Search results for 'Argumentation Theory' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Paula Olmos & Luis Vega (2011). The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 25 (4):415-426.score: 186.0
    In recent times, there have been different attempts to make an interesting use of the concept of script (as inherited from the fields of psychology and cognitive sciences) within argumentation theory. Although, in many cases, what we find under this label are computerized routines mainly used in e-learning collaborative proceses involving argumentation, either as an educational means or an educational goal, there are also other studies in which the concept of script plays a more theoretical role as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Mehmet Karabela (2011). The Development of Dialectic and Argumentation Theory in Post-Classical Islamic Intellectual History. Dissertation, McGill Universityscore: 180.0
    This dissertation is an analysis of the development of dialectic and argumentation theory in post-classical Islamic intellectual history. The central concerns of the thesis are; treatises on the theoretical understanding of the concept of dialectic and argumentation theory, and how, in practice, the concept of dialectic, as expressed in the Greek classical tradition, was received and used by five communities in the Islamic intellectual camp. It shows how dialectic as an argumentative discourse diffused into five communities (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Alison Pease, Alan Smaill, Simon Colton & John Lee (2009). Bridging the Gap Between Argumentation Theory and the Philosophy of Mathematics. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):111-135.score: 168.0
    We argue that there are mutually beneficial connections to be made between ideas in argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematics, and that these connections can be suggested via the process of producing computational models of theories in these domains. We discuss Lakatos’s work (Proofs and Refutations, 1976) in which he championed the informal nature of mathematics, and our computational representation of his theory. In particular, we outline our representation of Cauchy’s proof of Euler’s conjecture, in which (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Michael A. Gilbert (2007). Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory as an Engaged Discipline. Informal Logic 27 (2):149-161.score: 162.0
    Natural normativity describes the means whereby social and cultural controls are placed on argumentative behaviour. The three main components of this are Goals, Context, and Ethos, which combine to form a dynamic and situational framework. Natural normativity is explained in light of Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, and Rhetoric. Finally, the theory is applied to the Biro-Siegel challenge.
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Gregor Betz (2010). Petitio Principii and Circular Argumentation as Seen From a Theory of Dialectical Structures. Synthese 175 (3):327-349.score: 156.0
    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. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Nancy Green (2010). Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.score: 150.0
    Various argumentation analysis tools permit the analyst to represent functional components of an argument (e.g., data, claim, warrant, backing), how arguments are composed of subarguments and defenses against potential counterarguments, and argumentation schemes. In order to facilitate a study of argument presentation in a biomedical corpus, we have developed a hybrid scheme that enables an analyst to encode argumentation analysis within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which can be used to represent the discourse structure (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Sebastian McEvoy (1999). The Construction of Issues: Pleading Theory and Practice, Relevance in Pragmatics, and the Confrontation Stage in the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 13 (1):43-52.score: 150.0
    Legal theory and practice, particularly on the exchange of pleadings, are referred to as a means of examining current thinking in pragmatics on relevance. The rules of pleadings suggest that the concept of relevance as used in pragmatics is emptied of any meaning and that theories of argumentation have not sufficiently taken into account the preliminary construction which issues to be argued about require.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. AntoineC Braet (1996). On the Origin of Normative Argumentation Theory: The Paradoxical Case of the Rhetoric to Alexander. [REVIEW] Argumentation 10 (3):347-359.score: 138.0
    The Rhetoric to Alexander (second half of the fourth century B.C.) is among the oldest contributions to the study of argumentation. From antiquity on, this treatise, which abounds in opportunistic advice, has come under heavy criticism on normative grounds. And yet, as I shall maintain here, it clearly takes into account the requirements of rational argumentation which are still in use today. Moreover, it contains the seeds of a whole series of doctrines found in modern normative argumentation (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz (forthcoming). The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory. Argumentation:1-18.score: 138.0
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Christian Plantin (2009). A Place for Figures of Speech in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 23 (3):325-337.score: 138.0
    This paper deals with the treatment of figures of speech in Perelman’s and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Treatise on Argumentation (TA), and, more broadly, with the place of figures in argumentation theory. The contrast between two conceptions (or two domains)\n of rhetoric, “a rhetoric of figures” and “a rhetoric of argument” can be traced back to Ramus, and it has been revived in\n the seventies through the perception of an incommensurability between Perelman’s “New Rhetoric” and the École de Liège’s “General\n (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Dale A. Herbeck (1995). Critical Legal Studies and Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 9 (5):719-729.score: 138.0
    Critical Legal Studies poses a direct and expressed challenge to the basic tenets of American legal education and scholarship. Critical Legal Studies postulates that law is not a scientific exercise involving the application of objective principles, but rather a creative process involving the selection of conflicting rules which has the effect of reinforcing the existing political order. In an effort to explain the contribution of Critical Legal Studies to argumentation theory, this essay briefly discusses the role of legal (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Sara Rubinelli & Claudia Zanini (2012). Teaching Argumentation Theory to Doctors: Why and What. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):66-80.score: 138.0
    This paper supports the need for health professionals to be trained in argumentation theory, by illustrating the challenges that they face in interacting with patients and according to the different models of consultation that patients prefer. While there is no ideal model of consultation that can be promoted universally, the ability to construct arguments in support of health professionals’ points of view, as well as the ability to engage in critical discussion with patients, translate in essential skills for (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1997). The Port-Royal Logic's Theory of Argument. Argumentation 11 (4):393-410.score: 132.0
    This is a critical examination of Antoine Arnauld's Logic or the Art of Thinking (1662), commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic. Rather than reading this work from the viewpoint of post-Fregean formal logic or the viewpoint of seventeenth-century intellectual history, I approach it with the aim of exploring its relationship to that contemporary field which may be labeled informal logic and/or argumentation theory. It turns out that the Port-Royal Logic is a precursor of this current field, or conversely, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Antoine C. Braet (1999). The Enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric: From Argumentation Theory to Logic. Informal Logic 19 (2).score: 132.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. William Rehg (2003). Habermas, Argumentation Theory, and Science Studies: Toward Interdisciplinary Cooperation. Informal Logic 23 (2).score: 132.0
    This article examines two approaches to the analysis and critical assessment of scientific argumentation. The first approach employs the discourse theory that Jurgen Habermas has developed on the basis of his theory of communicative action and applied to the areas of politics and law. Using his analysis of law and democracy in his Between Facts and Norms (1996) as a kind of template, I sketch the main steps in a Habermasian discourse theory of science. Difficulties in (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Frans H. Van Eemeren (1995). A World of Difference: The Rich State of Argumentation Theory. Informal Logic 17 (2).score: 132.0
    This paper surveys the contributions to the study of argumentation in the two decades since the work of Toulmin and Perelman. Developments include Radical Argumentativism (Anscombre and Ducot), Communication and Rhetoric (American Speech Communication Theory), Informal Logic (Johnson and Blair), Formal Analyses of Fallacies (Woods and Walton), Formal Dialectics (Barth and Krabbe), and Pragma-Dialectics (van Eemeren and Grootendorst). From the survey it is concluded that argumentation theory has been considerably enriched. If the contributions can be made (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. G. Thomas Goodnight (2008). Strategic Maneuvering in Direct to Consumer Drug Advertising: A Study in Argumentation Theory and New Institutional Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation 22 (3):359-371.score: 132.0
    New Institutional Theory is used to explain the context for argumentation in modern practice. The illustration of Direct to Consumer Drug advertising is deployed to show how communicative argument between a doctor and patient is influenced by force exogenous to the practice of medicine. The essay shows how strategic maneuvering shifts the burden of proof within institutional relations.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Christof Rapp & Tim Wagner (2013). On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 27 (1):7-30.score: 130.0
    Although he does not provide a general analysis of argumentation, Aristotle is a highly influential source of modern argumentation theory. In his treatises the Topics, the Sophistical Refutations and the Rhetoric, Aristotle presents complementary aspects of a theory of sound arguments that are seen as the most effective means of persuasion. Aristotle’s central notion of a deductive argument (sullogismos) does not include references to an addressee, the situative context or non-verbal aspects of communication, and thus differs (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. C. Andone (2012). Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. Giving Reasons. A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 26 (2):291-296.score: 126.0
    Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. Giving Reasons. A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-6 DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9258-z Authors C. Andone, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X.
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Paul Gillaerts (2011). Jean Wagemans: Redelijkheid En Overredingskracht van Argumentatie. Een Historisch-Filosofische Studie Over de Combinatie van Het Dialectische En Het Retorische Perspectief Op Argumentatie in de Pragma-Dialectische Argumentatietheorie (Reasonableness and Persuasiveness of Argumentation. An Historical-Philosophical Study on the Combination of the Dialectical and Rhetorical Perspective on Argumentation in the Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Theory). [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (1):123-125.score: 126.0
    Jean Wagemans: Redelijkheid en overredingskracht van argumentatie. Een historisch-filosofische studie over de combinatie van het dialectische en het retorische perspectief op argumentatie in de pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie (Reasonableness and Persuasiveness of Argumentation. An Historical-Philosophical Study on the Combination of the Dialectical and Rhetorical Perspective on Argumentation in the Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Theory) Content Type Journal Article Pages 123-125 DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9197-0 Authors Paul Gillaerts, Lessius University College, Antwerp, Belgium Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X Journal Volume (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Dale Jacquette (2014). Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Meta-Argumentation: An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation 28 (2):221-230.score: 126.0
    Among theorists of all kinds, those generally engaged at some level of their work in a dialectical enterprise, and certainly in argumentation theory, much argument concerns, is about or directed toward, other arguments. Arguments about arguments, meta-arguments, including all of the rational inferential underpinnings of argumentation theory, are in several ways and for several reasons worth distinguishing from arguments about things other than arguments, such as the causes of WWI or the periodicity of the tides.Maurice A. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Andrew Schumann (2013). Logical Cornestones of Judaic Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 27 (3):305-326.score: 126.0
    In this paper, the four Judaic inference rules: qal wa- ḥ omer, gezerah š awah, heqe š, binyan ’av are considered from the logical point of view and the pragmatic limits of applying these rules are symbolic-logically explicated. According to the Talmudic sages, on the one hand, after applying some inference rules we cannot apply other inference rules. These rules are weak. On the other hand, there are rules after which we can apply any other. These rules are strong. This (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. María G. Navarro (2009). Critical Notice of 'Controversy and Confrontation. Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory' by Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. [REVIEW] Informal Logic 31 (1):69-74.score: 124.0
    Since the first volume appeared in 2005, the collection Controversies has brought together pieces of work related to the field of argumentation, giving particular attention to those that are concerned with theoretical and practical problems connected with discursive controversy and confrontation. Authors such as P. Barrotta, M. Dascal, S. Frogel, H. Chang and D. Walton had already either edited or written previous editions to the present volume (volume six) of the collection. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. William Rehg (2000). Critical Science Studies as Argumentation Theory: Who's Afraid of Ssk? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (1):33-48.score: 120.0
    This article asks whether an interdisciplinary "critical science studies" (CSS) is possible between a critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition, with its commitment to universal standards of reason, and relativistic sociologies of scientific knowledge (e.g., David Bloor's strong programme). It is argued that CSS is possible if its practitioners adopt the epistemological equivalent of Rawls's method of avoidance. A discriminating, public policy–relevant critique of science can then proceed on the basis of an argumentation theory that employs (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. William Rehg (2013). Rhetoric, Cogency, and the Radically Social Character of Persuasion: Habermas's Argumentation Theory Revisited. Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):465-492.score: 120.0
    What can rhetoric tell us about good arguments? The answer depends on what we mean by “good argument” and on how we conceive rhetoric. In this article I examine and further develop Jürgen Habermas’s argumentation theory as an answer to the question—or as I explain, an expanded version of that question. Habermas places his theory in the family of normative approaches that recognize (at least) three evaluative perspectives on all argument making: logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, which proponents (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. J. H. Zammito (2011). Review Essay: William Rehg, Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (3):359-365.score: 120.0
    William Rehg believes that the ‘science wars’ of recent times make it acutely necessary that ‘reasonable’ or ‘cogent’ standards for the assessment of scientific claims find acceptance among the various constituencies of the debate. He see ‘Kuhn’s gap’ — the mutual estrangement of philosophy of science from empirical science studies — as lamentable and seeks to bridge these disciplines via ‘argumentation theory’ inspired by the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas. While the use of argumentation theory helps illuminate (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2011). Giving Reasons, A Contribution to Argumentation Theory. Theoria 26 (3):273-277.score: 120.0
    ABSTRACT: In Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic-approach to Argumentation Theory (Springer, 2011), I provide a new model for the semantic and pragmatic appraisal of argumentation. This model is based on a characterization of argumentation as a second order speech-act complex. I explain the advantages of this model respecting other proposals within Argumentation Theory, such as Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, the New Rhetoric or the Epistemic Approach.RESUMEN: En Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic-approach to Argumentation Theory (Springer, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Cristián Santibáñez (2012). Argumentation Theory as Applied Epistemology. Cinta de Moebio 43 (43):24-39.score: 120.0
    In this paper the conception of argumentation theory as applied epistemology is discussed. The point of departure is the description of four perspectives that are considered as founders of the modern theory of argumentation, in order to observe whether there was a similar concept in those theories or if they provided the patterns to go into that direction. Further on the reasons why contemporary scholars have given this emphasis to the notion of argumentation theory (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2009). Argumentation Theory and the Conception of Epistemic Justification. In Marcin Koszowy (ed.), Informal Logic and Argumentation Theory. University of Białystok. 285--303.score: 120.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Michael A. Gilbert (2002). Informal Logic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence. Informal Logic 22 (3).score: 120.0
    Informal Logic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Lilian Bermejo Luque (2011). Giving Reasons, A Contribution to Argumentation Theory. Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 26 (72):273-278.score: 120.0
    En Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic-approach to Argumentation Theory (Springer, 2011), propongo un nuevo modelo para la evaluación semántica y pragmática de la argumentación. Este modelo se basa en una caracterización de la argumentación como un acto de habla compuesto de segundo orden. Explico las ventajas de este modelo respecto de otras propuestas dentro de la Teoría de la Argumentación, tales como la Pragma-dialéctica, la Lógica Informal, la Nueva Retórica o el Enfoque Epistémico.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Hugo Mercier (2012). Some Clarifications About the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. A Reply to Santibáñez Yañez (2012). Informal Logic 32 (2):259-268.score: 120.0
    In “Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: From Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies” (2012) Santibáñez Yañez offers constructive comments and criticisms of the argumentative theory of reasoning. The purpose of this reply is twofold. First, it seeks to clarify two points broached by Yanez: (1) the relation between reasoning (in this specific theory) and dual process accounts in general and (2) the benefits that can be derived from reasoning and argumentation (again, in this (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (2012). Mercier and Sperber's Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: From Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies. Informal Logic 32 (1):132-159.score: 116.0
    Mercier and Sperber (2011a, 2011b; Mercier, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, and 2011d) have presented a stimulating and provocative new theory of reasoning: the argumentative theory of reasoning. They maintain that argumentation is a meta-representational module. In their evolutionary view of argumentation, the function of this module would be to regulate the flow of information between interlocutors through persuasiveness on the side of the communicator and epistemic vigilance on the side of the audience. The aim of this paper (...)
