The Arguments from Coherence: Analysis and Evaluation

In this article, the theory of argumentation set out by theDutch scholars Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst is broughtto bear in subjecting the general form of the argument fromcoherence to a critical analysis. First, a distinction is broughtout between two basic kinds of argument from coherence: in oneuse this argumentative structure occurs as a sequence of twoarguments establishing that a standpoint constitutes a particularinstantiation or a inherent quality of the system it will becomepart of (symptomatic argument); in the other use we have a mainsymptomatic argument supported by a subordinate argument appealingto instrumental considerations (pragmatic argument). It is thenclaimed that arguments from coherence are complex types of argumentation,structured at various argumentative levels, where the premisesmust be taken together to yield an adequate defence of the conclusion(coordinative argumentation). Finally, an evaluative assessmentis made as to whether arguments from coherence can serve acceptablyas tools for settling disputes: it will be maintained that wecan generally welcome these argumentative structures as soundand fully acceptable provided we are aware of the interpretivediscretion their use entails.