Philosophy is often divided into two traditions: analytic and continental philosophy. Characterizing the analytic-continental divide, however, is no easy task. Some philosophers explain the divide in terms of the place of argument in these traditions. This raises the following questions: Is analytic philosophy rife with arguments while continental philosophy is devoid of arguments? Or can different types of arguments be found in analytic and continental philosophy? This paper presents the results of an empirical study of a large corpus of philosophical texts mined from the JSTOR database (n = 53,260) designed to find patterns of argumentation by type. Overall, the results suggest that there are no significant differences between the types of arguments advanced in analytic and continental philosophy journal articles. The findings, therefore, provide no empirical support to the hypothesis that the divide between analytic and continental philosophy has to do with the place of argument in these traditions.

中文翻译：

---

哲学实践中的分析大陆鸿沟：实证研究

哲学通常分为两种传统：分析哲学和大陆哲学。然而，表征分析大陆的鸿沟并非易事。一些哲学家根据这些传统中争论的位置来解释分歧。这就提出了以下问题：分析哲学是否充满论证而大陆哲学缺乏论证？或者可以在分析哲学和大陆哲学中找到不同类型的论证吗？本文介绍了对从 JSTOR 数据库 (n = 53,260) 中挖掘的大量哲学文本进行实证研究的结果，该数据库旨在按类型查找论证模式。总体而言，结果表明分析和大陆哲学期刊文章中提出的论点类型之间没有显着差异。因此，调查结果