This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
322 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 322
  1. Andrew Aberdein (forthcoming). Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. Argumentation:1-7.
  2. Cassian Agera (1989). Cut the Syllogism to its Size! Some Reflections on Indian Syllogism. Indian Philosophical Quarterly 16 (4):465.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. A. Amiri (unknown). The Role of Middle Term in Conjunctive Syllogism. Kheradnameh Sadra Quarterly 24.
    In the present article, the author deals with the role of the middle term in the four figures of conjunctive syllogism. In this regard, he refers to the views of logicians such as Ibn Sina, Fakhr al-Din Razi, Muhaqqiq Tusi, Urmawi, Athir al-Din Abhari as well as Mulla Sadra. The author is of the view that many difficulties in syllogisms arise out of linguistic deficiencies.By resorting to Mulla Sadra's view, the author concludes that we are not compelled to divide the (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Bilal Amjarso, Persuasiveness From a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.
    Persuasiveness is generally equated with the speaker’s ability to change the recipient’s attitude. In this paper, I want to show that by using van Eemeren and Houtlosser’s theory of strategic manoeuvring a view of persuasiveness can be found that complements the above conception. Starting from the pragma-dialectical definition of conclusiveness, I argue that persuasiveness depends on the ability of the arguer to confer on his argumentation the appearance of conclusiveness.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. R. P. Anschutz (1942). Aristotle and Syllogism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 20 (3):228 – 231.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Maroun Aouad & Gregor Schoeler (2002). The Poetic Syllogism According to Al-Farabi: An Incorrect Syllogism of the Second Figure. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 12 (2):185-196.
    It is well-known that the Arab philosophers of the Aristotelian tradition, like some of their Alexandrian predecessors, attached rhetoric and poetics to logic, and supported this inclusion by the idea that the principal poetic procedure - that is, essentially, metaphor - is a kind of syllogism: the poetic syllogism. However, until now, no texts prior to those of Avicenna had been identified which render the structure of this syllogism explicit. In the present contribution, we present and translate a passage from (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Adam Auch, Virtuous Argumentation and the Challenges of Hype. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation 10: Virtues of Argumentation.
    In this paper, I consider the virtue of proportionality in relation to reasoning in what I call ‘hype contexts’ . I conclude that a virtuous arguer is one that neither accepts nor rejects a claim based on its ubiquity alone, but who evaluates its importance with reference to the social context in which it is made.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. A. Bain (1878). Mill's Theory of the Syllogism. Mind 3 (9):137-141.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. V. Balowitz (1980). The Rules of the Syllogism Without Distribution. International Logic Review 22:99.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Steven James Bartlett (1971). A Relativistic Theory of Phenomenological Constitution: A Self-Referential, Transcendental Approach to Conceptual Pathology. Dissertation, Universite de Paris X (Paris-Nanterre) (France)
    A RELATIVISTIC THEORY OF PHENOMENOLOCICAL CONSTITUTION: A SELF-REFERENTIAL, TRANSCENDENTAL APPROACH TO CONCEPTUAL PATHOLOGY. (Vol. I: French; Vol. II: English) -/- Steven James Bartlett -/- Doctoral dissertation director: Paul Ricoeur, Université de Paris Other doctoral committee members: Jean Ladrière and Alphonse de Waehlens, Université Catholique de Louvain Defended publically at the Université Catholique de Louvain, January, 1971. -/- Universite de Paris X (France), 1971. 797pp. -/- The principal objective of the work is to construct an analytically precise methodology which can serve (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. Gregor Betz (forthcoming). Truth in Evidence and Truth in Arguments Without Logical Omniscience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv015.
    Science advances by means of argument and debate. Based on a formal model of complex argumentation, this article assesses the interplay between evidential and inferential drivers in scientific controversy, and explains, in particular, why both evidence accumulation and argumentation are veritistically valuable. By improving the conditions for applying veritistic indicators , novel evidence and arguments allow us to distinguish true from false hypotheses more reliably. Because such veritistic indicators also underpin inductive reasoning, evidence accumulation and argumentation enhance the reliability of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Gregor Betz (2013). Justifying Inference to the Best Explanation as a Practical Meta-Syllogism on Dialectical Structures. Synthese 190 (16):3553-3578.
