14 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: David Godden (Old Dominion University)
  1. Douglas Walton & David M. Godden, Alternatives to Suspicion and Trust as Conditions for Challenge in Argumentative Dialogues.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David M. Godden (2014). Teaching Rational Entitlement and Responsibility: A Socratic Exercise. Informal Logic 34 (1):124-151.
    The paper reports on a Socratic exercise that introduces participants to the norm of rational entitlement, as distinct from political entitlement, and the attendant norm of rational responsibility. The exercise demonstrates that, because participants are not willing to exchange their own opinion at random for another differing opinion to which the owner is, by the participants’ own admission, entitled, they treat their entitlement to their own opinion differently, giving it a special status. This gives rise to rational obligations such as (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David M. Godden (2010). The Importance of Belief in Argumentation: Belief, Commitment and the Effective Resolution of a Difference of Opinion. [REVIEW] Synthese 172 (3):397 - 414.
    This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. 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  
  5. Douglas Walton & David M. Godden (2007). Redefining Knowledge in a Way Suitable for Argumentation Theory. In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa. 1--13.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David M. Godden (2006). Departmental Boundaries Within the Corporate Body of Theory: Quine on the Holistic Foundations of Logic. Dialogue 45 (3):505-528.
    This article argues that Quine’s holistic and naturalized semantics provides an inadequate account of the foundations of logical expressions and misrepresents the internal structure of theories. By considering a Quinean model of theoretical revision, I identify the status and foundation holism provides to the propositions of logic. I contend that a central tenet of Quinean holism-the Revisability Doctrine-cannot be held consistently, and that the inconsistencies surrounding it mark a series of pervasive errors within naturalized holism. In response, I propose that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David M. Godden (2006). The Impact of Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence. In F. H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Haft-van Rees & A. M. (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. L. Erlbaum Associates. 287.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David M. Godden (2005). Psychologism in the Logic of John Stuart Mill: Mill on the Subject Matter and Foundations of Ratiocinative Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (2):115-143.
    This paper considers the question of whether Mill's account of the nature and justificatory foundations of deductive logic is psychologistic. Logical psychologism asserts the dependency of logic on psychology. Frequently, this dependency arises as a result of a metaphysical thesis asserting the psychological nature of the subject matter of logic. A study of Mill's _System of Logic and his _Examination reveals that Mill held an equivocal view of the subject matter of logic, sometimes treating it as a set of psychological (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David M. Godden (2005). Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 25 (1):72-75.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Douglas Walton & David M. Godden (2005). Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
    In this paper we show how dialogue-based theories of argumentation can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution. Specifically we consider the role of persuasion in online dispute resolution by showing how persuasion dialogues can be functionally embedded in negotiation dialogues, and how negotiation dialogues can shift to persuasion dialogues. We conclude with some remarks on how persuasion dialogues might be modelled is such a way as to allow them to be implemented in a mechanical or computerized (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Douglas Walton & David M. Godden (2004). Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model. Informal Logic 24 (3).
    The standard account of denying the antecedent (DA) is that it is a deductively invalid form of argument, and that, in a conditional argument, to argue from the falsity of the antecedent to the falsity of the consequent is always fallacious. In this paper, we argue that DA is not always a fallacious argumentative strategy. Instead, there is a legitimate usage ofDA according to which it is a defeasible argument against the acceptability of a claim. The dialectical effect of denying (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David M. Godden (2003). Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 17 (2):219-243.
    The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David M. Godden (2000). Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 20 (5):384-386.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation