45 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Daniel H. Cohen [46]Daniel Harry Cohen [1]
See also:
Profile: Daniel Cohen (Colby College)
  1.  7
    Daniel H. Cohen (2013). Virtue, In Context. Informal Logic 33 (4):471-485.
    Virtue argumentation theory provides the best framework for accommodating the notion of an argument that is “fully satisfying” in a robust and integrated sense. The process of explicating the notion of fully satisfying arguments requires expanding the concept of arguers to include all of an argument’s participants, including judges, juries, and interested spectators. And that, in turn, requires expanding the concept of an argument itself to include its entire context.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  2.  21
    Andrew Aberdein & Daniel H. Cohen (2016). Introduction: Virtues and Arguments. Topoi 35 (2):339-343.
    It has been a decade since the phrase virtue argumentation was introduced, and while it would be an exaggeration to say that it burst onto the scene, it would be just as much of an understatement to say that it has gone unnoticed. Trying to strike the virtuous mean between the extremes of hyperbole and litotes, then, we can fairly characterize it as a way of thinking about arguments and argumentation that has steadily attracted more and more attention from argumentation (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  6
    Daniel H. Cohen (forthcoming). Argumentative Virtues as Conduits for Reason’s Causal Efficacy: Why the Practice of Giving Reasons Requires That We Practice Hearing Reasons. Topoi:1-8.
    Psychological and neuroscientific data suggest that a great deal, perhaps even most, of our reasoning turns out to be rationalizing. The reasons we give for our positions are seldom either the real reasons or the effective causes of why we have those positions. We are not as rational as we like to think. A second, no less disheartening observation is that while we may be very effective when it comes to giving reasons, we are not that good at getting reasons. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  46
    Daniel H. Cohen (1988). A Reply to Cahn. Analysis 48 (2):109 - 110.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  10
    Daniel H. Cohen (1995). TArgument is War...And War is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation. Informal Logic 17 (2).
    The claim that argumentation has no proper role in either philosophy or education, and especially not in philosophical education, flies in the face of both conventional wisdom and traditional pedagogy. There is, however, something to be said for it because it is really only provocative against a certain philosophical backdrop. Our understanding of the concept "argument" is both reflected by and molded by the specific metaphor that argument-is-war, something with winners and losers, offensive and defensive moments, and an essentially adversarial (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  6.  10
    Daniel H. Cohen & George Miller (2016). What Virtue Argumentation Theory Misses: The Case of Compathetic Argumentation. Topoi 35 (2):451-460.
    While deductive validity provides the limiting upper bound for evaluating the strength and quality of inferences, by itself it is an inadequate tool for evaluating arguments, arguing, and argumentation. Similar remarks can be made about rhetorical success and dialectical closure. Then what would count as ideal argumentation? In this paper we introduce the concept of cognitive compathy to point in the direction of one way to answer that question. It is a feature of our argumentation rather than my argument or (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  5
    Daniel H. Cohen (2007). Virtue Epistemology and Argumentation Theory. In David Hitchcock (ed.), Dissensus and the search for common ground. OSSA
    Virtue epistemology was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about by argumentation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  18
    Daniel H. Cohen (2001). Evaluating Arguments and Making Meta-Arguments. Informal Logic 21 (2).
    This paper explores the outlines of a framework for evaluating arguments. Among the factors to take into account are the strength of the arguers' inferences, the level of their engagement with objections raised by other interlocutors, and their effectiveness in rationally persuading their target audiences. Some connections among these can be understood only in the context of meta-argumentation and meta-rationality. The Principle of Meta-Rationality (PMR)--that reasoning rationally includes reasoning about rationality-is used to explain why it can be rational to resist (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  1
    Daniel H. Cohen (forthcoming). The Virtuous Troll: Argumentative Virtues in the Age of Argumentative Pluralism. Philosophy and Technology:1-11.