    This article discusses how inference to the best explanation can be justified as a practical meta - argument. It is, firstly, justified as a practical argument insofar as accepting the best explanation as true can be shown to further a specific aim. And because this aim is a discursive one which proponents can rationally pursue in — and relative to — a complex controversy, namely maximising the robustness of one’s position, IBE can be conceived, secondly, as a meta - argument. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13. Gregor Betz (2012). On Degrees of Justification. Erkenntnis 77 (2):237-272.
    This paper gives an explication of our intuitive notion of strength of justification in a controversial debate. It defines a thesis' degree of justification within the bipolar argumentation framework of the theory of dialectical structures as the ratio of coherently adoptable positions according to which that thesis is true over all coherently adoptable positions. Broadening this definition, the notion of conditional degree of justification, i.e.\ degree of partial entailment, is introduced. Thus defined degrees of justification correspond to our pre-theoretic intuitions (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14. Gregor Betz (2010). Petitio Principii and Circular Argumentation as Seen From a Theory of Dialectical Structures. Synthese 175 (3):327-349.
    This paper investigates in how far a theory of dialectical structures sheds new light on the old problem of giving a satisfying account of the fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question. It defends that (i) circular argumentation on the one hand and petitio principii on the other hand are two distinct features of complex argumentation, and that (ii) it is impossible to make general statements about the defectiveness of an argumentation that exhibits these features. Such an argumentation, in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15. Gregor Betz (2009). Evaluating Dialectical Structures. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (3):283 - 312.
    This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework represents an (argument-based) approach to non-monotonic, or defeasible reasoning. Debates are analysed as dialectical structures, i.e. argumentation systems with an attack- as well as a support-relationship. The recursive status assignment over the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  16. Gregor Betz (2008). Evaluating Dialectical Structures with Bayesian Methods. Synthese 163 (1):25-44.
    This paper shows how complex argumentation, analyzed as dialectical structures, can be evaluated within a Bayesian framework by interpreting them as coherence constraints on subjective degrees of belief. A dialectical structure is a set of arguments (premiss-conclusion structure) among which support- and attack-relations hold. This approach addresses the observation that some theses in a debate can be better justified than others and thus fixes a shortcoming of a theory of defeasible reasoning which applies the bivalence principle to argument evaluations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. John Biro & Harvey Siegel (2008). In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation. Informal Logic 26 (1):91-101.
    In this paper we defend a particular version of the epistemic approach to argumentation. We advance some general considerations in favor of the approach and then examine the ways in which different versions of it play out with respect to the theory of fallacies, which we see as central to an understanding of argumentation. Epistemic theories divide into objective and subjective versions. We argue in favor of the objective version, showing that it provides a better account than its subjectivist rival (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  18. Max Black (1945). A New Method of Presentation of the Theory of the Syllogism. Journal of Philosophy 42 (17):449-455.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Brand Blanshard (1954/1999). On Philosophical Style. St. Augustine's Press.
  20. Charles V. Blatz, Culture, Judgment, Integration of Attention and Argumentation.
    Some exchanges of reasons are agonistic. Others work mutually, as in planning and adjusting divergent understanding. Mutual argumentation subconsciously yields judgment that integrates and clarifies a common vision coordinating interrelated lives. It harmonizes agents sharing a space of action and understanding. Pierre Bourdieu held that such thought generates and expresses culture, patterning a logic that reflexively constrains itself. This discussion examines Bourdieu’s views as an analysis of mutual argumentation.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. V. A. Bocharov (1986). Boolean Algebra and Syllogism. Synthese 66 (1):35 - 54.
    This article contains the proof of equivalence boolean algebra and syllogistics arc2. The system arc2 is obtained as a superstructure above the propositional calculus. Subjects and predicates of syllogistic functors a, E, J, O may be complex terms, Which are formed using operations of intersection, Union and complement. In contrast to negative sentences the interpretation of affirmative sentences suggests non-Empty terms. To prove the corresponding theorem we demonstrate that boolean algebra is included into syllogistics arc2 and vice versa.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. R. Bodeus (1992). Des Raisons d'Être d'Une Argumentation Rhétorique Selon Aristote. Argumentation 6 (3):297-305.
    The main purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons Aristotle gives for being able to use rhetorical argumentation, which is obviously not a scientific mode of expression. This faculty which was condemned by Plato as lacking morality, is paradoxically regarded by Aristotle as necessary on moral grounds. For, according to him, it would be blameworthy to keep silent when being verbally assailed. The necessity of rhetoric is, however, more deeply founded. First, because justice has to be saved from (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Richard BodÉÜs (1987). EUGENE E. RYAN, "Aristotle's Theory of Rhetorical Argumentation". [REVIEW] Dialogue 26 (1):211.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. George Boger (2005). Mistakes in Reasoning About Argumentation. In John Woods, Kent A. Peacock & A. D. Irvine (eds.), Mistakes of Reason: Essays in Honour of John Woods. University of Toronto Press 702--742.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25. Michelle K. Bolduc & David A. Frank (2010). Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca's "On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation":On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation Commentary and Translation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4):308-315.
    "The last third of the twentieth century," Gerard Hauser writes, was marked by "a flurry of intellectual work aimed at theorizing rhetoric in new terms" (2001, 1). The year 1958 was key in this flurry, with five major works appearing on a rhetorically inflected philosophy and theory of argumentation: Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition (on the relationship between the vita contemplativa and vita activa); Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge (on the role of tacit knowledge, emotion, and commitment in science); Stephen Toulmin's (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Michelle K. Bolduc & David A. Frank (2010). Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca's "On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation": Commentary and Translation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4):308-315.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Patrick Bondy, The Epistemic Approach to Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments.
    This paper discusses virtue argumentation theory, as modeled on virtue epistemology. It argues that virtues of argumentation are interesting but parasitic on a more fundamental account of what makes arguments good. -/- *Note: this is an unpublished manuscript presented at the 2013 conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. An electronic copy is available in the Conference Archive, linked above.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28. Patrick Bondy (2015). Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments. Informal Logic 35 (4):450-466.
    Argumentation theorists are beginning to think of ad hominem arguments as generally legitimate. Virtue argumentation theorists argue that a character trait approach to argument appraisal can explain why ad hominems would are legitimate, when they are legitimate. But I argue that we do not need to appeal to virtue argumentation theory to explain the legitimacy of ad hominem arguments; a more straightforward evidentialist approach to argument appraisal is also committed to their legitimacy. I also argue that virtue argumentation theory faces (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Patrick Bondy (2010). Argumentative Injustice. Informal Logic 30 (3):263-278.
    The aim of this paper is to adapt Miranda Fricker’s concept of testimonial injustice to cases of what I call “argumentative injustice”: those cases where an arguer’s social identity brings listeners to place too much or little credibility in an argument. My recommendation is to adopt a stance of “metadistrust”—we ought to distrust our inclinations to trust or distrust members of stereotyped groups.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30. Patrick Bondy (2010). Truth and Argument Evaluation. Informal Logic 30 (2):142-158.
    The aim of this paper is to defend the claim that arguments are truth-directed, and to discuss the role that truth plays in the evaluation of arguments that are truth-directed. It concludes that the proper place of truth is in the metatheory in terms of which a theory of evaluation is to be worked out, rather than in the theory of evaluation itself as a constraint on premise adequacy.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Daniel Bonevac (2003). Pragma-Dialectics and Beyond. Argumentation 17 (4):451-459.
