El preguntar y su papel en la argumentación

Fernando Miguel Leal Carretero


Mientras los argumentos, en tanto productos, permanezcan en el centro de atención de los teóricos de la argumentación, el papel de las preguntas y el preguntar en la argumentación será en gran medida descuidado. Si en cambio partimos de que el proceso de argumentar va más allá de la mera presentación de argumentos, estamos en posición de tratar este tema. Este artículo es un primer intento de presentar, ilustrar y discutir ocho proposiciones relativas al papel de las preguntas y el preguntar en la argumentación. La posición del protagonista será concebida aquí como respuesta a una pregunta, ella misma situada en una compleja red de preguntas; y el antagonista será concebido como alguien que tiene el deber de conducir con esmero una especie de interrogatorio del protagonista

Palabras clave

preguntar; pregunta; punto de vista; papel de protagonista; papel de antagonista; carga de la prueba; carga de la pregunta

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


Anscombre, Jean-Claude (1981). Interrogation et argumentation. Langue française 52: 5-22 (available online at https://www.persee.fr/doc/lfr_0023-8368_1981_num_52_1_5103).

Brown, James Robert (1994). Smoke and mirrors: How science reflects reality. London: Routledge.

Chamberlin, Thomas C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 15 (366): 92-96 (reprint available online at https://www.auburn.edu/~tds0009/Articles/Chamberlain%201965.pdf).

Collingwood, Robin G. (1939). An autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Collingwood, Robin G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Collingwood, Robin G. (1946). The idea of history, ed. by T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Conway, John H. (2004). Foreword. In: G. Pólya, How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (pp. xix-xxiv). Princeton: University Press.

Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Grootendorst, Rob (1983). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.

Eemeren, Frans H. van; Grootendorst, Rob, & Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eemeren, Frans H., & Grootendorst, Rob (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eemeren, Frans H., Houtlosser, Peter, & Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.

Gilbert, Michael A. (1999). Reply to Sharon Bailin’s ‘Truth and reconciliation: Some comments on coalescence’. OSSA 1999: Argumentation at the century’s turn (available online at ).

Harrah, David (2002). The logic of questions. In: D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner, Eds., Handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd edition (1-60). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hastings, Arthur C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston (IL).

Hayek, Friedrich A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35 (4): 519-530 (available online at https://www.kysq.org/docs/Hayek_45.pdf).

Ilie, Cornelia (1999). Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 975-999 (doi 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00056-9).

Ketcham, Victor A. (1914). The theory and practice of argumentation and debate. New York: Macmillan (available online at https://archive.org/details/theorypracticeof00ketc).

Lawn, Brian (1993). The rise and decline of the scholastic ‘quaestio disputata’ with special emphasis on its use in the teaching of medicine and science. Leiden: Brill.

Lewiński, Marcin, & Aakhus, Mark (2014). Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28 (2): 161-185 (doi 10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x).

Lewis, Clive S. (1958). Reflections on the psalms. London: Geoffrey Bles.

Meiland, Jack W. (1989). Argument as inquiry and argument as persuasion. Argumentation 3: 185-196 (10.1007/BF00128148).

Meyer, Michel (1980). Dialectic and questioning: Socrates and Plato. American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (4): 281-289 (available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/20013876).

Meyer, Michel (1982). Argumentation in the light of a theory of questioning. Philosophy and Rhetoric 15 (2): 81-103 (available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/40237314).

Meyer, Michel (1986). De la problématologie. Brussels: Mardaga.

Meyer, Michel (2008). Principia rhetorica: Théorie générale de l’argumentation. Paris: Arthème Fayard.

Oakeshott, Michael (1959). The voice of poetry in the conversation of mankind: An essay. London: Bowes & Bowes. [Reprinted in Rationalism in politics and other essays (197-247). London: Methuen.]

Platt, John R. (1964). Strong inference. Science 146 (3642): 347-353 (doi 10.1126/science.146.3642.347).

Polcar, Leah E. (2003). The problem of evasion in question-answer argumentation. Alta Conference on Argumentation 2: 466-472.

Putnam, Hilary (2015). Intellectual biography. In: R.E. Auxier, D.R. Anderson & L.E. Hahn, eds., The philosophy of Hilary Putnam (3-110). Chicago: Open Court.

Sayers, Dorothy L. (1928). The unpleasantness at the Bellona Club. London: Ernest Benn.

Schlesinger, Izchak M. (1972). Towards a structural analysis of discussions. Semiotica 11 (2): 109-122 (doi 10.1515/semi.1974.11.2.109).

Schlesinger, Izchak M., & Hurvitz, Sharon (2008). The structure of misunderstandings. Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (3): 568-585 (doi 10.1075/pc.16.3.07sch).

Schlesinger, Izshak; Keren-Portnoy, Tamar, & Parush, Tamar (2002). The structure of arguments. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Walton, Douglas (1989). Question-reply argumentation. New York: Praeger.

Walton, Douglas (1991). Critical faults and fallacies of questioning. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 337-366 (available online at http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/91faults.pdf).

Walton, Douglas (1992). Questionable questions in question period: Prospects for an informal logic of parliamentary discourse. In: E. M Barth & E. C. W. Krabbe, Eds., Logic and political culture (87-95). Amsterdam: North-Holland (available online at http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/92questions.pdf).

Walton, Douglas (1997). Judging how heavily a question is loaded: A pragmatic method. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 17 (2): 53-71 (available online at http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/97loaded.pdf).

Walton, Douglas (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University Press.

Walton, Douglas (1999). The fallacy of many questions: On the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory. Argumentation 13: 379-383 (doi 10.1023/A:1007727929716).

Walton, Douglas (2003). Is there a burden of questioning? Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 1-43 (doi 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000013333.96215.a9).

Weber, Zach (2011). Introduction to special issue. Essays in Philosophy: A Biannual Journal 12 (2): 195-199 (available online at ).

Weijers, Olga (2013). In search of the truth: A history of disputation techniques from antiquity to early modern times. Turnhout: Brepols.

Wiśniewski, Andrzej (1991). Erotetic arguments: A preliminary analysis. Studia Logica 50 (2): 261-274 (doi 10.1007/BF00370187).

Wiśniewski, Andrzej (1994). Erotetic implications. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (2): 173-195 (doi 10.1007/BF01050342).

Wiśniewski, Andrzej (1995). The posing of questions: Logical foundations of erotetic inferences. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Wiśniewski, Andrzej (1996). The logic of questions as a theory of erotetic arguments. Synthese 109 (1): 1-25 (doi 10.1007/BF00413820).

Wiśniewski, Andrzej (2013). Questions, inferences, and scenarios. London: College Publications.

Wohlrapp, Harald (1998). A new light on non-deductive argumentation schemes. Argumentation 12: 341-350 (doi 10.1023/A:1007791211241).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15366/ria2018.17.004

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación

ISSN: 2172-8801    doi: 10.15366/ria