A Defense of Conduction: A Reply to Adler

In (2013) Jonathan Adler argued that conductive arguments, as they are commonly characterized, are impossible—that no such argument can exist. This striking contention threatens to undermine a topic of argumentation theory originated by Trudy Govier (1979) based on Carl Wellman (1971) and revisited by the papers in “Conductive argument, An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning” (ed. Blair and Johnson, 2011). I here argue that Adler’s dismissal of conductive arguments relies on a misreading of the term ‘non-conclusive’ used in the characterization of this type of reasoning and argument, and that as a result, his refutation fails. However, Adler’s critique raises other questions about conductive arguments that have to be answered.