    Pragma-dialectics is dynamic, context-sensitive, and multi-agent; it promises theories of fallacy and argumentative structure. But pragma-dialectic theory and practice are not yet fully in harmony. Key definitions of the theory fall short of explicating the analyses that pragma-dialecticians actually do. Many discussions involve more than two participants with different and mutually incompatible standpoints. Success in such a discussion may be more than success against each opponent. Pragma-dialectics does well at analyzing arguments advanced by one party, directed at another party; it (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32. David Botting (2012). Pragma-Dialetics Epistemologized: Reply to Lumer. Informal Logic 32 (2):269-285.
    I would like to thank Christoph Lumer for his illuminating comments on my paper “The question of truth” published in this journal (Botting 2010) and would like to exercise my right of reply on a few of the issues that he raises.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33. David Botting (2010). The Question of Truth. Informal Logic 30 (4):413-434.
    The problem with the pragma-dialectical view, it has been argued, is that it takes argumentation as aiming at consensus rather than truth or justified belief. The pragma-dialecticians often imply that an argumentative process aiming at consensus in a way constrained by the “Ten Commandments” will in the long run converge on epistemically favourable standpoints. I will argue that they are right provided (i) pragma-dialectics is construed, as they say, as a theory of criticism; (ii) pragma-dialectics and the other theories of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34. Antonio Bova (2011). Implicitness Functions in Family Argumentation. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Rozenberg / Sic Sat
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35. Tracy Bowell & Justine Kingsbury (2013). Virtue and Argument: Taking Character Into Account. Informal Logic 33 (1):22-32.
    In this paper we consider the prospects for an account of good argument that takes the character of the arguer into consideration. We conclude that although there is much to be gained by identifying the virtues of the good arguer and by considering the ways in which these virtues can be developed in ourselves and in others, virtue argumentation theory does not offer a plausible alternative definition of good argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (16 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  36. Antoine Braet (1987). The Classical Doctrine of "Status" and the Rhetorical Theory of Argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 20 (2):79 - 93.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  37. Antoine C. Braet (2005). The Common Topic in Aristotle's Rhetoric: Precursor of the Argumentation Scheme. Argumentation 19 (1):65-83.
    In the present article I attribute to the common topic in the Rhetoric a two-fold suggestive function and a guarantee function. These three functions are possible because this type of topic, while often quite abstract, nevertheless contains thought-steering, substantial terms, and formulates a generally empirical or normative endoxon. Assuming that according to Aristotle an enthymeme has at least two premises, it would appear that a common topic is the abstract principle behind the often implicit major premise. This means that the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  38. Antoine C. Braet (2004). The Oldest Typology of Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation 18 (1):127-148.
    The Rhetoric to Alexander (about 340 B.C.) contains a list of proofs (pisteis) and other types of argumentation which may be seen as the oldest surviving typology of argumentation schemes (avant la lettre). In the present article this typology is derived and compared with modern proposals. The conclusion is that the oldest typology is surprisingly similar to the most recent classifications.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  39. Antoine C. Braet (1999). The Enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric: From Argumentation Theory to Logic. Informal Logic 19 (2).
    Which properties are characteristic of the enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric? There is no consensus on this point. The present discussion centres on three properties. 1. Is there always an implicit premise? (Answer: Above all, a pragmatic level and a logical level must be distinguished.) 2. Do the premises consist by definition of probabilities and signs? (Answer: No.). 3. Are all enthymemes reducible to a syllogistic form? (Answer: The literature pertaining to this question is dominated by a false dilemma: an enthymeme (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  40. David Braybrooke (2003). Toward an Alliance Between the Issue-Processing Approach and Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. Argumentation 17 (4):513-535.
    On the approach to discussions of policy choices that treats such discussions as instances of issue-processing, the joint use of the logic of questions and the logic of rules gives precise formulation to two sorts of issues. To one sort of issue belong issue-circumscribing questions; to another sort, issues-simplicter, which consist of disjunctions of policy proposals – so many proposed social rules – that are answers, in the case of each disjunction, to a given issue-circumscribing question. Work in pragma-dialectics can (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Gregory Brazeal (2011). Webs of Faith as a Source of Reasonable Disagreement. Critical Review 23 (4):421-448.
