数学的历史联系（参见 Groarke 1999）。诚然，普通论证很少满足它们所暗示的严格证明程序，但演绎有效性并不限于此范围，并且有许多普通论证的实例是演绎有效论证的明显例子。
In cases of deductive reasoning, the conclusion of an argument need not be certain, but only as certain the premises, creating ample room for conclusions which are merely likely, plausible, or probable. EXAMPLE 15 is taken from a radio commentary on population growth.
在演绎推理的情况下，论证的结论不必是确定的，而只需作为确定的前提，为仅仅是可能的、似是而非的或可能的结论创造充足的空间。示例 15 取自关于人口增长的广播评论。

EXAMPLE 15:   实施例15：




The population of the world will grow from 6 to 9 billion in the next fifteen years so we will, if we are to provide sufficient food for everyone, need to find a way to provide food for an additional 3 billion people.


未来 15 年，世界人口将从 6 亿增长到 90 亿，因此，如果我们要为每个人提供足够的食物，就需要找到一种方法来为另外 30 亿人提供食物。

In this case, the premise of the argument is not certain, but reasonably thought to be true — because it was (in the commentary) backed by an extrapolation from well established population trends. The deductively valid inference based upon it makes it reasonable to judge the conclusion of the argument true as well, though it is not certain, as all predictions about population growth are, at best, plausible conjectures.
在这种情况下，论证的前提是不确定的，但有理由认为是正确的——因为它（在评论中）得到了从既定人口趋势的推断的支持。基于它的演绎有效的推论使得我们有理由判断论证的结论也是正确的，尽管它并不确定，因为所有关于人口增长的预测充其量都是似是而非的猜想。
NLD’s plausibility as a general theory of argument turns on its account of arguments which are not prima facie deductive. Faced with arguments of this sort, it preserves the deductivist approach by attributing an implicit premise (essentially, a deductive warrant) to such arguments in a way that deductively connects an argument’s premises to its conclusion. Typically this is an “associated” conditional of the form “If P, then C” where P is the argument’s premises and C is its conclusion.
NLD 作为一般论证理论的合理性取决于它对非表面演绎论证的解释。面对此类论证，它保留了演绎主义方法，通过将论证的前提与其结论演绎地联系起来的方式，将隐含的前提（本质上是演绎依据）归因于此类论证。通常，这是“如果 P，则 C”形式的“关联”条件，其中 P 是论证的前提，C 是其结论。
A 2015 blog by a professional dietician (Dr. Cristina Sutter) criticizes arguments that justify the claim that garcinia cambogia is a miracle weight loss pill by appealing to the authority of the popular television personality “Dr. Oz.” — instances of the reasoning “Dr. Oz Says It, So It Must Be True.” We can standardize the pattern of argument she criticizes as:
专业营养师（克里斯蒂娜·萨特博士）在 2015 年发表的博客中，通过诉诸流行电视名人“克里斯蒂娜·萨特博士”的权威，批评了证明藤黄果是神奇减肥药的论点。奥兹。” - 推理的实例“博士。奥兹这么说，那一定是真的。”我们可以将她批评的论证模式标准化为：

EXAMPLE 16:   实施例16：


Premise

: Dr. Oz says [that gracinia cambogia is a miracle weight loss pill].


前提：奥兹博士说[gracinia cambogia 是一种神奇的减肥药]。
Conclusion

: This must be true.


结论：这一定是真的。

If one judges only by the explicit premise in this argument (“Dr. Oz says...”), this is not a deductively valid argument, for it is obvious that the premise could be true and the conclusion false: Dr. Oz could say gracinia cambogia is a miracle weight loss pill and be wrong. That said, anyone using this argument must assume an associated conditional which can be understood as an implicit premise, allowing us to standardize the argument as:
如果仅根据该论证中的明确前提（“奥兹博士说……”）进行判断，那么这不是一个演绎有效的论证，因为很明显，前提可能为真而结论为假：奥兹博士可能说gracinia cambogia是一种神奇的减肥药是错误的。也就是说，任何使用这个论证的人都必须假设一个相关的条件，它可以被理解为一个隐含的前提，允许我们将这个论证标准化为：

Premise

: Dr. Oz says [that gracinia cambogia is a miracle weight loss pill].


前提：奥兹博士说[gracinia cambogia 是一种神奇的减肥药]。
Implicit Premise

: If Dr. Oz says this, it must be true.


隐含前提：如果奥兹博士这么说，那它一定是真的。
Conclusion

: This must be true.


结论：这一定是真的。

So understood, the Dr. Oz argument is deductively valid, but not sound, as it is a valid argument with a problematic implicit premise.
如此理解，奥兹博士的论证在演绎上是有效的，但并不健全，因为它是一个有效的论证，但隐含前提有问题。
NLD deals with inductive generalizations in a similar way. Consider the following example from a conversation about French men.
NLD 以类似的方式处理归纳概括。考虑以下关于法国男人的对话中的例子。

EXAMPLE 17:   实施例17：




“French men are fastidious about their appearance. I have worked with many and this was what I found.”


“法国男人对自己的外表很挑剔。我和很多人一起工作过，这就是我的发现。”

In this example, the move from the premise to the conclusion of the argument assumes that the sample of French men the arguer is familiar with are a representative sample of French men. If this is not likely, then the sample does not provide good reasons for concluding that French men are, in general, as fastidious if they are. If we recognize this assumption as an implicit premise when we standardize the argument, then the argument is deductively valid, for a representative sample is a subset of a population that accurately reflects the characteristics of the larger group.
在这个例子中，从论证的前提到结论的转变假设论证者所熟悉的法国男性样本是法国男性的代表性样本。如果这种情况不太可能发生，那么该样本就无法提供充分的理由来得出法国男性总体上同样挑剔的结论。如果我们在标准化论证时将这一假设视为隐含前提，那么该论证就演绎有效，因为代表性样本是准确反映较大群体特征的总体的子集。
In this way, NLD turns the uncertainty that characterizes inductive generalizations (and other forms of informal validity) into uncertainty that is connected to an associated conditional which warrants the move from an argument’s premises to it conclusion. This does not eliminate such uncertainty, but maintains it as a key consideration in argument evaluation, for it makes the status of this warrant an essential element of premise acceptability.
通过这种方式，NLD 将表征归纳概括（以及其他形式的非形式有效性）的不确定性转变为与关联条件相关的不确定性，该条件保证从论证的前提到结论的转变。这并没有消除这种不确定性，但仍将其作为论证评估的关键考虑因素，因为它使这一保证的地位成为前提可接受性的基本要素。
In favor of NLD, it has been argued that reconstruction of many arguments it proposes is a dialectically useful way to make explicit the key assumptions that arguments depend on, and frees us from the need to distinguish between different kinds of validity in ways that can be problematic when they are applied to real life arguing. The pragma-dialectical account of indirect speech acts (Eemeren and Grootendorst 2002, Groarke 1999) provides a way to reconstruct arguments as deductive arguments when NLD requires it, though Johnson 2000 and Godden 2004 argue that NLD is an artificial theory which forces informal arguments to adhere to an overly restrictive model of inference.
支持全国民主联盟的人认为，重建它提出的许多论点是一种辩证上有用的方法，可以明确论点所依赖的关键假设，并使我们无需以可区分的方式区分不同类型的有效性。当它们应用于现实生活中的争论时就会出现问题。对间接言语行为的语用辩证解释（Eemeren and Grootendorst 2002，Groarke 1999）提供了一种在 NLD 需要时将论证重构为演绎论证的方法，尽管 Johnson 2000 和 Godden 2004 认为 NLD 是一种人为理论，它迫使非形式论证坚持过于严格的推理模型。

4.4 Argument Schemes 4.4 论证方案

Argument (or “argumentation”) schemes are recurring patterns of reasoning. Once identified they can be used to evaluate an argument which is instance of a scheme, or as a template or recipe arguers can use when they construct an argument which is an instance of a scheme. Walton, Reed and Macagno 2008 provide a compendium of 96 schemes. Wageman has developed a Periodic Table of Arguments which provides a systematized account of basic schemes.
论证（或“论证”）方案是反复出现的推理模式。一旦被识别，它们就可以用来评估作为方案实例的参数，或者作为争论者在构造作为方案实例的参数时可以使用的模板或配方。Walton、Reed 和 Macagno 2008 提供了 96 种方案的概要。瓦格曼开发了一个参数周期表，它提供了基本方案的系统化说明。
Rules of inference like modus ponens and modus tollens can be understood as deductive schemes. Other schemes commonly used in ordinary arguing include Argument by Sign, Argument by Analogy, Argument by Example, and Slippery Slope Reasoning. Dove 2016 and Groarke 2019 have shown how visual arguments with non-verbal visual elements may be instances of common schemes, and have identified some schemes which are inherently visual.
像肯定前件和托伦斯这样的推理规则可以理解为演绎方案。普通论证中常用的其他方案包括符号论证、类比论证、举例论证和滑坡推理。Dove 2016 和 Groarke 2019 展示了具有非语言视觉元素的视觉论证如何成为常见方案的实例，并确定了一些本质上是视觉的方案。
The most common approach to argument schemes combines a pattern of argument with a set of “critical questions” with which it is associated. The scheme Argument from Authority (“Appeal to Authority,” “Appeal to Expert Opinion”) and the critical questions it raises can be formalized as follows.
论证方案最常见的方法是将论证模式与与其相关的一组“关键问题”结合起来。权威方案论证（“诉诸权威”、“诉诸专家意见”）及其提出的关键问题可以形式化如下。

A is an authority in domain D.


A 是 D 域中的权威。


A says that T is true.


A 说 T 是真的。


T is within D.


T 在 D 之内。


(Therefore) T is true.


（因此）T 为真。

Critical questions

:  关键问题：




1. How credible is A?


1. A 的可信度如何？


2. Is A an authority in domain D?


2. A 是 D 域中的权威吗？


3. What did A assert that implies T?


3. A 的断言暗示了 T 的什么？


4. Is A someone who can be trusted?


4.A是一个可以信任的人吗？


5. Is T consistent with what other experts assert?


5. T 与其他专家的说法一致吗？


6. Is A’s assertion of T based on evidence?


6. A 对 T 的断言有证据吗？


Prakken 2010b understands argument schemes as inference rules, some critical questions ensuring the truth of an argument’s premises, others ensuring that the context of the inference is appropriate.
Prakken 2010b 将论证方案理解为推理规则，一些关键问题确保论证前提的真实性，其他问题则确保推理的上下文是适当的。
Another approach to schemes builds the answers to critical questions into a ‘full’ definition of the scheme, treating them as required premises in convincing instances of the scheme. Taking this approach, the scheme Argument from Authority can be defined as follows.
另一种方案方法是将关键问题的答案构建到方案的“完整”定义中，将它们视为令人信服的方案实例所需的前提。采用这种方法，权威方案论证可以定义如下。

A is a credible authority in the domain D.


A 是 D 领域中的可信权威。


A asserted X, which implies T.


断言的 X，意味着 T。


A can be trusted and T is within domain D.


A 可以信任，并且 T 在域 D 内。


T is consistent with what other experts in domain D assert.


T 与 D 领域其他专家的断言一致。


A’s assertion of T is based on evidence.


A 对 T 的断言是有证据的。


(Therefore) T is true.


（因此）T 为真。

The critical question approach to schemes suggests that a credible argument from authority must include acceptable premises of the form outlined in the definition of the scheme, and is valid if it is backed by answers to the scheme’s critical questions. Taking the ‘full’ approach, a valid argument from authority must include the premises that define it as as a good argument as explicit (or possibly implicit) premises. In both cases, the result is an account of premise acceptability and validity which is tailored to specifically apply to arguments from authority.
计划的关键问题方法表明，来自权威机构的可信论证必须包括计划定义中概述的形式的可接受前提，并且如果得到计划关键问题答案的支持，则该论证是有效的。采用“完整”方法，来自权威的有效论证必须包括将其定义为良好论证的前提，即明确的（或可能隐含的）前提。在这两种情况下，结果都是对前提可接受性和有效性的解释，专门适用于权威的论点。
Different argument schemes are a refinement of general AV criteria, creating specific criteria which can be applied to different kinds of argument.
不同的论证方案是一般 AV 标准的细化，创建了可应用于不同类型论证的特定标准。
When a student essay claims that “we should not stockpile nuclear weapons” because Einstein told us that this would lead “to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life” (EXAMPLE 18), this is an appeal to authority which invokes Einstein as an authority. In order for it to be a convincing argument from authority, it would need to fully satisfy the conditions outlined in our definition of the scheme Argument from Authority.
当一篇学生论文声称“我们不应该储存核武器”，因为爱因斯坦告诉我们，这将导致“比目前对生命的破坏更可怕的破坏”（示例 18）时，这是对权威的呼吁，援引爱因斯坦作为一个权威。为了使其成为令人信服的权威论据，它需要完全满足我们对权威论据方案定义中概述的条件。
The attempt to satisfy the requirements this implies produces a version of the argument which can be summarized as follows.
满足这意味着的要求的尝试产生了一个版本的论证，可以总结如下。

EXAMPLE 18 expanded to satisfy the criteria for a convincing argument from authority:


示例 18 进行扩展以满足来自权威的令人信服的论证的标准：


1. Einstein (A) is a credible authority on nuclear weapons (D).


1. 爱因斯坦 (A) 是核武器方面可信的权威 (D)。


2. Einstein (A) asserted that the stockpiling of nuclear weapons would precipitate “destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life” (X), which implies that we should not stockpile nuclear weapons (T).


2. 爱因斯坦（A）断言，储存核武器将引发“比现在对生命的毁灭更可怕的毁灭”（X），这意味着我们不应该储存核武器（T）。


3. Einstein (A) can be trusted and questions about stockpiling nuclear weapons (T) are questions about nuclear weapons (D).


3. 爱因斯坦（A）是可以信任的，关于储存核武器的问题（T）是关于核武器的问题（D）。


4. The claim that we should not stockpile nuclear weapons (T) is consistent with what other experts on nuclear weapons (D) assert.


4. 我们不应该储存核武器的主张（T）与其他核武器专家的主张（D）是一致的。


5. Einstein’s (A’s) assertion that we should not stockpile nuclear weapons (T) is based on evidence.


5. 爱因斯坦（A）关于我们不应该储存核武器（T）的主张是有证据的。


6. (Therefore) We should not stockpile nuclear weapons (T).


6.（因此）我们不应该储存核武器（T）。

This attempt to satisfy the conditions for a good instance of argument from authority fails because it produces a number of problematic premises. Other experts disagreed (and continue to disagree) with Einstein’s suggestion that it is a mistake to stockpile nuclear weapons. More fundamentally, the proposed argument is founded on too loose an account of nuclear weapons as a domain of expertise. Einstein is a renowned expert on nuclear physics but this it does not make him an expert on the social and political issues raised by nuclear weapons. This is something that a convincing version of the argument would have to establish.
这种满足权威论证的良好实例的条件的尝试失败了，因为它产生了许多有问题的前提。其他专家不同意（并且继续不同意）爱因斯坦的建议，即储存核武器是一个错误。更根本的是，所提出的论点是建立在对核武器作为专业领域的过于宽松的解释之上的。爱因斯坦是著名的核物理学专家，但这并不意味着他成为核武器引发的社会和政治问题的专家。这是一个令人信服的论证版本必须证实的事情。
In some ways, the scheme approach to argument assessment rectifies problems that arise in systems of informal logic that adopt the fallacy approach to argument evaluation. For traditional fallacies which have non-fallacious instances can be understood, not as fallacies, but as argumentation schemes which are legitimate forms of reasoning when they are properly employed. Fallacy definitions can be turned into scheme definitions by identifying a list of critical questions (or required premises) that specify what is required to make the arguments in question valid.
在某些方面，论证评估的方案方法纠正了采用谬误方法进行论证评估的非形式逻辑系统中出现的问题。因为具有非谬误实例的传统谬误可以被理解为论证方案，而不是谬误，当它们被正确运用时，论证方案是合法的推理形式。通过确定一系列关键问题（或所需前提），可以将谬误定义转化为方案定义，这些问题指定了使相关论点有效所需的条件。
Ad hominem is a case in point, for there are many instances in which criticisms of an arguer (rather than their position) are a reasonable way to cast doubt on their views. We can specify when this is so by listing critical questions that determine whether this is so in a particular case of argument. The basic question that must be asked is whether there is a good reason why the arguer’s views should not be taken seriously — a question that subsumes the more specific questions whether they have repeatedly shown poor judgment, are biased, lack expertise in the area in question, or are for some other reason an arguer who should not be listened to.
人身攻击就是一个很好的例子，因为在很多情况下，对争论者（而不是他们的立场）的批评是对他们的观点产生怀疑的合理方式。我们可以通过列出决定在特定论证情况下是否如此的关键问题来指定何时是这样。必须提出的基本问题是，是否有充分的理由说明论证者的观点不应该被认真对待——这个问题包含了更具体的问题，即他们是否一再表现出错误的判断力、是否存在偏见、是否缺乏相关领域的专业知识，或者由于某种其他原因，成为不应该被倾听的争论者。
Treated in this way, ad hominem is a legitimate scheme of argument, but there are (as there are in the case of all schemes) many situations in which ad hominem arguments are poor instances of the scheme. In this and many other cases, traditional fallacies can be regarded as deviations from an inherently correct scheme of reasoning.
以这种方式对待，人身攻击是一种合法的论证方案，但在许多情况下（正如所有方案的情况一样），人身攻击论证并不是该方案的不良实例。在这种情况和许多其他情况下，传统的谬误可以被视为偏离固有正确的推理方案。

