350 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Douglas Walton [223]Douglas N. Walton [105]D. Walton [10]D. N. Walton [6]
Doug Walton [4]David Walton [2]Douglas C. Walton [1]David N. Walton [1]

Not all matches are shown. Search with initial or firstname to single out others.

See also:
Profile: Douglas Walton (University of Windsor)
  1. Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   47 citations  
  2.  8
    Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2014). Emotive Language in Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
    This book analyzes the uses of emotive language and redefinitions from pragmatic, dialectical, epistemic and rhetorical perspectives, investigating the relationship between emotions, persuasion and meaning, and focusing on the implicit dimension of the use of a word and its dialectical effects. It offers a method for evaluating the persuasive and manipulative uses of emotive language in ordinary and political discourse. Through the analysis of political speeches and legal arguments, the book offers a systematic study of emotive language in argumentation, rhetoric, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  3.  29
    Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   103 citations  
  4.  25
    Douglas N. Walton (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. L. Erlbaum Associates.
    This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   47 citations  
  5.  32
    Douglas N. Walton (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
    Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation presents the basic tools for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of common arguments for beginners. The book teaches by using examples of arguments in dialogues, both in the text itself and in the exercises. Examples of controversial legal, political, and ethical arguments are analyzed. Illustrating the most common kinds of arguments, the book also explains how to evaluate each kind by critical questioning. Douglas Walton shows how arguments can be reasonable under the right dialogue conditions by (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  6.  18
    Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton (2007). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
    We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the procedural and dialogical aspects of argumentation. The model applies proof standards to determine the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. The model uses different types of premises (ordinary premises, assumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (stated, questioned, accepted or rejected) to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate, for each premise separately. (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   28 citations  
  7. David N. Walton (1989). Informal Logic a Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   47 citations  
  8. Douglas Walton (2003). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. University Alabama Press.
    Although fallacies have been common since Aristotle, until recently little attention has been devoted to identifying and defining them. Furthermore, the concept of fallacy itself has lacked a sufficiently clear meaning to make it a useful tool for evaluating arguments. Douglas Walton takes a new analytical look at the concept of fallacy and presents an up-to-date analysis of its usefulness for argumentation studies. Walton uses case studies illustrating familiar arguments and tricky deceptions in everyday conversation where the charge of fallaciousness (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  9. Douglas Walton (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority. Penn State University Press.
    A new pragmatic approach, based on the latest developments in argumentation theory, analyzing appeal to expert opinion as a form of argument. Reliance on authority has always been a common recourse in argumentation, perhaps never more so than today in our highly technological society when knowledge has become so specialized—as manifested, for instance, in the frequent appearance of "expert witnesses" in courtrooms. When is an appeal to the opinion of an expert a reasonable type of argument to make, and when (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   29 citations  
  10.  1
    Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  11. Douglas N. Walton (1998). The New Dialectic Conversational Contexts of Argument. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   26 citations  
  12. Douglas Walton (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State University Press.
    A leading expert in informal logic, Douglas Walton turns his attention in this new book to how reasoning operates in trials and other legal contexts, with special emphasis on the law of evidence. The new model he develops, drawing on methods of argumentation theory that are gaining wide acceptance in computing fields like artificial intelligence, can be used to identify, analyze, and evaluate specific types of legal argument. In contrast with approaches that rely on deductive and inductive logic and rule (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  13.  56
    Douglas N. Walton (1989). Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
    This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   38 citations  
  14.  24
    Douglas N. Walton (2008). Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law. Cambridge University Press.
    Recent work in artificial intelligence has increasingly turned to argumentation as a rich, interdisciplinary area of research that can provide new methods related to evidence and reasoning in the area of law. Douglas Walton provides an introduction to basic concepts, tools and methods in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence as applied to the analysis and evaluation of witness testimony. He shows how witness testimony is by its nature inherently fallible and sometimes subject to disastrous failures. At the same time such (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  15. Douglas N. Walton (2004). Abductive Reasoning. University of Alabama Press.
    This book examines three areas in which abductive reasoning is especially important: medicine, science, and law. The reader is introduced to abduction and shown how it has evolved historically into the framework of conventional wisdom in logic. Discussions draw upon recent techniques used in artificial intelligence, particularly in the areas of multi-agent systems and plan recognition, to develop a dialogue model of explanation. Cases of causal explanations in law are analyzed using abductive reasoning, and all the components are finally brought (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  16. David Walton (1991). The Units of Selection and the Bases of Selection. Philosophy of Science 58 (3):417-435.