    Abstract An individual's beliefs can be seen as rationally related to one another in a kind of web. These beliefs, however, may not form a single, seamless web. There may exist smaller, largely self-contained webs with few or no rational relations to the larger web. Such ?webs of faith? make it possible for reasonable deliberators to persist in a disagreement even under ideal deliberative conditions. The possibility of reasonable disagreement challenges the assumption that rationality should lead to consensus and presents (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Manuel Bremer (2006). Maurice Finocchiaro, Arguments About Arguments: Systematic, Critical and Historical Essays in Logical Theory Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 26 (4):252-254.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Ingo Brigandt (2016). Why the Difference Between Explanation and Argument Matters to Science Education. Science and Education 25:251-275.
    Contributing to the recent debate on whether or not explanations ought to be differentiated from arguments, this article argues that the distinction matters to science education. I articulate the distinction in terms of explanations and arguments having to meet different standards of adequacy. Standards of explanatory adequacy are important because they correspond to what counts as a good explanation in a science classroom, whereas a focus on evidence-based argumentation can obscure such standards of what makes an explanation explanatory. I provide (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Manfred Kienpointner Brinton (1991). Argumentation in Germany and Austria: An Overview of the Recent Literature. Informal Logic 13 (3).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. BrentG Brossmann & DanielJ Canary (1990). An Observational Analysis of Argument Structures: The Case of Nightline. [REVIEW] Argumentation 4 (2):199-212.
    An observational analysis of selected Nightline program transcripts was undertaken to advance understanding of conversational arguments used in the service of public policy debate. Results indicate that Nightline discussions involved more compound structural variations, but fewer simple, convergent and eroded argument structures than had been found in previous research. In contrast to previous efforts, the development of prompter and delimitor argument structures was also identified. In addition, the program's moderator, Ted Koppel, used challenge structures as his primary method of proposing (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. William R. Brown (1995). The Domain Constraint on Analogy and Analogical Argument. Informal Logic 17 (1).
    Domain constraint, the requirement that analogues be selected from "the same category," inheres in the popular saying "you can't compare apples and oranges" and the textbook principle "the greater the number of shared properties, the stronger the argument from analogy." I identify roles of domains in biological, linguistic, and legal analogy, supporting the account of law with a computer word search of judicial decisions. I argue that the category treatments within these disciplines cannot be exported to general informal logic, where (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  47. Stephen H. Browne (2007). Rhetorical Criticism and the Challenges of Bilateral Argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric 40 (1):108-118.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Åsa Brumark (2008). “Eat Your Hamburger!”—“No, I Don't Want To!” Argumentation and Argumentative Development in the Context of Dinner Conversation in Twenty Swedish Families. Argumentation 22 (2):251-271.
    The aim of the present study was to analyse family dinners as context of argumentation and argumentative development by using a context-sensitive model of basic argumentative structures in every day conversations. The data consisted of 40 argumentative sequences in dinner conversations in twenty Swedish families with children aged 7 to 17 years. The families were divided in two groups depending on the children's ages (10–11 years with younger siblings and 10–12 years with older siblings). The model revealed characteristic structures of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49. G. A. Brutian & Thomas A. Wilson (1979). On Philosophical Argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 12 (2):77 - 90.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Katarzyna Budzynska (2013). Circularity in Ethotic Structures. Synthese 190 (15):3185-3207.
    The aim of this paper is to provide a model that allows the representation and analysis of circularity in ethotic structures, i.e. in communication structures related to the speaker’s character and in particular, his credibility. The paper studies three types of cycles: in self-referential sentences, embedded testimony and ethotic begging the question. It is shown that standard models allow the reconstruction of the circularities only if those circular utterances are interpreted as ethotic arguments. Their alternative, assertive interpretation requires enriching the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 322