    Technology has made argumentation rampant. We can argue whenever we want. With social media venues for every interest, we can also argue about whatever we want. To some extent, we can select our opponents and audiences to argue with whomever we want. And we can argue however we want, whether in carefully reasoned, article-length expositions, real-time exchanges, or 140-character polemics. The concepts of arguing, arguing well, and even being an arguer have evolved with this new multiplicity and diversity; theory needs (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  3
    Daniel H. Cohen (2005). Arguments That Backfire. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (eds.), The Uses of Argument. OSSA 58-65.
    One result of successful argumentation – able arguers presenting cogent arguments to competent audiences – is a transfer of credibility from premises to conclusions. From a purely logical perspective, neither dubious premises nor fallacious inference should lower the credibility of the target conclusion. Nevertheless, some arguments do backfire this way. Dialectical and rhetorical considerations come into play. Three inter-related conclusions emerge from a catalogue of hapless arguers and backfiring arguments. First, there are advantages to paying attention to arguers and their (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  6
    Daniel H. Cohen (2014). Commentary On: Katharina von Radziewsky's "The Virtuous Arguer: One Person, Four Characters". In Dima Mohammed & Marcin Lewinsky (eds.), Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society forthe Study of Argumentation. OSSA
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  19
    Daniel H. Cohen (1986). A New Axiomatization of Belnap's Conditional Assertion. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27 (1):124-132.
  13.  9
    Daniel H. Cohen (1988). The Word as Will and Idea. Philosophical Studies 32:126-140.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  28
    Daniel H. Cohen (1993). Nonsensical Representation and Senseless Interpretation: Wittgenstein on Nonsense Judgments. Philosophia 22 (3-4):407-424.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  5
    Hans V. Hansen & Daniel H. Cohen, Are There Methods of Informal Logic?
    This presentation seeks to understand informal logic as a set of methods for the logical evaluation of natural language arguments. Some of the methods identified are the fallacies method, deductivism, warrantism and argument schemes. A framework for comparing the adequacy of the methods is outlined consisting of the following categories: learner- and user-efficiency, subjective and objective reliability, and scope. Within this framework, it is also possible to compare informal and formal logic.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  7
    Daniel H. Cohen (1985). Putting Paradoxes to Pedagogical Use in Philosophy. Teaching Philosophy 8 (4):309-317.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  16
    Daniel H. Cohen (1987). The Problem of Counterpossibles. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (1):91-101.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  5
    Daniel H. Cohen (1988). A Reply to Steven M Cahn on Divestiture. Analysis 48 (2):109-110.
    Steven m cahn, In the june 1987 issue of "analysis", Asks how a principled divesture of stocks is possible. Selling stock requires a buyer, So no net reduction of objectionable economic behavior results. Is divestiture merely self-Righteous cleansing of one's own hands? not necessarily. It is argued that divesture as a means to influence corporate behavior, And not just as a means to a clean portfolio, Can be justified.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  17
    Daniel H. Cohen (1991). Conditionals, Quantification, and Strong Mathematical Induction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (3):315 - 326.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  2
    Daniel H. Cohen (2003). Just and Unjust Wars - and Just and Unjust Arguments. In IL@25: Proceedings of the 2003 Meetings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    For all its problems, there is still much to be gleaned from the argument-is-war paradigm. Much of the conceptual vocabulary that we use to talk about wars is commonly applied to arguments. Other concepts in the war-cluster can also be readily adapted to arguments. Some parts, of course, do not seem to apply so easily, if at all. Of most interest here are those war-concepts that have not been deployed in thinking about arguments but really should be because of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  4
    Daniel H. Cohen (2005). Rescher's Epistemic Logic, Cognitive Harmony & Realism and Pragmatic Epistemology. Informal Logic 25 (2):179-184.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  10
    Daniel H. Cohen (1992). Book Review:If P, Then Q: Conditionals and the Foundations of Reasoning David H. Sanford. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 59 (2):331-.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Daniel H. Cohen (1990). Review: Robert K. Meyer, Georg Dorn, P. Weingartner, A Farewell to Entailment. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (1):352-353.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  3
    Daniel H. Cohen (2004). Fogelin's Walking the Tightrope of Reason: The Precarious Life of a Rational Animal by Robert Fogelin. Informal Logic 23 (1).
