Online research in philosophy

• home page

• Postdoc, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
• PhD, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 2008.

• Philosophy of Language
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic

• Philosophy of Language
• Epistemology
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic

Fabrizio Macagno currently holds a Post Doctoral position at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal, where he teaches PhD. Seminars and conducts research in the field of argumentation and communication. He is doing research in the field of Argumentation and Philosophy of Language in cooperation with the Unversity of Windsor, Ontario, and the University of Dundee, Scotland. Fabrizio Macagno graduated with a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan in 2008. His dissertation, supervised by Prof. Eddo Rigotti, advanced a new approach to definition, in which the ancient Aristotelian approach to semantics is applied to argumentation theory. His background is in Philology and Linguistics, and during his Master Degree he further specialized in Logic and Argumentation, a groundbreaking field of research aimed at merging the logical, linguistic and communication studies in a unitary approach to human reasoning and textual interpretation. Such field, largely developed in North America, is substantially attracting the interest of the scientific community all over the world for its application to the fields of education, politics, law and artificial intelligence. Fabrizio Macagno has been working on argumentation theory since 2004, when he taught classes on Informal Logic at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada). He then worked on a research project on computing in argumentation at the University of Dundee, Scotland, under the supervision of Professor Chris Reed. In 2005 he came back to Italy and began a PhD on the problem of definition in argumentation. In 2006 he taught and worked as a research assistant at the University of Winnipeg. He authored or co-authored several papers on definition, argumentation schemes, interpretation and analogy that were published in international peer-reviewed journals. In 2008 he defended his PhD dissertation, The Argumentative Uses of Definition, in which he proposed an original approach to semantic analysis and textual interpretation. Such work has been disseminated through the publication of several articles and papers presented at international conferences. The same year he concluded a parallel four-year research project on argument schemes in collaboration with professors Douglas Walton and Chris Reed. The results of such investigation were published in a book Argumentation Schemes, published by Cambridge University Press. Since then he has applied his research to the field of law, and inquired into the patterns and strategies of reasoning used in legal debates and decision-making. Such work has been disseminated by the publication of papers in national and international journals.

