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:
789 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 789
  1. Andrew Aberdein (2014). In Defence of Virtue: The Legitimacy of Agent-Based Argument Appraisal. Informal Logic 34 (1):77-93.
    Several authors have recently begun to apply virtue theory to argumentation. Critics of this programme have suggested that no such theory can avoid committing an ad hominem fallacy. This criticism is shown to trade unsuccessfully on an ambiguity in the definition of ad hominem. The ambiguity is resolved and a virtue-theoretic account of ad hominem reasoning is defended.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Andrew Aberdein (2011). The Dialectical Tier of Mathematical Proof. In Frank Zenker (ed.), Argumentation: Cognition & Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18--21, 2011. OSSA.
    Ralph Johnson argues that mathematical proofs lack a dialectical tier, and thereby do not qualify as arguments. This paper argues that, despite this disavowal, Johnson’s account provides a compelling model of mathematical proof. The illative core of mathematical arguments is held to strict standards of rigour. However, compliance with these standards is itself a matter of argument, and susceptible to challenge. Hence much actual mathematical practice takes place in the dialectical tier.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Andrew Aberdein (2010). Argumentation Schemes and Communities of Argumentational Practice. In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. OSSA.
    Is it possible to distinguish communities of arguers by tracking the argumentation schemes they employ? There are many ways of relating schemes to communities, but not all are productive. Attention must be paid not only to the admissibility of schemes within a community of argumentational practice, but also to their comparative frequency. Two examples are discussed: informal mathematics, a convenient source of well-documented argumentational practice, and anthropological evidence of nonstandard reasoning.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Andrew Aberdein (2010). Rationale of the Mathematical Joke. In Alison Pease, Markus Guhe & Alan Smaill (eds.), Proceedings of AISB 2010 Symposium on Mathematical Practice and Cognition. AISB. 1-6.
    A widely circulated list of spurious proof types may help to clarify our understanding of informal mathematical reasoning. An account in terms of argumentation schemes is proposed.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Andrew Aberdein (2010). Virtue in Argument. Argumentation 24 (2):165-179.
    Virtue theories have become influential in ethics and epistemology. This paper argues for a similar approach to argumentation. Several potential obstacles to virtue theories in general, and to this new application in particular, are considered and rejected. A first attempt is made at a survey of argumentational virtues, and finally it is argued that the dialectical nature of argumentation makes it particularly suited for virtue theoretic analysis.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Andrew Aberdein (2010). Observations on Sick Mathematics. In Bart van Kerkhove, Jean Paul van Bendegem & Jonas de Vuyst (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Mathematical Practice. College Publications. 269--300.
    This paper argues that new light may be shed on mathematical reasoning in its non-pathological forms by careful observation of its pathologies. The first section explores the application to mathematics of recent work on fallacy theory, specifically the concept of an ‘argumentation scheme’: a characteristic pattern under which many similar inferential steps may be subsumed. Fallacies may then be understood as argumentation schemes used inappropriately. The next section demonstrates how some specific mathematical fallacies may be characterized in terms of argumentation (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Andrew Aberdein (2009). Mathematics and Argumentation. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):1-8.
    Some authors have begun to appeal directly to studies of argumentation in their analyses of mathematical practice. These include researchers from an impressively diverse range of disciplines: not only philosophy of mathematics and argumentation theory, but also psychology, education, and computer science. This introduction provides some background to their work.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Andrew Aberdein (2007). Fallacies in Mathematics. Proceedings of the British Society for Research Into Learning Mathematics 27 (3):1-6.
    This paper considers the application to mathematical fallacies of techniques drawn from informal logic, specifically the use of ”argument schemes’. One such scheme, for Appeal to Expert Opinion, is considered in some detail.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Andrew Aberdein (2006). Raising the Tone: Definition, Bullshit, and the Definition of Bullshit. In G. Reisch & G. Hardcastle (eds.), Bullshit and Philosophy. Open Court. 151-169.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Andrew Aberdein (2006). The Informal Logic of Mathematical Proof. In Reuben Hersh (ed.), 18 Unconventional Essays About the Nature of Mathematics. Springer-Verlag. 56-70.
