10 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: David Godden (Old Dominion University)
  1. David M. Godden, Commentary On: Chris Campolo's "Argumentative Virtues and Deep Disagreement.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David M. Godden, On the Norms of Visual Argument.
    While pictures can persuade, can they do so rationally – by offering reasons? Existing debate has focused on whether images are – or can be – arguments. Yet, from a normative perspective, a more pressing question concerns how the persuasive operation of images ought to be evaluated. By analyzing the concept of argument as necessarily involving reasons the paper argues that the possibility of visual arguments requires no revision to our existing normative theories of argument.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Maurice Finocchiaro & David M. Godden, Deep Disagreements: A Meta-Argumentation Approach.
    This paper examines the views of Fogelin, Woods, Johnstone, etc., concerning deep disa-greements, force-five standoffs, philosophical controversies, etc. My approach is to reconstruct their views and critiques of them as meta-arguments, and to elaborate the meta-argumentative aspects of radical disa-greements. It turns out that deep disagreements are resolvable to a greater degree than usually thought, but only by using special principles and practices, such as meta-argumentation, ad hominem argumentation , Ramsey’s principle, etc.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David M. Godden, Commentary on Aberdein.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David M. Godden, The Epistemic Utility of Toulmin’s Argument Fields.
    Toulmin’s DWC model recognizes a plurality of argument cultures through the thesis of field dependency: that the normative features of arguments vary from one field to the next. Yet, little consensus exists concerning the nature and foundations of argument fields. This paper explores the question of whether Toulminian fields have any useful role to play in the epistemic evaluation of arguments.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2008). Defeasibility in Judicial Opinion: Logical or Procedural? Informal Logic 28 (1):6-19.
    While defeasibility in legal reasoning has been the subject of recent scholarship, it has yet to be studied in the context of judicial opinion. Yet, being subject to appeal, judicial decisions can default for a variety of reasons. Prakken (2001) argued that the defeasibility affecting reasoning involved in adversarial legal argumentation is best analysed as procedural rather than logical. In this paper we argue that the defeasibility of ratio decendi is similarly best explained and modeled in a procedural and dialectical (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David M. Godden, Commentary on Krabbe.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Douglas Walton & David M. Godden, The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.
    The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David M. Godden, Reconstruction and Representation: Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David M. Godden, On the Relation of Argumentation and Inference.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation