The article presents a study of argumentation theory through two binary positions, namely formal and informal logic. The study of literature makes it possible to generalize in some way the question of the definition of the term "informal logic". Quite often in modern literature, these concepts are opposed to formal logic, the basis of which is the study of concepts, judgments and conclusions in the context of conjunction, disjunction, implication, which identify with such concepts as "space", "time" and others. The purpose of our study is to analyze the theory of argumentation through the prism of formal and informal logic. The theory of argumentation is being explored in various spheres of human life today, and although its origins date back to Aristotle's time, disciplines such as psychology, jurisprudence, political science, philology, and many others are involved in these issues in addition to philosophy and logic. This is what determines the fact that more and more new approaches to its study and study are built into the theory of argumentation. The traditional theory of argumentation is formal, and it is fundamentally different from the modern one, for which theoretical answers are insufficient and clear practical guidelines are needed. This gap between theory and practice in nineteenth-twentieth-century science has made it possible to formulate an informal approach to argumentation theory. The idea of informal logic arose from the desire of both students and teachers to provide practical and specific answers to questions that would be close to the practical life of people. Since its inception, informal logic defines itself as a practical discipline, the object of its study, according to its founders, is the expression in natural language, while using in natural discourse the argument, which is characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty and incompleteness of its components.But for practical action it is necessary to have the theoretical basis that informal logic is a difficult issue, because it still does not have a clear structure, and even the question of determining what informal logic is still open for accurate definition. A formal approach to argumentation theory provides a clear structure, formal conditions, and a system of reasoning, but as life practice shows, it is not enough to convince oneself to have true judgments and to formulate correct assumptions according to the basic laws of logic.
Aristotle. Topeka. (1978). In Works in 4 volumes. T. 2. Moscow: Mysl. 687 p. (Philosophical heritage, 349-532.
Johnson, R. H. & Blair, J. A. (1994). Informal Logic: Past and Present. In New Essays in Informal Logic. Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
Uemov, A. I. (1997). Fundamentals of practical logic with tasks and exercis-es. Odessa. 388 p.
Freeman, J. B. (2000). The Place of Informal Logic in Philosophy. Informal Logic, 20 (2), 117-128.
Hitchcock, D. (2007). Informal Logic and Concept of Argument. In Hardbook of the Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam, 5.
Khomenko, I. V. (2013). Theoretical problems of informal logic: conflicts of points of view. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 37(3), 85-99.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.