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Eveline T. Feteris (2002). A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.score: 114.0
    This paper answers the question how pragmatic argumentation which occurs in a legal context, can be analyzed and evaluated adequately. First, the author surveys various ideas taken from argumentation theory and legal theory on the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation. Then, on the basis of these ideas, she develops a pragma-dialectical instrument for analyzing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Finally she demonstrates how this instrument can be used by giving an (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Luis Vega Reñón (2011). Pensar por sistemas y pensar por ideas a tener en cuenta. Unas notas a propósito de Giving Reasons. A linguistic-pragmaticapproach to Argumentation Theory (Thinking through Systems and Thinking through Ideas to be taken into account. Some Remarks on Giving Reasons. A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory). [REVIEW] Theoria 26 (3):321-327.score: 114.0
    RESUMEN: Giving Reasons pretende ofrecer una aproximación no solo precisa, sino comprensiva, a una teoría sistemática de la argumentación. A la luz de una distinción de Vaz Ferreira entre «pensar por sistemas» y «pensar por ideas a tener en cuenta», me gustaría hacer unas observaciones para complementar y, digamos, “abrir” la incipiente clausura teórica del sistema lingüístico-pragmático de Giving Reasons. Voy a considerar dos casos en particular: el tratamiento del concepto mismo de argumentación y la conversión del principio de cooperación (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Jean Goodwin (2001). Henry Johnstone, Jr.'S Still-Unacknowledged Contributions to Contemporary Argumentation Theory. Informal Logic 21 (1).score: 114.0
    Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a refreshing alternative to the current dialogic theories of arguing, one which opens the way for specifically rhetorical lines of inquiry.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Mirjami Paso (2014). Rhetoric Meets Rational Argumentation Theory. Ratio Juris 27 (2):236-251.score: 114.0
    The theory of rhetoric is recognised and widely used in a number of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. It is therefore slightly surprising that it has not gained an important footing in jurisprudence. It is often argued that rhetoric and argumentative justification are clearly different issues. However, the present paper argues that they are in fact two aspects of argumentation and that the theory of rhetoric may be used also in the context of legal reasoning.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Luis Vega Renon (1998). Aristotle's Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation. Argumentation 12 (1):95-113.score: 108.0
    Aristotle's conception and use of ta endoxa are key points to our understanding of Aristotelian dialectic. But, nowadays, they are not of historical or hermeneutic importance alone, as, in Aristotle's treatment of endoxa, we still see a relevant contribution to the modern study of argumentation. I propose here an interpretation of endoxa to that effect: namely, as plausible propositions. This version is not only defensible in the Aristotelian context, it may also shed new light on some of his assumptions (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Tone Kvernbekk (2012). Argumentation in Theory and Practice: Gap or Equilibrium? Informal Logic 32 (3):288-305.score: 108.0
    ABSTRACT: It is not uncommon, in argumentation and in various professions, to diagnose a gap between theory and practice; and in the next step argue that they should be brought into line with each other. But what does this mean? I shall argue that some version of a gap is sound, as it leaves theory with a critical, independent role in relation to practice – something that an equilibrium view does not.
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Francesco Belvisi (2014). Legal Argumentation and Justice in Luhmann's System Theory of Law. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 27 (2):341-357.score: 108.0
    The paper reconstructs Luhmann’s conception of legal argumentation and justice especially focussing on the aspects of contingency and self-referring operative closure. The aim of his conception is to describe/explain in a disenchanted way—from an external, of “second order” point of view—the work on adjudication, which, rather idealistically, lawyers and judges present as being a matter of reason. As a consequence of some surface similarities with Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy of justice, Teubner proposes integrating the supposed reductive image of formal justice (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Robert Binkley (1995). Argumentation, Education and Reasoning. Informal Logic 17 (2).score: 108.0
    To find the place of Argumentation (argumentation theory) in education one must sort out its relationship to Logic. The key point is that the two stand in different relations to reasoning. Logic is the normative study of reasoning, and provides the standards for correct reasoning. Argumentation studies the activity of arguing, and is related to reasoning only in that arguing involves the attempt to get an audience to reason in a certain way; correctness is not essential. (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Brigitte Burgemeestre, Joris Hulstijn & Yao-Hua Tan (2011). Value-Based Argumentation for Justifying Compliance. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):149-186.score: 108.0
    Compliance is often achieved ‘by design’ through a coherent system of controls consisting of information systems and procedures. This system-based control requires a new approach to auditing in which companies must demonstrate to the regulator that they are ‘in control’. They must determine the relevance of a regulation for their business, justify which set of control measures they have taken to comply with it, and demonstrate that the control measures are operationally effective. In this paper we show how value-based (...) theory can be applied to the compliance domain. Corporate values motivate the selection of control measures (actions) which aim to fulfil control objectives, i.e. adopted norms (goals). In particular, we show how to formalize the audit dialogue in which companies justify their compliance decisions to regulators using value-based argumentation. The approach is illustrated by a case study of the safety and security measures adopted in the context of EU customs regulation. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Brigitte Burgemeestre, Joris Hulstijn & Yao-Hua Tan (2013). Value-Based Argumentation for Designing and Auditing Security Measures. Ethics and Information Technology 15 (3):153-171.score: 108.0
    Designing security measures often involves trade-offs between various types of objectives. Multiple stakeholders may have conflicting demands and may have different ideas on how to resolve the resulting design conflicts. This paper reports on an application of value-sensitive design. Based on argumentation theory and social values, the paper develops a structured approach for discussing design conflicts, called value-based argumentation. The application domain examined in the paper is concerned with physical safety and security issues that arise in cross-border (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Henrique Jales Ribeiro (ed.) (2012). Inside Arguments: Logic and the Study of Argumentation. Cambridge Scholars.score: 108.0
    This volume includes a collection of eighteen essays that provide a decisive input to the study of logic and argumentation theory by some of the finest specialists in these areas, covering the main schools of thought and contemporary trends at the beginning of the 21st century. In these essays, the authors clarify the status of what we currently call, ambiguously and problematically, “logic” and “argumentation theory”, and discuss the no less controversial issue of the relationship between (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Paola Cantu' & Italo Testa (2011). Algorithms and Arguments: The Foundational Role of the ATAI-Question. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192-203). Rozenberg / Sic Sat.score: 102.0
    Argumentation theory underwent a significant development in the Fifties and Sixties: its revival is usually connected to Perelman's criticism of formal logic and the development of informal logic. Interestingly enough it was during this period that Artificial Intelligence was developed, which defended the following thesis (from now on referred to as the AI-thesis): human reasoning can be emulated by machines. The paper suggests a reconstruction of the opposition between formal and informal logic as a move against a premise (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. William Rehg (2003). Critical Argumentation Theory and Democracy: Lessons of Past Debates Over Technoscience. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 59 (1):113 - 138.score: 102.0
    Contemporary critical theorists working in the Frankfurt School tradition have focused considerable attention on theories of deliberative democracy, which in general attempt to show how public argumentation can be both democratic and reasonable. In this context, political questions that involve or depend on science present an acute challenge, inasmuch as deliberation must meet especially demanding epistemic requirements. In this article, the author examines two past responses to the challenge, each of which failed to reconcile reasonableness and democracy: that of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. William Rehg & Kent W. Staley (2008). The CDF Collaboration and Argumentation Theory: The Role of Process in Objective Knowledge. Perspectives on Science 16 (1):1-25.score: 102.0
    : For philosophers of science interested in elucidating the social character of science, an important question concerns the manner in which and degree to which the objectivity of scientific knowledge is socially constituted. We address this broad question by focusing specifically on philosophical theories of evidence. To get at the social character of evidence, we take an interdisciplinary approach informed by categories from argumentation studies. We then test these categories by exploring their applicability to a case study from high-energy (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Christoph Lumer (2000). Reductionism in Fallacy Theory. Argumentation 14 (4):405-423.score: 102.0
    (1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and adequate argumentation. Such reductionism has several advantages compared to an unsystematic action, which is quite usual in current fallacy but which at least in part is due to the poor state of positive argumentation theory itself. (2) After defining 'fallacy' (3) some (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Mark Aakhus (forthcoming). Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (Eds): Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Argumentation:1-4.score: 102.0
    Every 4 years, for the past three decades, the world of argumentation research has gathered in Amsterdam at the International Society for the Study of Argumentation conferences to explore advances in understanding argumentation and how argumentation advances our understanding of the human condition. While comprehensive proceedings of selected papers are produced to document what has transpired in the world of argumentation over the preceding 4 years, there remains the important matter of taking the intellectual pulse (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Fernando Leal (2014). Frans H. Van Eemeren (2012): Maniobras Estratégicas En El Discurso Argumentativo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas & Editorial Plaza y Valdés (Series “Theoria Cum Praxi”, No. 9). Spanish Translation, by Cristián Santibáñez and María Elena Molina, Of: Frans H. Van Eemeren (2010): Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam (Series “Argumentation in Context”, No. 2). [REVIEW] Argumentation 28 (1):129-132.score: 102.0
    Each one of the five books authored or co-authored by Frans van Eemeren which have so far been translated into Spanish clearly fulfills a different role. Following the chronological order, we first have Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984; Spanish translation 2013), a book that contains the theoretical spadework in the field of pragmatics on which the whole edifice of pragma-dialectics is erected. Then follows Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992; Spanish translation (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000