17 items found. Sort by: publication yearfirst authorviewingsaddition date Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno, Argumentative Reasoning Patterns. Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument)Workshop, ECAI (European Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Rivadel Garda, Italy, August 28 - September 1, Trento, Italy, University of Trento, 2006, 48-51. No categories   My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno (forthcoming). Strategies of Character Attack. Argumentation:1-33. Why are personal attacks so powerful? In political debates, speeches, discussions and campaigns, negative character judgments, aggressive charges and charged epithets are used for different purposes. They can block the dialogue, trigger value judgments and influence decisions; they can force the interlocutor to withdraw a viewpoint or undermine his arguments. Personal attacks are not only multifaceted dialogical moves, but also complex argumentative strategies. They can be considered as premises for further arguments based on signs, generalizations or consequences. They involve tactics (...) for arousing emotions such as fear, hate or contempt, or for ridiculing the interlocutor. The twofold level of investigation presented in this paper is aimed at distinguishing the different roles that ad hominem have in a dialogue and bringing to light their hidden dimensions. The reasoning structure of each type of attack will be distinguished from the tactics used to increase its effectiveness and conceal its weaknesses. (shrink) No categories Direct download (4 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou (forthcoming). What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education. Argumentation:1-19. The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...) reasoning and retrieving the background beliefs that are the basis of their arguments. On this perspective, the process of premise reconstruction is followed by a heuristic reasoning process aimed at discovering the students’ previous intuitions that can explain the premises and concepts that are left unexpressed in their arguments. The theoretical insights advanced in this paper are illustrated through selected examples taken from activities concerning predictive claims on scientific issues. (shrink) Philosophy of Learning in Philosophy of Social Science Philosophy of Teaching in Philosophy of Social Science Direct download (5 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno (2012). Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions. Argumentation 26 (2):233-265. This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, (...) we need to depend on an abductive process of interpretation. (shrink) Implicature in Philosophy of Language Direct download (4 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno (2012). Reconstructing and Assessing the Conditions of Meaningfulness. An Argumentative Approach to Presupposition. In H. Ribeiro (ed.), Inside Arguments: Logic and the Study of Argumentation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Presupposition has been described in the literature as closely related to the listener’s knowledge and the speaker’s beliefs regarding the other’s mind. However, how is it possible to know or believe our interlocutor’s knowledge? The purpose of this paper is to find an answer to this question by showing the relationship between reasoning, presumption and language. Presupposition is analyzed as twofold reasoning process: on the one hand, the speaker by presupposing a proposition presumes that his interlocutor knows it; on the (...) other hand, the listener reconstructs the propositions taken for granted and assesses them against the shared presumptions. The possibility of reconstructing a presupposition is distinguished from its assessment, where the consistency of the presupposition with the shared or common ground is evaluated, and its reasonableness established. The analysis of presuppositions from an argumentative perspective provides an instrument for evaluating the reasonableness of a presupposition and understanding its dialogical effect. On this view, the dialogical force of a presupposition lies in its presumptive nature, which sets and shifts the burden of proving its unacceptability or unreasonableness. (shrink) Linguistics in Cognitive Sciences Other Academic Areas, Misc $74.99 new   $136.27 used   (collection)   Amazon page   My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2012). Presumptions in Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300. In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices that may (...) be useful in cases in which there is insufficient evidence to prove the claim to an appropriate standard of proof. (shrink) Formalism about Legal Reasoning in Philosophy of Law Legal Reasoning and Adjudication, Misc in Philosophy of Law Direct download (4 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno (2011). The Presumptions of Meaning. Informal Logic 31 (4):368-394. The force and the deceptive nature of the fallacy of equivocation lies in its dialectical nature. The speaker redefines a word in order to classify a fragment of reality, while the hearer draws a conclusion based on the ordinary meaning of such a classification. This difference between the interlocutors’ meanings is grounded on a crucial epistemic gap: how is it possible to know our hearer’s mind, and his knowledge of the words we used? Building on Hamblin’s account of equivocation, the (...) speaker’s meaning and the manipulative strategies based on redefinitions can be explained as the conclusion of an implicit reasoning based on a presumption of ordinary meaning. (shrink) No categories Direct download (2 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno (2011). The Presumptions of Meaning. Hamblin and Equivocation. Informal Logic 31 (4):367-393. When we use a word, we face a crucial epistemic gap: we ground our move on the fact that our interlocutor knows the meaning of the word we used, and therefore he can interpret our dialogical intention. However, how is it possible to know the other’s mind? Hamblin explained this dialogical problem advancing the idea of dialectical meaning: on his view, the use of a word is based on a set of presumptions. Building on this approach, the use of a (...) word in a dialogue can be analyzed in terms of presumptive reasoning, while the manipulative strategies based on slanted or loaded terms or redefinitions can be conceived as forms of conflicts of presumptions. A presumptive approach to meaning can also ground different dialectical strategies to solve misunderstanding or definitional disagreements, or tactics to undermine the interlocutor’s arguments by advancing charges of equivocation. (shrink) No categories Direct download (2 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   F. Macagno (2010). Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof. In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. Argument in Epistemology Formal Models of Legal Reasoning in Philosophy of Law Direct download     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2010). Dichotomies and Oppositions in Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris 23 (2):229-257. In this paper we use a series of examples to show how oppositions and dichotomies are fundamental in legal argumentation, and vitally important to be aware of, because of their twofold nature. On the one hand, they are argument structures underlying various kinds of rational argumentation commonly used in law as a means of getting to the truth in a conflict of opinion under critical discussion by two opposing sides before a tryer of fact. On the other hand, they are (...) argument structures underling moves made in strategic advocacy by both sides that function as platforms for different kinds of questionable argumentation tactics and moves that are in some instances tricky and deceptive. (shrink) Philosophy of Law Direct download (3 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2010). Defeasible Classifications and Inferences From Definitions. Informal Logic 30:34-61. Epistemology Logical Consequence and Entailment in Logic and Philosophy of Logic Direct download     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2010). The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language . Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1:1-37. Contextualist Replies to Skepticism in Epistemology Logical Consequence and Entailment in Logic and Philosophy of Logic Value Theory Direct download (2 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2009). Argument From Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182. No categories Direct download (3 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2008). The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):525 - 549. In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our (...) theory is different from Stevenson’s, a positivistic view that sees emotive meaning as subjective, and defines it as a behavioral effect. Our proposal is to treat the persuasiveness produced by the use of emotive words and persuasive definitions as due to implicit arguments that an interlocutor may not be aware of. We use congruence theory to provide the linguistic framework for connecting a term with the function it is supposed to play in a text. Our account allows us to distinguish between conflicts of values and conflicts of classifications. (shrink) Value Theory Direct download (2 more)     My bibliography     Export citation   F. Macagno & D. Walton (2007). The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum . Argumentation 28 (3):203-228. Argument in Epistemology Fallacies in Epistemology Direct download     My bibliography     Export citation   F. Macagno, D. Walton, G. Rowe & C. Reed (2006). Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy . Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):111-124,. Argument in Epistemology Philosophy of Teaching, Misc in Philosophy of Social Science Direct download     My bibliography     Export citation   F. Macagno & D. Walton (2005). Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes . Studies in Communication Sciences 5 (2):1-22. Argument in Epistemology Critical Reasoning in Epistemology Fallacies in Epistemology Inference in Epistemology Principles of Knowledge, Misc in Epistemology Direct download     My bibliography     Export citation

Is this list right? BibTeX / EndNote / RIS / etc Export this page: Choose a format.. Formatted textPlain textBibTeXZoteroEndNoteReference Manager Limit to items. Viewing options show categories categorization shortcuts hide abstracts open articles in new windows Open Category Editor Off-campus access Using PhilPapers from home? Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access. Monitor this page Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it: Email   RSS feed About PhilPapers Institute of Philosophy School of Advanced Study University of London Centre for Consciousness Australian National University General Editors: David Bourget (London) David Chalmers (ANU, NYU) Area Editors: Anthony Beavers David Bourget Berit Brogaard Margaret Cameron David Chalmers Gabriele Contessa Rafael De Clercq Catarina Dutilh Novaes Pablo Gilabert Hans Halvorson Jonathan Ichikawa Jonathan Kvanvig Øystein Linnebo JeeLoo Liu Paul Livingston Brandon Look Michiru Nagatsu Susana Nuccetelli Gualtiero Piccinini Darrell Rowbottom Constantine Sandis Jonathan Schaffer Thomas Senor Robin Smith Robert Sparrow Daniel Star Jussi Suikkanen Lynne Tirrell John Simpson Wilkins Other editors Contact us Learn more about PhilPapers