Argumentation, Cognition, and Context: Can we know what we know what we (seem to) know?
Argumentation is supposed to be cognitive and discursive, but once we open our mouths things change radically. Not only do we »inject« concepts into things (and above all, their representations) which were not there before; even our arguments can only be understood as from the conclusions (which are supposed to be the outcome of our arguments). In other words: argumentation may well be cognitive in its origin, but it is only when we »inject« it into discourse that we can recognize, understand and describe it as argumentation, analyse it into argument(s) and conclusion(s), and evaluate it. This article is about some of the problems of this »transition« into words.