4.5 Testing Systems 4.5 测试系统

Most informal logics combine different ways of evaluating arguments. In this way, T in a particular system tends to be some combined set of tools that can be used in this endeavor. In most cases, T = {F, AV, AS}, where F is some list of fallacies, AV is some kind of AV criteria (say, the standard ARS criteria) and AS is some set of argumentation schemes.
大多数非形式逻辑结合了评估论证的不同方式。这样，特定系统中的 T 往往是可用于此目的的一些组合工具集。在大多数情况下，T = {F, AV, AS}，其中 F 是一些谬误列表，AV 是某种 AV 标准（例如，标准 ARS 标准），AS 是一组论证方案。
But systems of informal logic can accommodate other, less common criteria for deciding whether arguments are good or bad, strong or weak. A system might, for example, incorporate criteria which are founded on a virtue-based approach to argument (see Virtues and Arguments), on feminist principles, or on notions derived from rhetoric, theories of communication, or other cognate fields.
但非形式逻辑系统可以容纳其他不太常见的标准来决定论证是好还是坏、强还是弱。例如，一个系统可能包含基于美德的论证方法（参见美德和论证）、女权主义原则或源自修辞、传播理论或其他同源领域的概念的标准。
The issues raised by the different kinds of standards that govern arguing in different kinds of dialogue can be be accommodated by formulating complex testing systems that include different criteria which apply to different kinds of dialogue. A system which aggregates these different criteria may be the best way to build a truly comprehensive account of real life reasoning.
管理不同类型对话中的争论的不同类型标准所提出的问题可以通过制定复杂的测试系统来解决，其中包括适用于不同类型对话的不同标准。聚合这些不同标准的系统可能是对现实生活推理建立真正全面的解释的最佳方式。

