"There is always something to say in favor of the opposite thesis . . . In fact, ratiocination about values is much more like a juridical argument than like a mathematical deduction" (p. 798).
Because Perelman's background included extensive legal training and interest in the law, his thoughts about communication turned to the ways in which argumentation and judgment are used in the courtroom. He hoped at first to apply the principles of strict logic to the formulation of an ideal way of rendering judgments before a court of law. Instead, he began to see the courtroom as a remarkable microcosm of rhetoric in action, though he did not feature his use of the term at first, probably because it held such a negative co
...