    Informal logic is a method of argument analysis which is complementary to that of formal logic, providing for the pragmatic treatment of features of argumentation which cannot be reduced to logical form. The central claim of this paper is that a more nuanced understanding of mathematical proof and discovery may be achieved by paying attention to the aspects of mathematical argumentation which can be captured by informal, rather than formal, logic. Two accounts of argumentation are considered: the pioneering work of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Andrew Aberdein (2006). Managing Informal Mathematical Knowledge: Techniques From Informal Logic. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4108:208--221.
    Much work in MKM depends on the application of formal logic to mathematics. However, much mathematical knowledge is informal. Luckily, formal logic only represents one tradition in logic, specifically the modeling of inference in terms of logical form. Many inferences cannot be captured in this manner. The study of such inferences is still within the domain of logic, and is sometimes called informal logic. This paper explores some of the benefits informal logic may have for the management of informal mathematical (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Andrew Aberdein (2006). Proofs and Rebuttals: Applying Stephen Toulmin's Layout of Arguments to Mathematical Proof. In Marta Bílková & Ondřej Tomala (eds.), The Logica Yearbook 2005. Filosofia. 11-23.
    This paper explores some of the benefits informal logic may have for the analysis of mathematical inference. It shows how Stephen Toulmin’s pioneering treatment of defeasible argumentation may be extended to cover the more complex structure of mathematical proof. Several common proof techniques are represented, including induction, proof by cases, and proof by contradiction. Affinities between the resulting system and Imre Lakatos’s discussion of mathematical proof are then explored.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Andrew Aberdein (2005). The Uses of Argument in Mathematics. Argumentation 19 (3):287-301.
    Stephen Toulmin once observed that ”it has never been customary for philosophers to pay much attention to the rhetoric of mathematical debate’ [Toulmin et al., 1979, An Introduction to Reasoning, Macmillan, London, p. 89]. Might the application of Toulmin’s layout of arguments to mathematics remedy this oversight? Toulmin’s critics fault the layout as requiring so much abstraction as to permit incompatible reconstructions. Mathematical proofs may indeed be represented by fundamentally distinct layouts. However, cases of genuine conflict characteristically reflect an underlying (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Andrew Aberdein (1998). Persuasive Definition. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale & A. V. Colman (eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric. Vale.
    Charles Stevenson introduced the term 'persuasive definition’ to describe a suspect form of moral argument 'which gives a new conceptual meaning to a familiar word without substantially changing its emotive meaning’. However, as Stevenson acknowledges, such a move can be employed legitimately. If persuasive definition is to be a useful notion, we shall need a criterion for identifying specifically illegitimate usage. I criticize a recent proposed criterion from Keith Burgess-Jackson and offer an alternative.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. David M. Adams (2005). Knowing When Disagreements Are Deep. Informal Logic 25 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (16 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Jonathan E. Adler (1991). Critical Thinking, A Deflated Defense: A Critical Study of John E. McPeck's Teaching Critical Thinking: Dialogue and Dialectic. Informal Logic 13 (2).
    A critical study of McPeck's recent book, in which he strengthens and develops his arguments against teaching critical thinking (CT). Accepting McPeck's basic claim that there is no unitary skill of reasoning or thinking, I argue that his strictures on CT courses or programs do not follow. I set out what I consider the proper justification that programs in CT have to meet, and argue both that McPeck demands much more than is required, and also that it is plausible that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Jonathan E. Adler (1991). Argument Evaluation Contest Results. Informal Logic 13 (3).
    In Vol. XI, No.1, this journal announced an argument analysis contest. Two eminent colleagues agreed to serve as judges-Professor Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. and Professor Michael Scriven. In short order, four entries were received and sent off to the judges, who had no knowledge of the contestants' identities, and in due course the judges' verdicts were delivered. Immediately below we have reproduced the argument which was to be analyzed, along with the rules of the contest, followed by the four entries. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Jonathan E. Adler (1987). Alternatives, Writing, and the Formulation of a Thesis. Informal Logic 9 (2).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Jonathan E. Adler (1985). Where Are the Limits to Reconstruction? Informal Logic 7 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Jonathan E. Adler (1981). Why Be Charitable? Informal Logic 4 (2).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Jonathan E. Adler & J. Anthony Blair (2000). Belief and Negation. Informal Logic 20 (3).