5. Informal Logic Within A Broader Context
5.更广泛背景下的非形式逻辑

Informal logic’s attempt to understand argument as it occurs in a broad range of real life situations continues to evolve in a way that is influenced by the study of real life reasoning that takes place within the broader scope of argumentation theory.
非形式逻辑试图理解在广泛的现实生活情况中发生的论证，这种方式继续以一种受到在更广泛的论证理论范围内发生的现实生活推理研究的影响的方式发展。
One cognate field of note is Artificial Intelligence (AI). It relies on step by step accounts of informal reasoning in a wide array of contexts. Informal logics provide this in a general way that has influenced the attempt to model argumentation between agents in multi-agent systems which mimic or assist human reasoning. Computational models have been applied to large-scale collections (‘webs’) of inter-connected arguments, and to reasoning about medical decisions, legal issues, chemical properties and other complex systems. Automated argument assistance functions as a computational aid that can assist in the construction of an argument. Verheij 2014 provides an overview of the issues that this raises.
一个值得注意的同源领域是人工智能（AI）。它依赖于在各种背景下对非形式推理的逐步说明。非形式逻辑以一种通用的方式提供了这一点，它影响了在模仿或辅助人类推理的多智能体系统中对智能体之间的论证进行建模的尝试。计算模型已应用于相互关联的论点的大规模集合（“网络”），以及医疗决策、法律问题、化学性质和其他复杂系统的推理。自动论证辅助功能作为一种计算辅助工具，可以帮助构建论证。Verheij 2014 概述了由此引发的问题。
The development in the empirical study of real life reasoning is the study of argument “corpora” — large collections of argument drawn from natural language discourse. In an early study of this sort, Jorgenson, Kock and Rorbech 1991 analyzed a series of 37 one-hour televised debates from Danish public TV. The debates featured well-known public figures arguing for and against policy proposals. A representative audience of 100 voters voted before and after the debate. Their conclusions were compared with standard notions of “proper” and “valid” argumentation. Other studies consider corpora made up of large databases of selected written texts (see, e.g., Goodwin and Cortes 2010, and Mochales and Ieven 2009).
现实生活推理实证研究的发展是对论证“语料库”的研究——从自然语言话语中提取的大量论证集合。在此类早期研究中，Jorgenson、Kock 和 Rorbech 1991 分析了丹麦公共电视台的一系列 37 场一小时的电视辩论。辩论中，知名公众人物对政策提案进行了支持和反对。辩论前后，由 100 名选民组成的代表观众进行了投票。他们的结论与“正确”和“有效”论证的标准概念进行了比较。其他研究认为语料库由选定书面文本的大型数据库组成（例如，参见 Goodwin 和 Cortes 2010，以及 Mochales 和 Ieven 2009）。
Argument mining is a subfield of data mining, or text mining (and computational linguistics). It uses software and algorithms that automatically process texts looking for argument structures — for premises, conclusions, argumentation schemes, and extended webs of argument. The texts studied include legal documents , on-line debates, product reviews, academic literature, user comments on proposed regulations, newspaper articles and court cases, as well as dialogical domains. ARG-tech, the Centre for Argument Technology, has played a central role in studies of this sort.
参数挖掘是数据挖掘或文本挖掘（和计算语言学）的一个子领域。它使用软件和算法自动处理文本，寻找论证结构——前提、结论、论证方案和扩展的论证网络。研究的文本包括法律文件、在线辩论、产品评论、学术文献、用户对拟议法规的评论、报纸文章和法院案例以及对话领域。ARG-tech（论证技术中心）在此类研究中发挥了核心作用。
Other research relevant to informal logic has highlighted many ways in which the success of real life arguments depends on aspects of argumentation which are not well integrated into standard systems of informal logic. The latter include an arguer’s ability to draw attention to their argument (using “argument flags” that attract the attention of an intended audience); their personal credibility, ethos, or standing; or their ability to situate their argument within a broader context of debate or dialogue. The study of these and other pragmatic, social, dialectical, semiotic and rhetorical features of arguing will probably play a role in the continued development of informal logic.
其他与非形式逻辑相关的研究强调了现实生活论证的成功取决于论证的许多方面，而这些方面没有很好地融入非形式逻辑的标准系统。后者包括论证者吸引人们对其论证的注意的能力（使用吸引目标受众注意力的“论证标志”）；他们的个人信誉、精神气质或地位；或者他们将自己的论点置于更广泛的辩论或对话背景中的能力。对论证的这些以及其他实用、社会、辩证、符号和修辞特征的研究可能会在非形式逻辑的持续发展中发挥作用。
