Approving or disapproving of this mode of evidence is

Approving or disapproving of this mode of evidence is a separate issue from examining how the
kisceral behaves in argumentative situations.
The four categories suggested here form a model of the modes of argumentation most
useful for various analyses of disputes and arguments. By explicitly opening up means of
argument that are not logical we come closer to capturing the richness of everyday disputing.
But it is, still and all, a model, and as such is not meant to be taken too literally. One might, for
example, cavil at the categories. Perhaps there should be five modes, or seven or three. Future
discussions will, I hope, examine these possibilities. Still, the recognition and acknowledgment
of the non-logical is crucial if the advantages of a liberal outlook are to be gained.
One of the advantages to be garnered from examining argumentation in this way is the
ability to distinguish between good and bad, effective and ineffective modes in various circum-
stances. Are there times when one mode is inappropriate? Appealing, for example, to an inner
voice as grounds for a grade increase in a logic course would not seem a wise choice of modes.
On the other hand, if we recognize, let us say, crying in a dispute as a legitimate visceral or
emotional argument we then open up new possibilities for investigation.
The issue of fallacies of argument becomes more precise on this analysis as well. There
certainly has been a vast amount of work done on the logical fallacies. But what might, for
example, be a fallacy in one mode may not be a fallacy in another. Special pleading, for
example, is generally fallacious in a logical mode, but less often in kisceral where the
requirement that one, say, actually have an experience in order to understand it makes perfect
sense. In addition, other less traditional fallacies might be added depending on certain
viewpoints. Emotional blackmail, for example, suggests that my ill fortune or unhappiness is
your responsibility. By viewing this as an argumentative move we open up the possibility for
analyzing those circumstances in which the claim is, if ever, legitimate and those in which it is
not. Ad baculum, to cite another example, becomes more specifically a visceral fallacy, and yet
is open to interpretation as a fallacy in other modes.
The above are merely some pointers to the considerations that might be undertaken when
the categories of argument have been opened up. The main point, though, is that this particular
story allows us to consider more of the human facets involved in argument. If disputes are, as I
believe, invitations to view the world in a certain way, then all the central modes we use for
constructing and presenting the world should be grist for the argumentation theorists' mill.
Comment: Page: 12
add more here re why using these
categories rather than others. Also, if
descriptive endeavour is to work, then
more modes must be included. Why
these? They cover a lot of territory
without making the taxonomy unwieldly.