    This paper argues for the importance of the distinction between internal and external negation over expressions for belief. The common fallacy is to confuse statement like (1) and (2): (1) John believes that the school is not closed on Tuesday; (2) John does not believe that the school is closed on Tuesday. The fallacy has ramifications in teaching, reasoning, and argumentation. Analysis of the fallacy and suggestions for teaching are offered.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Scott F. Aikin (2012). Pregnant Premise Arguments. Informal Logic 32 (3):357-363.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Virgil C. Aldrich (1954). The Informal Logic of the Employment of Expressions. Philosophical Review 63 (3):380-400.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Derek Allen (2013). Trudy Govier and Premise Adequacy. Informal Logic 33 (2):116-142.
    My main concern in this paper is with Trudy Govier’s acceptability criterion for the adequacy of the premises of an argument considered independently of whether they are “properly connected” to the conclusion. I consider arguments she makes against the view that a good argument must have true premises, and I con-tend that a theory of argument could hold both that for an argument to be a good argument its premises must be true and that for it to be a good (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Derek Allen (1996). Attributed Favourable Relevance and Argument Evaluation. Informal Logic 18 (2).
    I criticize a case made by George Bowles for a certain theory pertaining to the evaluation of arguments on which the (degree of) attributed favourable relevance of an argument's premises to its conclusion is relevant to its evaluation, but nevertheless argue that such favourable relevance is indeed relevant to an argument's evaluation.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Derek Allen (1993). Relevance, Conduction and Canada's Rape-Shield Decision. Informal Logic 15 (2).
    I examine a Canadian Supreme Court decision concerning the constitutionality of Canada's 1982 rape-shield legislation, and suggest how material from the decision might profitably be used in an informal-logic class in connection with the topics of relevance and conductive argument. I also consider theoretical matters related to the decision: first I develop two analyses of what I call an argument from 'unchasteness' and connect them to George Bowles's theory of propositional relevance; then I present Trudy Govier with a problem in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Derek Allen (1990). Govier's Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Informal Logic 12 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Derek Allen (1988). Inferential Soundness. Informal Logic 10 (2).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Derek Allen, Maryann Ayim, Sharon Bailin, Mark Battersby, Jerome Bickenbach, Robert Binkley, Alan Brinton, Richard N. Bronaugh, Michael Burke & Lorraine Code (1991). And Typically Write Extensive Comments. In Many Cases They Also Review Revised Ver-Sions of Papers. The Authors, This Journal, and the Aca-Demic Community in General All Benefit. Informal Logic 13:3.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Ruth Amossy (2009). Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments. Informal Logic 29 (3):252-267.
    Rather than the art of putting forward logically valid arguments leading to Truth, argumentation is here viewed as the use of verbal means ensuring an agreement on what can be considered reasonable by a given group, on a more or less controversial matter. What is acceptable and plausible is always coconstructed by subjects engaging in verbal interaction. It is the dynamism of this exchange, realized not only in natural language, but also in a specific cultural framework, that has to be (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Richard B. Angell (2001). The 'Most Important and Fundamental' Distinction in Logic. Informal Logic 21 (1).
    Personal reflections on the philosophical career of Henry Johnstone, B.S. Haverford College, 1942, and Ph.D. Harvard, 1950, professor at Williams College 1948-1952 and Pennsylvania State University, 1952 - 2000. Founder and editor of Philosophy and Rhetoric, Johnstone wrote eight books, including two logic texts, three monographs, and over 150 articles or reviews. The focus is on his efforts to resolve problems stemming from the conflict between the logical empiricism Johnstone embraced in his dissertation, and the arguments of his absolute idealist (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Robert Asen (2005). Pluralism, Disagreement, and the Status of Argument in the Public Sphere. Informal Logic 25 (2).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Peter D. Asquith (2001). Wright's Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Analytical Reading and Reasoning. Informal Logic 22 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Maryann Ayim (1991). Dominance and Affiliation: Paradigms in Conflict. Informal Logic 13 (2).
    Gender patterns in speech styles provide us with models of both the dominant confrontational style (male) and the affiliative nurturant style (female). In this paper, I argue that dominant confrontational styles are seriously problematic, in speech as well as in behaviour generally, whereas affiliative nurturant styles offer us a model which can be generalized without contradiction. I distinguish confrontation from competition and address briefly how our classrooms might be used to teach affiliative nurturant styles of talking and living.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Sharon Bailin (2004). Is Argument for Conservatives? Or Where Do Sparkling New Ideas Come From? Informal Logic 23 (1).
    Rorty claims argument is inherently conservative and philosophical progress comes from "sparkling new ideas," not argument. This assumes an untenable opposition between the generation and the evaluation of ideas, with argument relegated to evaluation. New ideas that contribute to progress arise from critical reflection on problems posed by the tradition, and constrained by the criteria governing evaluation. Thinking directed toward the criticism and evaluation of ideas or products is not algorithmic; it has a generative, creative component. An overall assessment in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Sharon Bailin (1999). The Problem With Percy: Epistemology, Understanding and Critical Thinking. Informal Logic 19 (2).
    Most current conceptions of critical thinking conceive of critical thinking in terms of abilities and dispositions. In this paper I describe a common type of problem students experience with critical thinking and argue that conceptualizations in terms of abilities and dispositions do not provide a way to understand this problem. I argue, further, that a useful way to think about the problem is in terms of epistemological understanding, and that this way of thinking about the issue can provide both pedagogical (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Sharon Bailin (1994). Critical Thinking, Rational Evaluation, and Strong Poetry: A Response to Hatcher. Informal Logic 16 (3).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Sharon Bailin (1987). Critical and Creative Thinking. Informal Logic 9 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Axel Barceló Aspeitia (2012). Words and Images in Argumentation. Argumentation 26 (3):355-368.
    Abstract In this essay, I will argue that images can play a substantial role in argumentation: exploiting information from the context, they can contribute directly and substantially to the communication of the propositions that play the roles of premises and conclusion. Furthermore, they can achieve this directly, i.e. without the need of verbalization. I will ground this claim by presenting and analyzing some arguments where images are essential to the argumentation process. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-14 DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9259-y Authors (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Petra Barchfeld & Beate Sodian (2009). Differentiating Theories From Evidence: The Development of Argument Evaluation Abilities in Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Informal Logic 29 (4):396-416.
    An argument evaluation inventory distinguishing between different levels of theory-evidence differentiation was designed corresponding to the levels of argument observed in argument generation tasks. Five scenarios containing everyday theories about a social problem, and arguments to support those theories were presented to 170 participants from two age groups (15 and 22 years) and different educational tracks. Participants had to rate the validity of arguments proposed by a story figure, to support the theory, to choose the best argument, and to justify (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Evelyn M. Barker (1989). Beardsley's Theory of Analogy. Informal Logic 11 (3).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. S. Barker (1989). Reasoning by Analogy in Hume’s Dialogues. Informal Logic 11 (3).
  43. Jonathan Baron (2009). Belief-Overkill in Political Judgments. Informal Logic 29 (4):368-378.
    When people tend toward a political decision, such as voting for the Republican Party, they are often attracted to this decision by one issue, such as the party’s stance on abortion, but then they come to see other issues, such as the party’s stand on taxes, as supporting their decision, even if they would not have thought so in the absence of the decision. I demonstrate this phenomenon with opinion poll data and with an experiment done on the World Wide (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Jonathan Baron (1992). Kuhn`s The Skills of Argument. Informal Logic 14 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. E. M. Barth (2005). Missimer's Good Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Informal Logic 25 (3).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. E. M. Barth (2005). Missimer's Good Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, 4th Edition. Informal Logic 25 (3).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. E. M. Barth (1990). In the Service of Human Society: Formal, Informal or Anti-Logical? The Philosophy of the Logician Evert Willem Beth (1908-1964). [REVIEW] Informal Logic 12 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Dilip K. Basu (1986). A Question of Begging. Informal Logic 8 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Heather Battaly (2010). Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology. Informal Logic 30 (4).
    The recent literature on ad hominem argument contends that the speaker’s character is sometimes relevant to evaluating what she says. This effort to redeem ad hominems requires an analysis of character that explains why and how character is relevant. I argue that virtue epistemology supplies this analysis. Three sorts of ad hominems that attack the speaker’s intellectual character are legitimate. They attack a speaker’s: (1) possession of reliabilist vices; or (2) possession of responsibilist vices; or (3) failure to perform intellectually (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Mark Battersby (2008). Applied Epistemology and Argumentation in Epidemiology. Informal Logic 26 (1):41-62.
    The general goal is to encourage informal logicians and those interested in applied epistemology to look at epidemiology as a paradigmatic science crucially dependant on argumentation to justify its claims. Three specific goals are: 1. exemplify applied epistemology by looking critically at causal argumentation in epidemiology, 2. show that justification of causal claims in epidemiology is a form of “argument to the best explanation,” 3. show that there could be a symbiotic relationship between epidemiology and work in various applied reasoning (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 789