13 found
Order:
See also:
Profile: David Godden (Michigan State University)
  1.  1
    David M. Godden (forthcoming). On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-Revisionism. Argumentation:1-37.
    Visual arguments can seem to require unique, autonomous evaluative norms, since their content seems irreducible to, and incommensurable with, that of verbal arguments. Yet, assertions of the ineffability of the visual, or of visual-verbal incommensurability, seem to preclude counting putatively irreducible visual content as functioning argumentatively. By distinguishing two notions of content, informational and argumentative, I contend that arguments differing in informational content can have equivalent argumentative content, allowing the same argumentative norms to be rightly applied in their evaluation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  2.  7
    David M. Godden (2010). The Importance of Belief in Argumentation: Belief, Commitment and the Effective Resolution of a Difference of Opinion. Synthese 172 (3):397-414.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  1
    Douglas Walton & David M. Godden, Redefining Knowledge in a Way Suitable for Argumentation Theory.
    Knowledge plays an important role in argumentation. Yet, recent work shows that standard conceptions of knowledge in epistemology may not be entirely suitable for argumentation. This paper explores the role of knowledge in argumentation, and proposes a notion of knowledge that promises to be more suitable for argumentation by taking account of: its dynamic nature, the defeasibility of our commitments, and the non-monotonicity of many of the inferences we use in everyday reasoning and argumentation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  8
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  2
    David M. Godden, Commentary On: Chris Campolo's "Argumentative Virtues and Deep Disagreement".
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  2
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  2
    David M. Godden, Reconstruction and Representation: Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  1
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  1
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation. Pragmatics and Cognitionpragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. David M. Godden, Commentary on Aberdein.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. David M. Godden, Commentary on Krabbe.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. David M. Godden, On the Relation of Argumentation and Inference.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography