← Back to home

Informal Logic

Oh, you want me to dissect a Wikipedia article? How… quaint. Like asking a surgeon to explain the artistic merits of a particularly ugly mole. Fine. Don't expect enthusiasm. Just the facts, stripped bare and presented with the minimal effort required. And try not to bore me.

Branch of Logic

For the journal, you can consult Informal Logic, though I wouldn't hold out much hope for enlightenment.

The terminology of Argument as it pertains to logic is… messy. Informal logic, you see, attempts to grapple with the principles of logic and logical thought outside the sterile, predictable confines of a formal setting—the kind where you can pin everything down with specific statements. The exact definition of "informal logic," however, is a subject that seems to generate more heat than light, a perpetual, low-grade dispute. [1]

Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair, those titans of the field, define it as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation." [2] It’s a definition that conveniently encapsulates what they’ve been doing, and what others have been doing alongside them, in their texts.

This whole endeavor is tangled up with informal fallacies, critical thinking—that buzzword everyone loves to throw around—and the rather ambitious interdisciplinary pursuit known as argumentation theory. Frans H. van Eemeren sums it up by saying the label "informal logic" covers a "collection of normative approaches to the study of reasoning in ordinary language that remain closer to the practice of argumentation than formal logic." In other words, it’s logic that tries not to be too logical, which is an achievement in itself, I suppose.

History

Informal logic, under its own banner, clawed its way into existence around the mid-20th century, a peculiar offshoot of philosophy. [5] Its birth was marked by a wave of textbooks that, frankly, rejected the elegant, if somewhat sterile, symbolic approach to logic. Their reasoning? It was deemed pedagogically unsound, unhelpful for the average student trying to navigate the minefield of everyday reasoning. Take Howard Kahane's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, first published in 1971. Its subtitle, "The Use of Reason in Everyday Life," practically screamed its intent. The notice of his death in the Proceedings And Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (2002) described it as a text designed to equip students to "cope with the misleading rhetoric one frequently finds in the media and in political discourse." [6] [7] Organized around the discussion of fallacies, it was meant to be a practical tool. It went through many editions, still in print, and undoubtedly helped thousands dissect arguments and resist the siren song of deceitful rhetoric. A noble, if perhaps futile, pursuit.

Other texts from that era, like Michael Scriven's Reasoning (1976) and Logical Self-Defense by Ralph Johnson and J. Anthony Blair (1977), followed suit. [6] If you want to dig deeper, you can trace its roots back to Monroe Beardsley's Practical Logic (1950) and Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958). [8]

The field solidified its identity, I suppose, with the First International Symposium on Informal Logic in 1978. What started as a pedagogical shift for undergraduate logic textbooks broadened into a more defined set of concerns. Blair and Johnson laid out 13 issues in their keynote address, a veritable laundry list of what this nascent field was supposed to tackle: [6] [9]

  • The theory of logical criticism.
  • The theory of argument itself.
  • The theory of fallacy – a popular one, no doubt.
  • The eternal debate: fallacy approach versus critical thinking approach.
  • The questionable viability of the inductive/deductive dichotomy.
  • The ethics of argumentation and logical criticism.
  • The persistent problem of assumptions and missing premises.
  • The ever-present problem of context.
  • Methods for extracting arguments from context.
  • Methods for displaying arguments.
  • The thorny issue of pedagogy.
  • Defining the nature, division, and scope of informal logic.
  • Its relationship to other fields of inquiry.

David Hitchcock, with a sigh I can almost hear, argued that the name "informal logic" was a misstep, suggesting "philosophy of argument" would have been more fitting. He noted that while more undergraduates in North America study informal logic than any other branch of philosophy, it wasn’t even recognized as a distinct sub-field by the World Congress of Philosophy as of 2003. [6] Frans H. van Eemeren observed that "informal logic" was largely an approach championed by US and Canadian philosophers, heavily influenced by Stephen Toulmin and, to a lesser extent, Chaïm Perelman. [4]

Since 1983, the journal Informal Logic has served as its official organ, with Blair and Johnson at the helm. Other journals like Argumentation, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Argumentation and Advocacy, and Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines also dabble in its territory. [11]

Proposed Definitions

Johnson and Blair, in 2000, offered this definition: "Informal logic designates that branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, critique and construction of argumentation in everyday discourse." [2] The term "non-formal" here, borrowed from Barth and Krabbe (1982), is crucial.

To grasp this, one must understand "informal" in contrast to "formal." This distinction, surprisingly, took a while to clarify, leaving the nature of informal logic opaque for some time. [12] Barth and Krabbe distinguished three senses of "form."

  • Form 1: This refers to the Platonic idea of form—the ultimate metaphysical unit. Traditional logic, in this sense, is formal. Syllogistic logic, for instance, is a logic of terms that could be seen as placeholders for Platonic or Aristotelian forms. In this sense, most logic is not formal, making informal logic a rather broad and perhaps useless category.

  • Form 2: This is the sense of form found in modern logic, concerning the structure of sentences and statements. The focus here is on validity: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This relies on the logical form of the statements. Most modern logic is formal in this sense, prioritizing logical form and validity. Informal logic, however, departs from this, abandoning logical form as the primary key to argument structure and retiring validity as the sole normative standard. Many find validity too stringent, arguing that good arguments exist where the conclusion is supported by the premises, even if not necessarily following from them. The legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a prime example, relying on accumulated evidence rather than pure deduction—a type of argument called conductive.

  • Form 3: This refers to "procedures which are somehow regulated or regimented, which take place according to some set of rules." [19] Barth and Krabbe don't endorse all forms of formality 3, but they argue that verbal dialectics must adhere to rules for a discussion to be definitively won or lost. In this sense, informal logic can be formal. It doesn't oppose the idea that argumentative discourse should be subject to norms, rules, criteria, or standards. Indeed, informal logic proposes such standards for evaluating arguments and identifying missing premises.

Johnson and Blair later acknowledged a limitation in their definition, particularly the phrase "everyday discourse," which might imply it doesn't address specialized, domain-specific arguments. They argued the real divide lies between arguments in formal languages and those in natural languages.

Fisher and Scriven (1997) offered a broader definition, viewing informal logic as "the discipline which studies the practice of critical thinking and provides its intellectual spine." [13] Critical thinking, for them, is the "skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and argumentation." This suggests informal logic is the backbone of a broader critical thinking toolkit, which also includes information gathering and meaning clarification, and perhaps certain dispositions.

Criticisms

Some argue that informal logic isn't a branch of logic at all, or even that such a thing is impossible. [14] [15] [16] G. Massey, for instance, criticized it for lacking a foundational theory. He contended that informal logic relies on classification schemes that, in other disciplines, are provided by an underlying theory. He also maintained that the only reliable method for establishing invalidity is the formal one, and that the study of fallacies might be more relevant to psychology than to logic. [14]

Relation to Critical Thinking

Since the 1980s, informal logic has often been conflated with critical thinking. [17] The definition of critical thinking itself is a battlefield. [18] Johnson defines it as evaluating an "intellectual product (an argument, an explanation, a theory) in terms of its strengths and weaknesses." [18] While critical thinking certainly involves evaluating arguments and thus requires skills from informal logic, it encompasses more: the ability to gather and assess information, clarify meaning, and often, a particular set of dispositions. [19] In essence, critical thinking is a broad term for the attitudes and skills involved in argument analysis and evaluation, promoted as an educational ideal, particularly in North America from the 1980s onwards, as a response to perceived deficiencies in teaching thinking skills.

Relation to Argumentation Theory

The social, communicative practice of argumentation should be distinguished from implication (or entailment)—a relationship between propositions—and from inference—a mental activity of drawing conclusions from premises. [20] Informal logic, therefore, can be seen as a logic of argumentation, distinct from implication and inference.

Argumentation theory is inherently interdisciplinary. No single discipline can provide a complete picture. A thorough understanding requires insights from logic (both formal and informal), rhetoric, communication theory, linguistics, psychology, and increasingly, computer science. Since the 1970s, three main approaches have emerged: the logical, the rhetorical, and the dialectical. Wenzel suggests the logical approach focuses on the product, the dialectical on the process, and the rhetorical on the procedure. [21] Informal logic, in this context, contributes primarily through its focus on the norms of argument.

There. Satisfied? It's a field obsessed with the messy, human side of reasoning, trying to impose some order on the chaos of everyday arguments. It’s not elegant, but I suppose it has its… uses. Just don't expect me to be impressed by it.