David Godden Old Dominion University
Contact

Affiliations
  • Faculty, Old Dominion University
  • PhD, McMaster University, 2004.

Areas of specialization

Areas of interest

blank
About me
David Godden (Ph.D. McMaster University, 2004) is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Old Dominion University, with research interests in epistemology, the theory of rationality, reasoning and argument, the theory of evidence, logic (formal and informal), the history and philosophy of logic, and the history of modern and analytic philosophy.
My works
39 items found.
Sort by:
  1. David Godden (forthcoming). On the Priority of Agent-Based Argumentative Norms. Topoi:1-13.
    This paper argues against the priority of pure, virtue-based accounts of argumentative norms [VA]. Such accounts are agent-based and committed to the priority thesis: good arguments and arguing well are explained in terms of some prior notion of the virtuous arguer arguing virtuously. Two problems with the priority thesis are identified. First, the definitional problem: virtuous arguers arguing virtuously are neither sufficient nor necessary for good arguments. Second, the priority problem: the goodness of arguments is not explained virtuistically. Instead, being (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David Godden (2015). Argumentation, Rationality, and Psychology of Reasoning. Informal Logic 35 (2):135-166.
    This paper explicates an account of argumentative rationality by articulating the common, basic idea of its nature, and then identifying a collection of assumptions inherent in it. Argumentative rationality is then contrasted with dual-process theories of reasoning and rationality prevalent in the psychology of reasoning. It is argued that argumentative rationality properly corresponds only with system-2 reasoning in dual-process theories. This result challenges the prescriptive force of argumentative norms derives if they derive at all from their descriptive accuracy of our (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David Godden (2015). Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary. Argumentation 29 (2):235-238.
    This brief editorial considers a special issue of Argumentation edited by Jens Kjeldsen on visual, multimodal argumentation. It provides a commentary on important advances on interpretative problems such as the propositionality of argument, the reducibility of images to words, whether argument products are primarily cognitive artifacts, and the nature of a modality of argument. Concerning the project of argument appraisal, it considers whether visual arguments call for a revision of our normative, evaluative apparatus.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David Godden & Frank Zenker (2015). Denying Antecedents and Affirming Consequents: The State of the Art. Informal Logic 35 (1):88-134.
    Recent work on conditional reasoning argues that denying the antecedent [DA] and affirming the consequent [AC] are defeasible but cogent patterns of argument, either because they are effective, rational, albeit heuristic applications of Bayesian probability, or because they are licensed by the principle of total evidence. Against this, we show that on any prevailing interpretation of indicative conditionals the premises of DA and AC arguments do not license their conclusions without additional assumptions. The cogency of DA and AC inferences rather (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Godden (2014). Modeling Corroborative Evidence: Inference to the Best Explanation as Counter–Rebuttal. Argumentation 28 (2):187-220.
    Corroborative evidence has a dual function in argument. Primarily, it functions to provide direct evidence supporting the main conclusion. But it also has a secondary, bolstering function which increases the probative value of some other piece of evidence in the argument. This paper argues that the bolstering effect of corroborative evidence is legitimate, and can be explained as counter–rebuttal achieved through inference to the best explanation. A model (argument diagram) of corroborative evidence, representing its structure and operation as a schematic (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David Godden (2014). Mill's System of Logic. In W. J. Mander (ed.), Oxford handbook of British philosophy in the nineteenth century. Oxford University Press 44-70.
    This chapter situates Mill’s System of Logic (1843/1872) in the context of some of the meta-logical themes and disputes characteristic of the 19th century as well as Mill’s empiricism. Particularly, by placing the Logic in relation to Whately’s (1827) Elements of Logic and Mill’s response to the “great paradox” of the informativeness of syllogistic reasoning, the chapter explores the development of Mill’s views on the foundation, function, and the relation between ratiocination and induction. It provides a survey of the Mill-Whewell (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David Godden (2014). Teaching Rational Entitlement and Responsibility: A Socratic Exercise. Informal Logic 34 (1):124-151.
    The paper reports on a Socratic exercise that introduces participants to the norm of rational entitlement, as distinct from political entitlement, and the attendant norm of rational responsibility. The exercise demonstrates that, because participants are not willing to exchange their own opinion at random for another differing opinion to which the owner is, by the participants’ own admission, entitled, they treat their entitlement to their own opinion differently, giving it a special status. This gives rise to rational obligations such as (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Godden (2012). Rethinking the Debriefing Paradigm: The Rationality of Belief Perseverance. Logos and Episteme 3:51-74.
    By examining particular cases of belief perseverance following the undermining of their original evidentiary grounds, this paper considers two theories of rational belief revision: foundation and coherence. Gilbert Harman has argued for coherence over foundationalism on the grounds that the foundations theory absurdly deems most of our beliefs to be not rationally held. A consequence of the unacceptability of foundationalism is that belief perseverance is rational. This paper defends the intuitive judgement that belief perseverance is irrational by offering a competing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.) (2011). Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David Godden (2010). Corroborative Evidence. In Chris Reed & Christopher W. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications 201-212.
    Corroborative evidence can have a dual function in argument whereby not only does it have a primary function of providing direct evidence supporting the main conclusion, but it also has a secondary, bolstering function which increases the probative value of some other piece of evidence in the argument. It has been argued (Redmayne, 2000) that this double function gives rise to the fallacy of double counting whereby the probative weight of evidence is overvalued by counting it twice. Walton has proposed (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. David Godden (2010). The Importance of Belief in Argumentation: Belief, Commitment and the Effective Resolution of a Difference of Opinion. Synthese 172 (3):397 - 414.
    This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. David Godden & William H. Brenner (2010). Wittgenstein and the Logic of Deep Disagreement. Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 2:41-80.
    In “The logic of deep disagreements” (Informal Logic, 1985), Robert Fogelin claimed that there is a kind of disagreement – deep disagreement – which is, by its very nature, impervious to rational resolution. He further claimed that these two views are attributable to Wittgenstein. Following an exposition and discussion of that claim, we review and draw some lessons from existing responses in the literature to Fogelin’s claims. In the final two sections (6 and 7) we explore the role reason can, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David Godden & Nicholas Griffin (2009). Psychologism and the Development of Russell's Account of Propositions. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (2):171-186.
    This article examines the development of Russell's treatment of propositions, in relation to the topic of psychologism. In the first section, we outline the concept of psychologism, and show how it can arise in relation to theories of the nature of propositions. Following this, we note the anti-psychologistic elements of Russell's thought dating back to his idealist roots. From there, we sketch the development of Russell's theory of the proposition through a number of its key transitions. We show that Russell, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David Godden (2008). On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (2):pp. 101-129.
    Typically, common knowledge is taken as grounds for the acceptability of a claim, while appeals to popularity are seen as fallacious attempts to support a claim. This paper poses the question of whether there is any categorical difference between appeals to common knowledge and appeals to popular opinion as argumentative moves. In answering this question, I argue that appeals to common knowledge do not, on their own, provide adequate grounds for a claim’s acceptability.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2008). Defeasibility in Judicial Opinion: Logical or Procedural? Informal Logic 28 (1):6-19.
    While defeasibility in legal reasoning has been the subject of recent scholarship, it has yet to be studied in the context of judicial opinion. Yet, being subject to appeal, judicial decisions can default for a variety of reasons. Prakken (2001) argued that the defeasibility affecting reasoning involved in adversarial legal argumentation is best analysed as procedural rather than logical. In this paper we argue that the defeasibility of ratio decendi is similarly best explained and modeled in a procedural and dialectical (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. David Godden (2006). Departmental Boundaries Within the Corporate Body of Theory: Quine on the Holistic Foundations of Logic. Dialogue 45 (3):505-528.
    This article argues that Quine’s holistic and naturalized semantics provides an inadequate account of the foundations of logical expressions and misrepresents the internal structure of theories. By considering a Quinean model of theoretical revision, I identify the status and foundation holism provides to the propositions of logic. I contend that a central tenet of Quinean holism-the Revisability Doctrine-cannot be held consistently, and that the inconsistencies surrounding it mark a series of pervasive errors within naturalized holism. In response, I propose that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. David Godden (2006). The Impact of Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence. In F. H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. L. Erlbaum Associates 287-299.
    In this chapter, we explore the development and importance of the connection between argumentation and artificial intelligence. Specifically, we show that the influence of argumentation on AI has occurred within a framework that is consistent with the basic approach of Pragma-Dialectics. While the pragma-dialectical approach is typically conceived of as applying primarily to argumentation occurring between human agents, we show that the basic features of this approach can consistently be applied in a virtual context, whereby the goal-directed activities of, and (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Douglas Walton & David Godden (2006). Alternatives to Suspicion and Trust as Conditions for Challenge in Argumentative Dialogues. In P. Riley (ed.), Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation. National Communication Association 438-444.
    A problem for dialogue models of argumentation is to specify a set of conditions under which an opponent’s claims, offered in support of a standpoint under dispute, ought to be challenged. This project is related to the issue of providing a set of acceptability conditions for claims made in a dialogue. In this paper, we consider the conditions of suspicion and trust articulated by Jacobs (Alta, 2003), arguing that neither are acceptable as general conditions for challenge. We propose a third (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. David Godden (2005). Psychologism in the Logic of John Stuart Mill: Mill on the Subject Matter and Foundations of Ratiocinative Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (2):115-143.
    This paper considers the question of whether Mill's account of the nature and justificatory foundations of deductive logic is psychologistic. Logical psychologism asserts the dependency of logic on psychology. Frequently, this dependency arises as a result of a metaphysical thesis asserting the psychological nature of the subject matter of logic. A study of Mill's System of Logic and his Examination reveals that Mill held an equivocal view of the subject matter of logic, sometimes treating it as a set of psychological (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. David Godden (2005). Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy: A Reply to Groarke's Defense of Reconstructive Deductivism. Argumentation and Advocacy: Journal of the American Forensic Association 41:168-183.
    Deductivism has been variously presented as an evaluative thesis and as an interpretive one. I argue that deductivism fails as a universal evaluative thesis, and as such that its value as an interpretive thesis must be supported on other grounds. As a reconstructive strategy, deductivism is justified only on the grounds that an arguer is, or ought to be, aiming at the deductive standard of evidence. As such, the reconstruction of an argument as deductive must be supported by contextual and (...)
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. David Godden (2005). Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach Reviewed By. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 25 (1):72-75.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Douglas Walton & David Godden (2005). Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
    In this paper we show how dialogue-based theories of argumentation can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution. Specifically we consider the role of persuasion in online dispute resolution by showing how persuasion dialogues can be functionally embedded in negotiation dialogues, and how negotiation dialogues can shift to persuasion dialogues. We conclude with some remarks on how persuasion dialogues might be modelled is such a way as to allow them to be implemented in a mechanical or computerized (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2004). Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model. Informal Logic 24 (3):219-243.
    The standard account of denying the antecedent (DA) is that it is a deductively invalid form of argument, and that, in a conditional argument, to argue from the falsity of the antecedent to the falsity of the consequent is always fallacious. In this paper, we argue that DA is not always a fallacious argumentative strategy. Instead, there is a legitimate usage of DA according to which it is a defeasible argument against the acceptability of a claim. The dialectical effect of (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. David Godden (2003). Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation. Argumentation 17 (2):219-243.
    The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. David Godden (2000). Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument Reviewed By. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 20 (5):384-386.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. David M. Godden, Commentary On: Chris Campolo's "Argumentative Virtues and Deep Disagreement.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. David M. Godden, On the Norms of Visual Argument.
    While pictures can persuade, can they do so rationally – by offering reasons? Existing debate has focused on whether images are – or can be – arguments. Yet, from a normative perspective, a more pressing question concerns how the persuasive operation of images ought to be evaluated. By analyzing the concept of argument as necessarily involving reasons the paper argues that the possibility of visual arguments requires no revision to our existing normative theories of argument.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Maurice Finocchiaro & David M. Godden, Deep Disagreements: A Meta-Argumentation Approach.
    This paper examines the views of Fogelin, Woods, Johnstone, etc., concerning deep disa-greements, force-five standoffs, philosophical controversies, etc. My approach is to reconstruct their views and critiques of them as meta-arguments, and to elaborate the meta-argumentative aspects of radical disa-greements. It turns out that deep disagreements are resolvable to a greater degree than usually thought, but only by using special principles and practices, such as meta-argumentation, ad hominem argumentation , Ramsey’s principle, etc.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. David Godden & Harvey Siegel, Presumptions in Argument: Epistemic Versus Social Approaches.
    This paper responds to Kauffeld’s 2009 OSSA paper, considering the adequacy of his “commitment-based” approach to “ordinary presumptive practices” to sup-ply an account of presumption fit for general application in normative theories of argument. The central issue here is whether socially-grounded presumptions are defeasible in the right sorts of ways so as to pro-duce “truth-tropic” presumptive inferences.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. David M. Godden, Commentary on Aberdein.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. David M. Godden, The Epistemic Utility of Toulmin’s Argument Fields.
    Toulmin’s DWC model recognizes a plurality of argument cultures through the thesis of field dependency: that the normative features of arguments vary from one field to the next. Yet, little consensus exists concerning the nature and foundations of argument fields. This paper explores the question of whether Toulminian fields have any useful role to play in the epistemic evaluation of arguments.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. David M. Godden, Commentary on Krabbe.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Douglas Walton & David M. Godden, The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.
    The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. David M. Godden, Reconstruction and Representation: Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. David M. Godden, On the Relation of Argumentation and Inference.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. David Godden, Commentary on Plug.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Is this list right?