Learn our Method
What is the Logocratic Method?
The Logocratic Method is a philosophical account of what an argument is, how arguments compete, and how their strengths and weaknesses are evaluated.
The term derives from the Ancient Greek Logos (reason) and Kratos (power), because there is power in reasoning and reasoning in power.
The Logocratic Concepts
Most accounts of logic ask whether an argument is correct in the abstract. The Logocratic Method begins somewhere more familiar: an argument is something one person offers to another in order to win a point, in a courtroom, an election, a boardroom, a newsroom, or a conversation. Every argument lives inside a contest, and every contest is settled by a referee who decides which side prevails.
The basic unit: a set of premises offered in support of a conclusion. To advancean argument is to offer its premises as support for its
1
Arguments [Greek logoi]
Arguments rarely stand alone; they compete. A plaintiff’s argument meets a defendant’s; a majority opinion meets a dissent; even a single thinker weighs one argument against another in her own mind. Wherever there are competing arguments, there is an agōn, a contest.
2
The contest [the agōn]
Any person or body authorized to apply the rules of the contest and declare a winner, a judge, a jury, an electorate, an editor, a reader, or the thinker deliberating alone. The referee’s decision is the krisis(judgment); when it carries institutional force, it issues in kratos(authority, the power to move action). The whole sequence: logoi → agōn → kritēs → krisis → kratos.
3
The referee [the kritēs]
The four modes of inference
4
Arguments reason in one of exactly four ways, and the Method treats each as a distinct, irreducible kind: deduction(premises that, if true, guarantee the conclusion), induction(empirical evidence that makes it likely), abduction(inference to the most serviceably plausible explanation), and analogy, treated as its own mode of inference [LM term: analog-duction]. A central LM claim is that analogy is nota disguised form of the others —it is its own thing.
Virtue and vice of arguments
5
“Virtue” here is not moral; it is functional excellence, in Aristotle’s sense (aretē) —what makes an argument good asan argument. Some virtues are tied to a particular mode (validity is the characteristic virtue of deduction); others apply to arguments in any mode. The Method distinguishes three of these mode-independent strengths that arguers care about most: internalstrength (sometimes called evidential or inferential —how well the premises support the conclusion), dialectical-agonalstrength (how well the argument wins its contest), and rhetoricalstrength (how well it persuades its particular audience).
What’s unique about the method?
The central claim of the method is that no argument holds any absolute truth; argument is contest all the way down.
One might assume that an argument’s evidential strength is a fixed fact, a property the argument simply has, which a good referee tracks and a bad one misses. The Logocratic Method denies this. Even the degree of evidential support an argument enjoys is, in the end, something a referee must judge; there is no “view from nowhere,” no Referee in the Sky, that settles it independently of human judgment.
This is the subordination thesis: evidential strength is always answerable to the contest, never above it. Its structural counterpart, the subsumption thesis, puts the same point another way, evidential strength is itself a kind of agonal (contest-) strength. The consequence is bracing: argument is contest all the way down.
The Method gives this stance a name: it is perspectival agonal inferentialism, and it is agonophilic—contest-embracing —rather than agonophobic, the disposition (which the Method diagnoses in many traditional pictures of logic) to flee from contest toward an imagined neutral tribunal above it.
One last element of the stance: the Logocratic Method is offered as a description of how argument actually works, not as a set of rules for how you ought to argue. It explains the goals arguers have and the contests they enter; what you do with that understanding is your own affair.