The expansion of informal logic to account for an ever broader range of argument is evident in discussions of the use of narratives within argument. In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon uses the mythical story of “The Ring of Gyges” to prove that humans are inherently selfish. In this and many other situations, stories of various kinds (accounts of some historical event, biographies, fables, parables, morality plays, etc) are designed to provide support for some conclusion. It is often been said that a novel or some other work of fiction is an argument for socialism, freedom of expression, or some other value.
在讨论论证中叙述的使用时，非形式逻辑的扩展以解释更广泛的论证是显而易见的。在柏拉图的《理想国》中，格劳孔用“盖格斯之环”的神话故事来证明人类本质上是自私的。在这种情况和许多其他情况下，各种故事（某些历史事件的叙述、传记、寓言、寓言、道德剧等）旨在为某些结论提供支持。人们常说，小说或其他虚构作品是对社会主义、言论自由或其他价值的论证。
One can understand the argumentative use of narratives in a variety of ways: as rhetorical embellishment, as a form of argument by analogy, as implicit generalization (the characters in a story functioning as variables within such generalizations), or reasoning that requires the development of unique standards of argument assessment. According to Fisher 1987, argument itself is best understood as narrative. According to Nussbaum 1990, literature is a way to better understand, and argue about, complex moral situations. Within informal logic, Walton, Reed, and Macagno 2008 identify narrative-based schemes of argument while others continue to debate the role that narratives play in ordinary argument (see Govier and Ayer 2013, Olmos 2014, Plumer 2015).
人们可以通过多种方式来理解叙事的论证性使用：作为修辞修饰、作为类比论证的一种形式、作为隐含的概括（故事中的人物在这种概括中充当变量），或者需要发展独特的论证评估标准。根据 Fisher 1987 的观点，论证本身最好理解为叙事。根据 Nussbaum 1990 的说法，文学是更好地理解和争论复杂道德情境的一种方式。在非形式逻辑中，Walton、Reed 和 Macagno 2008 确定了基于叙事的论证方案，而其他人则继续争论叙事在普通论证中所扮演的角色（参见 Govier 和 Ayer 2013、Olmos 2014、Plumer 2015）。
Informal logic’s interest in real life argument has, from the start, been tied to its interest in the teaching of reasoning skills. In view of this, its interests overlap with fields and disciplines that study education and pedagogy — links manifest in its own influence on critical thinking and the philosophy of education (and movements like “Philosophy for Children”).非形式逻辑对现实生活论证的兴趣从一开始就与其对推理技能教学的兴趣联系在一起。有鉴于此，它的兴趣与研究教育和教育学的领域和学科重叠——这种联系体现在它对批判性思维和教育哲学（以及“儿童哲学”等运动）的影响中。
Some of the educational issues raised by informal logic are manifest in the development of critical thinking tests which attempt to measure argumentation skills. They are used to test the abilities of students or others and, in a self-reflective way, as an empirical way to test the success of attempts to teach informal reasoning.
非形式逻辑提出的一些教育问题在试图衡量论证技能的批判性思维测试的发展中得到了体现。它们被用来测试学生或其他人的能力，并以自我反思的方式，作为一种经验方法来测试教授非形式推理的尝试是否成功。
Critical thinking (or, even more so, creative thinking) skills are not easily assessed using standardized tests which are designed for large scale use, and typically rely on multiple choice question and answers (see Sobocan 2021). In real life contexts, what counts as good arguing (and thinking) is open ended and unpredictable, dialectical, and influenced by pragmatic and contextual considerations which are difficult to incorporate within standard tests. The California Critical Thinking Test reflects the view of critical thinking elaborated in “The Delphi Report,” commissioned by the American Philosophical Association in 1987, a report that focuses on a narrow range of critical thinking skills which tends to oversimplify the competencies required for good informal argument.
使用专为大规模使用而设计的标准化测试不容易评估批判性思维（或者更重要的是创造性思维）技能，并且通常依赖于多项选择题和答案（参见 Sobocan 2021）。在现实生活中，良好的争论（和思考）是开放式的、不可预测的、辩证的，并受到务实和情境考虑的影响，而这些考虑很难纳入标准测试中。加州批判性思维测试反映了美国哲学协会 1987 年委托撰写的《德尔菲报告》中阐述的批判性思维观点，该报告侧重于狭隘的批判性思维技能范围，往往过于简单化良好的非形式思维所需的能力。争论。
Ennis 2013 provides a comprehensive proposal for dealing with the issues raised by critical thinking tests, and with other challenges raised by attempts to teach critical thinking.
Ennis 2013 提供了一个全面的建议，用于处理批判性思维测试所提出的问题，以及因尝试教授批判性思维而提出的其他挑战。