    A correct analysis of hierarchical selection processes must specify 1) the objects that succeed differentially as units, and 2) the properties that provide the causal bases for differential success. Here I illustrate how failing to recognize the units/bases distinction creates a contradiction in Elliott Sober's recent account of selection. A revised criterion for units of selection is developed and applied to examples at several biological levels. Criteria for bases of selection are discussed in terms of the degree of context-dependence and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   35 citations  
  17. Douglas Walton (2014). Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
    The notion of burden of proof and its companion notion of presumption are central to argumentation studies. This book argues that we can learn a lot from how the courts have developed procedures over the years for allocating and reasoning with presumptions and burdens of proof, and from how artificial intelligence has built precise formal and computational systems to represent this kind of reasoning. The book provides a model of reasoning with burden of proof and presumption, based on analyses of (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18. 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,.
    This paper explains how to use a new software tool for argument diagramming available free on the Internet, showing especially how it can be used in the classroom to enhance critical thinking in philosophy. The user loads a text file containing an argument into a box on the computer interface, and then creates an argument diagram by dragging lines from one node to another. A key feature is the support for argumentation schemes, common patterns of defeasible reasoning historically know as (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  19. Douglas N. Walton (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
    Informal Logic is an introductory guidebook to the basic principles of constructing sound arguments and criticizing bad ones. Non-technical in approach, it is based on 186 examples, which Douglas Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, discusses and evaluates in clear, illustrative detail. Walton explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical responses. Among the many subjects covered (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  20. Douglas N. Walton (1991). Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation. Greenwood Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   23 citations  
  21.  39
    M. Brand & Douglas N. Walton (eds.) (1976). Action Theory. Reidel.
    INTRODUCTION BY THE EDITORS Gilbert Ryle, in his Concept of Mind (1949), attacked volitional theories of human actions; JL Austin, in his "If and Cans" ...
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   35 citations  
  22.  48
    Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
    This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  23.  1
    Douglas Walton (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University Alabama Press.
    Walton gives a clear method for analyzing and evaluating cases of ad hominem arguments found in everyday argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  24. Douglas N. Walton (2004). Relevance in Argumentation. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  25.  67
    Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2010). What We Hide in Words: Value-Based Reasoning and Emotive Language. Journal of Pragmatics 42:1997-2013.
    There are emotively powerful words that can modify our judgment, arouse our emotions and influence our decisions. This paper shows how the use of emotive meaning in argumentation can be explained by showing how their logical dimension, which can be analysed using argumentation schemes, combines with heuristic processes triggered by emotions. Arguing with emotive words is shown to use value-based practical reasoning grounded on hierarchies of values and maxims of experience for evaluative classification.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. Douglas Walton (1995). Arguments From Ignorance. Penn State University Press.
    _Arguments from Ignorance _explores the situations in which the argument from ignorance functions as a respectable form of reasoning and those in which it is indeed fallacious. Douglas Walton draws on everyday conversations on all kinds of practical matters in which the _argumentum ad ignorantiam _is used quite appropriately to infer conclusions. He also discusses the inappropriate use of this kind of argument, referring to various major case studies, including the Salem witchcraft trials, the McCarthy hearings, and the Alger Hiss (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  27.  42
    Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2009). Argument From Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, dialectical (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  28. Douglas Walton (2006). Epistemic and Dialectical Models of Begging the Question. Synthese 152 (2):237 - 284.
    This paper addresses the problem posed by the current split between the two opposed hypotheses in the growing literature on the fallacy of begging the question the epistemic hypothesis, based on knowledge and belief, and the dialectical one, based on formal dialogue systems. In the first section, the nature of split is explained, and it is shown how each hypothesis has developed. To get the beginning reader up to speed in the literature, a number of key problematic examples are analyzed (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  29.  7
    Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno (forthcoming). A Classification System for Argumentation Schemes. Argument and Computation:1-27.
    This paper explains the importance of classifying argumentation schemes, and outlines how schemes are being used in current research in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics on argument mining. It provides a survey of the literature on scheme classification. What are so far generally taken to represent a set of the most widely useful defeasible argumentation schemes are surveyed and explained systematically, including some that are difficult to classify. A new classification system covering these centrally important schemes is built.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2010). The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language . Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1:1-37.
  31. Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon, How to Formalize Informal Logic.
    This paper presents a formalization of informal logic using the Carneades Argumentation System, a formal, computational model of argument that consists of a formal model of argument graphs and audiences. Conflicts between pro and con arguments are resolved using proof standards, such as preponderance of the evidence. Carneades also formalizes argumentation schemes. Schemes can be used to check whether a given argument instantiates the types of argument deemed normatively appropriate for the type of dialogue.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32. Douglas Walton (1992). The Place of Emotion in Argument. Penn State University Press.
    Appeals to emotion—pity, fear, popular sentiment, and _ad hominem_ attacks—are commonly used in argumentation. Instead of dismissing these appeals as fallacious wherever they occur, as many do, Walton urges that each use be judged on its merits. He distinguished three main categories of evaluation. First, is it reasonable, even if not conclusive, as an argument? Second, is it weak and therefore open to critical questioning for argument? And third, is it fallacious? The third category is a strong charge that incurs (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  33. Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2005). Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes . Studies in Communication Sciences 5 (2):1-22.
    We argue that common knowledge, of the kind used in reasoning in law and computing is best analyzed using a dialogue model of argumentation (Walton & Krabbe 1995). In this model, implicit premises resting on common knowledge are analyzed as endoxa or widely accepted opinions and generalizations (Tardini 2005). We argue that, in this sense, common knowledge is not really knowledge of the kind represent by belief and/or knowledge of the epistemic kind studied in current epistemology. This paper takes a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  36
    Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno (2007). Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity. Anthropology and Philosophy 8 (1/2):101-120.
    Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples of everyday conversational argumentation where determination of relevance and irrelevance can be assisted by means of adopting a new dialectical approach. According to the new dialectical theory, dialogue types are normative frameworks with specific goals and rules that can be applied to conversational argumentation. In this paper is shown how such dialectical models of reasonable argumentation can be applied to a determination of whether an (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35.  6
    Douglas Walton (2010). Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments Than They Are. Informal Logic 30 (2):159-184.
    This paper offers a solution to the problem of understanding how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by “seeming to be valid”, or (better) appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation of how fallacies are deceptive is based on heuristics and paraschemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem that sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, this (...)
    Direct download (20 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  36. Douglas N. Walton (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  37.  17
    Thomas F. Gordon & Douglas Walton (2012). A Carneades Reconstruction of Popov V Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):37-56.
    Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  38.  1
    Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2015). Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments. Philosophy and Rhetoric 48 (1):26-53.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  63
    Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2009). Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics. Logique Et Analyse 205:39-56.
  40.  4
    Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno (2010). Wrenching From Context: The Manipulation of Commitments. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (3):283-317.
    This article analyses the fallacy of wrenching from context, using the dialectical notions of commitment and implicature as tools. The data, a set of key examples, is used to sharpen the conceptual borderlines around the related fallacies of straw man, accent, misquotation, and neglect of qualifications. According to the analysis, the main characteristics of wrenching from context are the manipulation of the meaning of the other’s statement through devices such as the use of misquotations, selective quotations, and quoting out of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  41.  37
    D. Walton & C. A. Reed (2005). Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes. Synthese 145 (3):339 - 370.
    The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  42. Douglas N. Walton (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford University Press.
    A "slippery slope argument" is a type of argument in which a first step is taken and a series of inextricable consequences follow, ultimately leading to a disastrous outcome. Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking treat the slippery slope argument as a fallacy. Walton argues that used correctly in some cases, they can be a reasonable type of argument to shift a burden of proof in a critical discussion, while in other cases they are used incorrectly. Walton identifies (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  43.  19
    Douglas Walton (2005). Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony. Argumentation 19 (1):85-113.
    This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  44. Douglas N. Walton (1985). Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy. Greenwood Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  45.  1
    Douglas N. Walton (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    This book is an analysis of the distinctive form of reasoning, called practical reasoning by Aristotle (as opposed to theoretical reasoning), that serves to guide behaviour.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  46. J. Woods, A. Irvine & D. Walton (2002). Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies (M. Hogan). Philosophical Books 43 (1):43-45.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  47. Douglas N. Walton (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  48.  6
    Douglas Walton (2005). Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions. Argumentation 19 (2):159-186.
    Using persuasive definitions and persuasive language generally to put a spin on an argument has often held to be suspicious, if not deceptive or even fallacious. However, if the purpose of a persuasive definition is to persuade, and if rational persuasion can be a legitimate goal, putting forward a persuasive definition can have a legitimate basis in some cases. To clarify this basis, the old subject of definitions is reconfigured into a new dialectical framework in which, it is argued, a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  49. Douglas N. Walton (1996). Argument Structure a Pragmatic Theory. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  50. Douglas Walton, The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory.
    Journal of Applied Logic, to appear [uncorrected version posted].
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
1 — 50 / 350