Rogerian argument

A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument.[1] This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20^th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers. One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.[2]

Carl R. Rogers

Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

Logical fallacy Syllogism Argument

General logic

Adding epicycles Bullshit Linking to authority Münchhausen Trilemma Reductio ad absurdum (français) پاسخ کورتیر

Bad logic

Adding epicycles Denying the antecedent Fallacy of ambiguity Formal fallacy Mistaking the map for the territory Red-baiting v - t - e

Alternative name

• Rogerian rhetoric

Typical usage in argument

1. Person 1: Raises argument
2. Person 2: Raises argument
3. Person 1 or 2: Creates argument , a 'compromise' of and that typically contains premises from both and
4. Person 1 or 2: Argues argument typically using the combined premises of and

As rhetoric versus an argument

Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, and , that are disjoint. That is, . Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.[3]

See also

• Hegelian synthesis

References

1. Excelsior Online Writing Lab (Excelsior College OWL). Rogerian Argument.
2. Teich, Nathaniel. Rogerian Perspectives: Collaborative Rhetoric for Oral and Written Communication. Greenwood Publishing Group. 1992.
3. Harry Phillips, Patricia Bostian. The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide. Cengage Learning. Jan 1, 2011.

This article is a stub.
You can help RationalWiki by expanding it.