In argumentation, an objection is a reason arguing against a premise, argument, or conclusion. Definitions of objection vary in whether an objection is always an argument (or counterargument) or may include other moves such as questioning.
An objection to an objection is sometimes known as a rebuttal.
An objection can be issued against an argument retroactively from the point of reference of that argument. This form of objection – invented by the presocratic philosopher Parmenides – is commonly referred to as a retroactive refutation.
Inference objection
An inference objection is an objection to an argument based not on any of its stated premises, but rather on the relationship between a premise (or set of premises) and main contention. For a given simple argument, if the assumption is made that its premises are correct, fault may be found in the progression from these to the conclusion of the argument. This can often take the form of an unstated co-premise, as in begging the question. In other words, it may be necessary to make an assumption in order to conclude anything from a set of true statements. This assumption must also be true in order that the conclusion follow logically from the initial statements.
Example
In the first example argument map, the objector can't find anything contentious in the stated premises of the argument, but still disagrees with the conclusion; the objection is therefore placed beside the main premise and, in this case, exactly corresponds to an unstated or 'hidden' co-premise. This is demonstrated by the second example argument map in which the full pattern of reasoning relating to the contention is set out.
 |
 |
See also
References
- Douglas Walton (2013). Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-1107435193.
- Arnaud Chevallier (2016). Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving. Oxford University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0190463915.
- Bollack, J. (1990). "La cosmologie parménidéenne de Parménide," in R. Brague and J.-F. Courtine (eds.), Herméneutique et ontologie: Mélanges en hommage à Pierre Aubenque. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. pp. 17–53.
- Gelder, Tim (March 2007). "The rationale for Rationale". Law, Probability and Risk. 6 (1–4): 23–42. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm032.
The analysis map in Fig. 1 also illustrates how Rationale handles a common reasoning pattern, which we refer to as an 'inference objection'. This is where somebody raises an objection to an argument, an objection countering not the stated premise but rather the relationship between that premise and the claim it is supporting (or opposing).
- Rathkopf, Charles (June 2024). "Some benefits and limitations of modern argument map representation". Argumentation. 38 (2): 199–224. doi:10.1007/s10503-023-09626-5.
it is useful to sort objections into two large classes: direct objections and inference objections. A direct objection aims to show that the claim it targets is false. An inference objection aims to show that some claim is not well supported by the proffered set of premises.
- ter Berg, Timo; van Gelder, Tim; Patterson, Fiona; Teppema, Sytske (2013) . "Inference objection". Critical Thinking: Reasoning and Communicating with Rationale. Amsterdam: Critical Thinking Skills. ISBN 9781492103240. OCLC 867805999.
How can we reconcile the general definition of an objection as a reason to think a claim is false, with the notion of an inference objection as an objection to an evidential link (i.e., not a claim)? By realizing that every inference objection is equivalent to an objection to an as-yet-unstated premise.
- "Doom in the sky?". New Scientist. 24 January 2004. Retrieved Jul 24, 2020.