6. Informal Logic and Philosophy
6.非形式逻辑和哲学

The field of informal logic is a recent invention, but one that continues historical attempts to understand and teach others how to argue. In the Western philosophical tradition, it begins with the sophists’ fifth century boast that they could teach others how to be successful arguers. In Aristotle it is manifest in his systematic account of reasoning, which is expressly designed to teach others how to argue well. Within the history of philosophy, one finds numerous other attempts to formulate accounts of argument that can be used to explain, evaluate, and teach real life reasoning.
非形式逻辑领域是一项新发明，但它延续了历史上理解和教导他人如何论证的尝试。在西方哲学传统中，它始于五世纪诡辩家的吹嘘，他们可以教别人如何成为成功的论证者。在亚里士多德那里，这一点体现在他对推理的系统描述中，其明确目的是教别人如何很好地论证。在哲学史上，人们发现了许多其他尝试来阐述可用于解释、评估和教授现实生活推理的论证说明。
The practice of philosophy itself assumes (and frequently develops) an account of argument as it assembles evidence for different philosophical perspectives. Systems of informal logic assume, and often depend upon, the resulting views of reason, rationality and what counts as evidence and knowledge. The philosophical issues in play are tied to complex, unsettled epistemological questions about evidence and knowledge.
哲学实践本身假设（并且经常发展）一种论证的解释，因为它为不同的哲学观点收集证据。非形式逻辑系统假设并常常依赖于由此产生的关于理性、合理性以及什么算作证据和知识的观点。所涉及的哲学问题与关于证据和知识的复杂的、未解决的认识论问题有关。
Mercier and Sperber (2011) argue that reasoning is a practice which has evolved from, and needs to be understood in terms of, the social practice of argumentation. Johnson 2000 pushes in the opposite direction, arguing that a comprehensive account of argument must be built upon a philosophical account of rationality. Goldman 1999 situates knowledge in the social interactions that take place within interpersonal exchange and knowledge institutions, emphasizing informal argument and the constraints which make it a valuable practice. A 2002 volume of Philosophica on Hilary Putnam’s philosophy suggests pragmatism as an epistemology that best fits informal logic as a discipline.
Mercier 和 Sperber (2011) 认为，推理是一种从论证的社会实践演变而来的实践，需要根据论证的社会实践来理解。Johnson 2000 则反其道而行之，认为对论证的全面解释必须建立在对理性的哲学解释之上。Goldman 1999 将知识置于人际交流和知识机构内发生的社会互动中，强调非形式争论和使其成为有价值实践的限制。2002 年出版的关于希拉里·普特南哲学的《哲学》卷提出，实用主义作为一种认识论，最适合作为一门学科的非形式逻辑。
Some aspects of informal logic raise deep questions that have implications for logic and philosophy. One notable feature of informal logic as it is now practiced is a proliferation of different systems of informal logic which approach the analysis and evaluation of informal reasoning in different ways — employing fallacies, AV criteria, argumentation schemes, methods of formal analysis, and other models of good argument. One implication is a broadening of the conditions for argument felicity.
非形式逻辑的某些方面提出了对逻辑和哲学有影响的深刻问题。目前所实践的非形式逻辑的一个显着特征是不同非形式逻辑系统的激增，这些系统以不同的方式分析和评估非形式推理——采用谬误、AV标准、论证方案、形式分析方法和其他模型的良好论点。其含义之一是扩大论证有效性的条件。
Other issues are raised by informal logic’s recognition that real life arguments frequently employ visual images, non-verbal sounds, and other non-verbal elements, challenging the traditional assumption that arguments are sets of sentences -- or the propositions (“the bearers of truth value”) that sentences refer to. However one understands visual and multimodal arguments, there is no easy way to reduce them to sets of sentences, for there is no precise way to translate what we see, hear, experience, etc. into words.
非形式逻辑认识到现实生活中的论证经常使用视觉图像、非语言声音和其他非语言元素，从而挑战了论证是句子集或命题（“真理的承载者”）的传统假设，从而引发了其他问题。值”）句子所指的。无论人们如何理解视觉和多模态论证，都没有简单的方法可以将它们简化为句子集，因为没有精确的方法可以将我们所看到的、听到的、经历的等翻译成单词。
In its current state of development, informal logic’s connection to philosophy does not lie in its influence on key philosophical disciplines so much as their influence on it. In North America and elsewhere, informal logic is a field in which philosophers apply theories of argument (rationality, knowledge, etc.) to everyday argument. In keeping with this, philosophers continue to be the core contributors to informal logic; philosophy departments in colleges and universities continue to be the core departments that teach the courses that are its pedagogical focus.
在目前的发展状态下，非形式逻辑与哲学的联系并不在于它对关键哲学学科的影响，而在于它们对哲学学科的影响。在北美和其他地方，非形式逻辑是哲学家将论证理论（理性、知识等）应用于日常论证的领域。与此相一致的是，哲学家仍然是非形式逻辑的核心贡献者。学院和大学的哲学系仍然是教授其教学重点课程的核心系。
The influence of informal logic courses on the enormous numbers of students that enrol in them require that we at least qualify Rescher’s remark (2005, p. 22) that: “The fact is that philosophy has little or no place in American popular (as opposed to academic) culture... philosophy nowadays makes virtually no impact on the wider culture of North America.” The extent to which informal logic’s attempt to broadly instill good reasoning habits within public education and public discussion and debate is difficult to judge.
非形式逻辑课程对注册这些课程的大量学生的影响要求我们至少验证 Rescher 的评论（2005 年，第 22 页）：“事实是，哲学在美国大众中几乎没有地位（相对而言，哲学在美国大众中几乎没有地位）。到学术）文化……如今的哲学对北美更广泛的文化几乎没有产生任何影响。”非形式逻辑在多大程度上试图在公共教育和公共讨论和辩论中广泛灌输良好的推理习惯，这一点很难判断。
Though informal logic addresses many issues relevant to core philosophical disciplines (most notably, epistemology and philosophy of mind; evident in the work of Goldman, Crosswhite, Thagard, and others), it has had limited impact on mainstream approaches to their subject matter. Woods 2000 has speculated on the reasons why. In part, informal logic’s position within philosophy reflects the broader fragmentation of philosophy within North America, Rescher 2005 (p. 4) writing that: “The most striking aspect of contemporary American philosophy is its fragmentation. The scale and complexity of the enterprise is such that if one seeks in contemporary American philosophy for a consensus on the problem agenda, let alone for agreement on the substantive issues, then one is predestined to look in vain.”
尽管非形式逻辑解决了许多与核心哲学学科相关的问题（最著名的是认识论和心灵哲学；在戈德曼、克罗斯怀特、萨加德等人的著作中很明显），但它对其主题的主流方法的影响有限。伍兹2000年曾推测过其中的原因。在某种程度上，非形式逻辑在哲学中的地位反映了北美哲学更广泛的碎片化，Rescher 2005（第 4 页）写道：“当代美国哲学最引人注目的方面是它的碎片化。这一事业的规模和复杂性是如此之大，如果人们在当代美国哲学中寻求在问题议程上达成共识，更不用说在实质性问题上达成一致，那么注定是徒劳的。”
In this context, it can best be said that informal logic, like applied ethics, has become a standard offering that helps sustain philosophy departments in North America by contributing to what Rescher describes as “The rapid growth of ‘applied philosophy’ ...[that] is a striking structural feature of contemporary North American philosophy.” (p. 9). The goal of applied philosophy is philosophically informed and nuanced reasoning that addresses complex real life situations. Informal logic is one field which has made a valuable contribution to this goal.
在这种背景下，最好的说法是，非形式逻辑，如应用伦理学，已成为一种标准产品，通过促进雷舍尔所描述的“‘应用哲学’的快速增长……[这是当代北美哲学的一个显着的结构特征。” （第 9 页）。应用哲学的目标是通过哲学知识和细致入微的推理来解决复杂的现实生活情况。非形式逻辑是为这一目标做出了宝贵贡献的一个领域。
• （由于字数限制，参考书目略）