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  4
    Daniel H. Cohen (2002). Informal Logic and the Surprise Exam. Informal Logic 22 (2).
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  2
    Daniel H. Cohen (1990). Meyer Robert K.. A Farewell to Entailment. Foundations of Logic and Linguistics, Problems and Their Solutions, Edited by Dorn Georg and Weingartner P., Plenum Press, New York and London 1985, Pp. 577–636. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (1):352-353.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  2
    Daniel H. Cohen (1998). Schoolhouses, Jailhouses and the House of Being: The Tragedy of Philosophy's Metaphors. Metaphilosophy 29 (1‐2):6-19.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  4
    Daniel H. Cohen (1988). Stalking the Wild Paradox. Metaphilosophy 19 (1):25–31.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  1
    Daniel H. Cohen (2007). Paul Boghossian - Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Informal Logic 27 (2):229-232.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Daniel H. Cohen (1995). Argument is War... And War is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation. Informal Logic 17 (2):177-188.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Daniel H. Cohen, Arguing With God.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Daniel H. Cohen, Commentary on Finocchiaro.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Daniel H. Cohen, Commentary on Kalef.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Daniel H. Cohen, Commentary on Kagan.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Daniel H. Cohen, Commentary on Rose.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Daniel H. Cohen, Commentary on Schwed.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Daniel H. Cohen, Commentary on Souder.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Daniel H. Cohen (2003). IL@25: Proceedings of the 2003 Meetings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Daniel H. Cohen & John Rosenwald, Once Upon an Argument: Being the Account of a Dialogue Between a Poet and a Philosopher, Both Ancient.
    A complex network of reciprocal relations connect arguments and stories. Arguments can occur in stories and stories can be parts of arguments. Further, stories can themselves be arguments. Whether a text or exchange serves as an argument partly depe nds on how we read it, i.e., on the story we tell about it and how well we argue for that story, but the circle is not as vicious as it appears. Or at least, that is the story we present and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Daniel H. Cohen (1993). Peter F. Strawson "Analysis and Metaphysics". International Journal of Philosophical Studies:385.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Daniel H. Cohen (1989). Review: Richard Routley, Val Plumwood, Robert K. Meyer, Ross T. Brady, Relevant Logics and Their Rivals. Part I. The Basic Philosophical and Semantical Theory. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 54 (1):293-296.
  42. Daniel H. Cohen (1989). Routley Richard with Plumwood Val, Meyer Robert K., and Brady Ross T.. Relevant Logics and Their Rivals. Part I. The Basic Philosophical and Semantical Theory. Ridgeview Publishing Company, Atascadero, Calif., 1982, Xv + 460 Pp. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 54 (1):293-296.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Daniel H. Cohen, Reply to My Commentator - Cohen.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Daniel H. Cohen (2009). Sincerity, Santa Claus Arguments and Dissensus in Coalitions. In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 9yj Internaional Conferrence of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. OSSA 1-8.
    It is a virtue of virtue theory approaches to argumentation that they integrate many of the different factors that make arguments good arguments. The insights of virtue argumentation are brought to bear on a variety of versions of the requirement that good arguments must have good premises, concluding that a sincerity condition serves better than truth or assertability conditions, despite apparently counterintuitive consequences for arguments involving heterogeneous coalitions.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Daniel H. Cohen, Virtue, in Context.
    Virtue argumentation theory provides the best framework for accommodating the notion of an argument that is “fully satisfying” in a robust and integrated sense. The process of explicating the notion of fully satisfying arguments requires expanding the concept of arguers to include all of an argument’s participants, including judges, juries, and interested spectators. And that, in turn, requires expanding the concept of an argument itself to include its entire context.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography