About this topic
Summary Within philosophy, the theory of argument lies at the intersection of logic, philosophy of language, epistemology, and social philosophy. Contemporary argumentation theory also incorporates insights from outside of philosophy, particularly from the domains of rhetoric, semiotics, linguistics, social psychology and computer science. The principal concerns of philosophers working in philosophy include but are in no way limited to the problem of defining what an argument is, whether or not arguments can be given in modalities other than written or spoken language, what it means for an argument to be good, the role of emotions in argumentation and how argumentative goodness articulates with rational persuasion. Other foci include the metaphysics of arguments, argumentation and disagreements both epistemic and otherwise, and methodological issues such as how best to identify, reconstruct, appraise, and evaluate arguments.
Key works Within philosophy, most thinking about arguments was long dominated by formal criteria such as validity and soundness, with occasional attention being paid to fallacies. This orthodoxy was challenged in minor ways, particularly within the domain of ethics, but there were few challenges of a general nature. Early works of this sort include Natanson & Johnstone 1966, Perelman 1969, Hamblin 1970 and Toulmin 1958. It is important to note that contemporary argumentation theory is both interdisciplinary and international in scope. The rise of informal logic in North America coincided with the rise of what is now known as the pragma-dialectic theory in the Netherlands. It is fair to say that the dialogue between these groups of scholars in the 1980s and 1990s is what birthed contemporary argumentation theory. Works such as  van Eemeren et al 1990, van Eemeren et al 1994, Govier 1991, Walton & Krabbe 1995 and van Eemeren et al 1996 are all representative of this period. Since this time period, the field has become highly diverse, including work that integrates mainstream philosophy, like Pinto 2009, as well as work influenced by linguisitics Korta & Garmendia 2008, work from the perspective of critical discourse analysis Doury 2012  and feminism Rooney 2010. More recent strands include work incorporating game theory Castelfranchi & Paglieri 2010, Bayesian models of reasoning Zenker 2012 and cognitive science Olmos & Vega 2011.
Introductions By far the most comprehensive introduction to contemporary argumentation theory is van Eemeren et al 1996. For an accessible introduction to the pragma-dialectic theory, see van Eemeren et al 2015. Tindale 2007 gives an overview of argumentation from a standpoint that blends rhetoric and philosophy. Walton et al 2008 presents a model of argumentation based on classificatory schemes that deeply integrates insights from computational modeling. The aforementioned Govier 1991 remains a standard introduction to argumentation theory from the perspective of informal logic.
Related categories

633 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 633
  1. added 2020-05-16
    Lingering Stereotypes: Salience Bias in Philosophical Argument.Eugen Fischer & Paul E. Engelhardt - forthcoming - Mind and Language.
    Many philosophical thought experiments and arguments involve unusual cases. We present empirical reasons to doubt the reliability of intuitive judgments and conclusions about such cases. Inferences and intuitions prompted by verbal case descriptions are influenced by routine comprehension processes which invoke stereotypes. We build on psycholinguistic findings to determine conditions under which the stereotype associated with the most salient sense of a word predictably supports inappropriate inferences from descriptions of unusual (stereotype-divergent) cases. We conduct an experiment that combines plausibility ratings (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2. added 2020-05-10
    A Cohen & M Dascal (eds), 'The Institution of Philosophy'. [REVIEW]Sergio Volodia Marcello Cremaschi - 1994 - Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 86 (3):609-613.
    A review of a collection of essays one meta-philosophy by fifteen philosophers, including Rorty, Castañeda and Putnam. It is a stimulating collection, useful reading for those who want to go beyond the caricatures of today's philosophy in America, for those interested in the discussion on the origins of the split between continental philosophy and Anglo-American philosophy and for the philosopher who does not disdain a moment of "self-consciousness". The editors, both teaching at Tel-Aviv University, have proved able to manage this (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. added 2020-05-08
    „Demokracja o niskiej jakości” (low-quality democracy) – zasadność stosowania pojęcia i Horowitzowska egzemplifikacja na przykładzie Indonezji.Krzysztof Trzcinski - 2016 - Studia Polityczne 44 (4/2016):167-189.
    ‘Low-Quality Democracy’ - The Validity of the Notion and D.L. Horowitz’s Exemplification: The Case of Indonesia. This article discusses problems relating to terms used to define former authoritarian states, which are already called democratic, although some undemocratic features still characterize them. The latest English language literature on political science relating to this subject uses three terms that seem similar in meaning: ‘illiberal democracy,’ ‘flawed democracy,’ and ‘low-quality democracy.’ They have not been conceptualized so far. This means that there has been (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4. added 2020-05-08
    Co łączy i dzieli communal conflict oraz „konflikt etniczny”? Analiza znaczeniowa obu terminów i ich nigeryjska egzemplifikacja.Krzysztof Trzcinski - 2015 - Afryka 42:11-30.
    Krzysztof Trzciński, Co łączy i dzieli communal conflict oraz „konflikt etniczny”? Analiza znaczeniowa obu terminów i ich nigeryjska egzemplifikacja, "Afryka" 2015, 42, s. 11-30. Artykuł traktuje o sensie terminów "communal conflict" oraz "konflikt etniczny". Jego celami są: wyjaśnienie, jak najczęściej rozumiane są w literaturze przedmiotu oba terminy oraz zidentyfikowanie ich cech wspólnych i dzielących je różnic. Realizacji wskazanych celów służy nigeryjska egzemplifikacja obu rodzajów konfliktów. This paper deals with the meaning of two terms: 'communal conflict' and 'ethnic conflict.' It has (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5. added 2020-05-08
    Czym jest stabilność polityczna państwa?Krzysztof Trzcinski - 2015 - Przegląd Politologiczny 2:37-47.
    [WHAT IS POLITICAL STABILITY?] Artykuł traktuje o problemie definiowania pojęcia „stabilność polityczna” państwa. Głównym jego celem jest odpowiedź na pytanie, co znaczy stwierdzenie, że dane państwo jest stabilne politycznie. Artykuł składa się z czterech części. W pierwszej wyjaśniany jest leksykalny sens słów: „stabilny”, „stabilność” i „stabilizacja”. W drugiej części analizowane jest rozumienie znaczenia terminu „stabilność polityczna” w piśmiennictwie politologicznym. Trzecia część artykułu poświęcona jest omówieniu kwantytatywnych prób ujmowania sensu pojęcia stabilności politycznej. W zakończeniu podjęta została próba zdefiniowania przedmiotowego terminu polegająca (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6. added 2020-04-15
    On What a Good Argument Is, in Science and Elsewhere.Rainer Ebert - 2011 - Dhaka University Journal on Journalism, Media and Communication Studies 1:17-26.
    This article investigates what constitutes good reason, in particular in scientific communication. I will start out with a general description of what scientists do and will identify the good argument as an integral part of all science. Employing some simple examples, I will then move on to derive some necessary conditions for the goodness of an argument. Along the way, I will introduce various basic concepts in logic and briefly talk about the nature of human knowledge. I will conclude by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. added 2020-04-14
    The Material Theory of Induction and the Epistemology of Thought Experiments.Michael T. Stuart - forthcoming - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A.
    John D. Norton is responsible for a number of influential views in contemporary philosophy of science. This paper will discuss two of them. The material theory of induction claims that inductive arguments are ultimately justified by their material features, not their formal features. Thus, while a deductive argument can be valid irrespective of the content of the propositions that make up the argument, an inductive argument about, say, apples, will be justified (or not) depending on facts about apples. The argument (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. added 2020-04-02
    How Morality Can Be Absent From Moral Arguments.Benjamin De Mesel - 2015 - Argumentation 30 (4):443-463.
    What is a moral argument? A straightforward answer is that a moral argument is an argument dealing with moral issues, such as the permissibility of killing in certain circumstances. I call this the thin sense of ‘moral argument’. Arguments that we find in normative and applied ethics are almost invariably moral in this sense. However, they often fail to be moral in other respects. In this article, I discuss four ways in which morality can be absent from moral arguments in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. added 2020-03-10
    Das Ende vom Problem des methodischen Anfangs: Descartes' antiskeptisches Argument.Hans Rott & Verena Wagner - 2005 - In Gereon Wolters & Martin Carrier (eds.), Homo Sapiens Und Homo Faber. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 133–145.
    Descartes' Meditations do not end up sceptical at all. In fact, the sixth meditation displays an intriguing epistemological optimism. Descartes affirms without reservation that knowledge of the external world is possible. The antisceptical argument at the end of the Meditations is often interpreted as a refutation of dream scepticism, with the conclusion that a person in the waking state can also determine that he or she is awake. We examine the logic of the argument in detail and find that this (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. added 2020-02-23
    On the Limits of Intercultural Argumentation.Guido Melchior - 2006 - In Cultures: Conflict-Analysis-Dialogue. Papers of the 29th International Wittgenstein Symposium. pp. 195-197.
    I argue that intercultural argumentation can only succeed if the same views about rational argumentation dominate in the two cultures. Hence, I will show that the possibilities of successful intercultural argumentation are limited. I will proceed in the following way: First, I will define arguments and argumentation situations. Second, I will investigate the general cases of persons, who in fact are rational in argumentation situations and persons, who believe to be rational. Third, I will illustrate the consequences for both cases. (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. added 2020-01-08
    How to Play the “Playing God” Card.Moti Mizrahi - forthcoming - Science and Engineering Ethics:1-17.
    When the phrase “playing God” is used in debates concerning the use of new technologies, such as cloning or genetic engineering, it is usually interpreted as a warning not to interfere with God’s creation or nature. I think that this interpretation of “playing God” arguments as a call to non-interference with nature is too narrow. In this paper, I propose an alternative interpretation of “playing God” arguments. Taking an argumentation theory approach, I provide an argumentation scheme and accompanying critical questions (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. added 2019-11-16
    The Non-Existence of “Inference Claims”.Gilbert Edward Plumer - 2019 - In Bart Garssen, David Godden, Gordon R. Mitchell & Jean H. M. Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sic Sat. pp. 913-918.
    Some believe that all arguments make an implicit “inference claim” that the conclusion is inferable from the premises (e.g., Bermejo-Luque, Grennan, the Groarkes, Hitchcock, Scriven). I try to show that this is confused. An act of arguing arises because an inference can be attributed to us, not a meta-level “inference claim” that would make the argument self-referential and regressive. I develop six (other) possible explanations of the popularity of the doctrine that similarly identify confusions.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. added 2019-11-04
    Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument.Federico Puppo (ed.) - 2019 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    The informal logic movement began as an attempt to develop – and teach – an alternative logic which can account for the real life arguing that surrounds us in our daily lives – in newspapers and the popular media, political and social commentary, advertising, and interpersonal exchange. The movement was rooted in research and discussion in Canada and especially at the University of Windsor, and has become a branch of argumentation theory which intersects with related traditions and approaches (notably formal (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. added 2019-10-29
    Slipping on Slippery Slope Arguments.Roberto Fumagalli - 2020 - Bioethics 34 (4):412-419.
    Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) are used in a wide range of philosophical debates, but are often dismissed as empirically ill-founded and logically fallacious. In particular, leading authors put forward a meta-SSA which points to instances of empirically ill-founded and logically fallacious SSAs and to the alleged existence of a slippery slope leading to such SSAs to demonstrate that people should avoid using SSAs altogether. In this paper, I examine these prominent calls against using SSAs and argue that such calls do (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. added 2019-10-24
    Eudaimonistic Argumentation.Andrew Aberdein - 2020 - In Bart Garssen & Frans van Eemeren (eds.), From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild: A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 97–106.
    Virtue theories have lately enjoyed a modest vogue in the study of argumentation, echoing the success of more far-reaching programmes in ethics and epistemology. Virtue theories of argumentation (VTA) comprise several conceptually distinct projects, including the provision of normative foundations for argument evaluation and a renewed focus on the character of good arguers. Perhaps the boldest of these is the pursuit of the fully satisfying argument, the argument that contributes to human flourishing. This project has an independently developed epistemic analogue: (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. added 2019-09-30
    Emotions, Language and the (Un-)Making of the Social World.Frédéric Minner - 2019 - Emotions and Society 1 (2):215-230.
    What are the motivational bases that help explain the various normative judgements that social agents make, and the normative reasoning they employ? Answering this question leads us to consider the relationships between thoughts and emotions. Emotions will be described as thought-dependent and thought-directing, and as being intimately related to normativity. They are conceived as the grounds that motivate social agents to articulate their reasoning with respect to the values and norms they face and/or share in their social collective. It is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. added 2019-09-16
    Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might.Marc Champagne & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):207-236.
    Some have suggested that images can be arguments. Images can certainly bolster the acceptability of individual premises. We worry, though, that the static nature of images prevents them from ever playing a genuinely argumentative role. To show this, we call attention to a dilemma. The conclusion of a visual argument will either be explicit or implicit. If a visual argument includes its conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise or otherwise the argument will beg the question. If (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. added 2019-09-09
    In the Quagmire of Quibbles: A Dialectical Exploration.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - forthcoming - Synthese:1-18.
    Criticism may degenerate into quibbling or nitpicking. How can discussants keep quibblers under control? In the paper we investigate cases in which a battle about words replaces a discussion of the matters that are actually at issue as well as cases in which a battle about minor objections replaces a discussion of the major issues. We survey some lines of discussion dealing with these situations in profiles of dialogue.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. added 2019-09-09
    Criticism and Justification of Negotiated Compromises.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):91-111.
    The paper focuses on conflicts about an already negotiated compromise, taking as its example a debate in Dutch parliament about the approval of the Paris Agreement on climate change of 2015. It deals with a variety of worries that opponents of approval may advance and the arguments in its defense thus invited. It concludes with a profile of dialogue providing reasonable options for those involved in such a conflict.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  20. added 2019-09-09
    Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Erik Krabbe & Jan Laar - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):329-350.
    Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21. added 2019-09-09
    The Role of Argument in Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):549-567.
    The purpose of this paper is to show the pervasive, though often implicit, role of arguments in negotiation dialogue. This holds even for negotiations that start from a difference of interest such as mere bargaining through offers and counteroffers. But it certainly holds for negotiations that try to settle a difference of opinion on policy issues. It will be demonstrated how a series of offers and counteroffers in a negotiation dialogue contains a reconstructible series of implicit persuasion dialogues. The paper (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22. added 2019-09-09
    Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2016 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 5 (3):315-347.
    Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfairstrategiesvis-à-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  23. added 2019-09-09
    One-Sided Arguments.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2007 - Synthese 154 (2):307-327.
    When is an argument to be called one-sided? When is putting forward such an argument fallacious? How can we develop a model for critical discussion, such that a fallaciously one-sided argument corresponds to a violation of a discussion rule? These issues are dealt with within ‘the limits of the dialogue model of argument’ by specifying a type of persuasion dialogue in which an arguer can offer complex arguments to anticipate particular responses by a critic.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  24. added 2019-08-29
    Reasons: A Digital Argument Mapping Library for Modern Browsers.Dave Kinkead, Deborah Brown, Peter Ellerton & Claudio Mazzola - 2019 - Journal of Open Source Software 4 (37):1044.
    Reasons.js is an open-source, loosely-coupled, web-based argument mapping library that can be integrated into a range of online coursewares and websites. The javascript library can be embedded into any HTML page and allows users to create, edit, share, and export argument maps . The API is designed to permit the integration of the three stages of informal logical analysis — identification of truth claims within arguments, the analysis of logical structure, and synthesis of logical structure into written form.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. added 2019-08-22
    Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. added 2019-08-22
    Strength of Justification – The Rational Degree of Certainty Approach.Christoph Lumer - 2018 - In Steve Oswald (ed.), Argumentation and Inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017. London, GB: College Publications. pp. 315-333.
    In this paper, I present the fundamental ideas of a new theory of justification strength. This theory is based on the epistemological approach to argumentation. Even the thesis of a valid justification can be false for various reasons. The theory outlined here identifies such possible errors. Justification strength is equated with the degree to which such possible errors are excluded. The natural expression of this kind of justification strength is the (rational) degree of certainty of the belief in the thesis.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. added 2019-08-22
    Probabilistic Arguments in the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2011 - In Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rozenberg; Sic Sat. pp. 1141-1154.
    The aim of the paper is to develop general criteria of argumentative validity and adequacy for probabilistic arguments on the basis of the epistemological approach to argumentation. In this approach, as in most other approaches to argumentation, proabilistic arguments have been neglected somewhat. Nonetheless, criteria for several special types of probabilistic arguments have been developed, in particular by Richard Feldman and Christoph Lumer. In the first part (sects. 2-5) the epistemological basis of probabilistic arguments is discussed. With regard to the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  28. added 2019-08-22
    The Epistemological Theory of Argument--How and Why?Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):213-243.
    The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. After introducing some central terms of such a theory (2), answers to its central questions are proposed: the primary object and structure of the theory (3), the function of arguments, which is to lead to justified belief (4), the way such arguments function, which is to guide the addressee's cognizing (5), objective versus subjective aspects of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  29. added 2019-08-22
    Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theoretische Grundlagen, praktische Begründung und Regeln wichtiger Argumentationsarten.Christoph Lumer - 1990 - Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg.
    Das spezifische Ziel von Argumentationen ist nicht einfach, den Adressaten etwas glauben zu machen - dies wäre bloße Rhetorik ﷓, sondern: den Adressaten beim Erkennen der Akzeptabilität (insbesondere der Wahrheit) der These anzuleiten und ihn so zu begründetem Glauben, zu Erkenntnis zu führen. Argumentationen leiten das Erkennen an, indem sie in ihren Argumenten hinreichende Akzeptabilitätsbedingungen der These als erfüllt beurteilen und so den Adressaten implizit auffordern, diese Bedingungen zu überprüfen. Argumentationen sind gültig, wenn sie prinzipiell das Erkennen anleiten können; d. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  30. added 2019-08-01
    ¿Qué es un buen argumento?Carlos Pereda - 1996 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 11 (1):7-20.
    Las preguntas importantes, o que parecen importantes, no tienen por qué tener respuestas importantes, incluso no tienen por qué tener respuestas. Me propongo explorar qué respuestas, importantes o no importantes, puede recibir, si es que puede recibir alguna respuesta, la importante pregunta “¿qué es un buen argumento?”.Important questions, or questions that seem important, need not have important answers, moreover, they need not have answers at all. I propose to explore what answers, whether important or not, we could obtain, if some (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. added 2019-06-06
    Against Adversarial Discussion.Maarten Steenhagen - 2016 - Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 22 (1):87-112.
    Why did R.G. Collingwood come to reject the adversarial style of philosophical discussion so popular among his Oxford peers? The main aim of this paper is to explain that Collingwood came to reject his colleagues’ specific style of philosophical dialogue on methodological grounds, and to show how the argument against adversarial philosophical discussion is integrated with Collingwood’s overall criticism of realist philosophy. His argument exploits a connection between method and practice that should be taken seriously even today.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. added 2019-06-06
    The Virtues of Argumentation from an Amoral Analyst’s Perspective.Marianne Doury - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (4):486-509.
    Many French-speaking approaches to argumentation are deeply rooted in a linguistic background. Hence, they “naturally” tend to adopt a descriptive stance on argumentation. This is why the issue of “the virtues of argumentation”—and, specifically, the question of what makes an argument virtuous—is not central to them. The argumentative norms issue nevertheless can-not be discarded, as it obviously is crucial to arguers themselves: the latter often behave as if they were invested with some kind of argumentative policing duty when involved in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  33. added 2019-06-06
    The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics.Frans H. vanEemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2007 - Radical Philosophy Review of Books 15 (1):161-177.
    In the study of argumentation there is a sharp and ideological separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches, which needs to be remedied. The authors show how the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation can be instrumental in bridging the gap. By adopting a research programme that involves engaging in 'normative pragmatics', not only the critical normative and the empirical descriptive dimensions of the study of argumentation can be brought together, but also the dialectical and the rhetorical perspectives. In the research programme, which (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  34. added 2019-06-06
    A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  35. added 2019-06-06
    Review of “Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis“ by Van Eemeren, Frans H. And Houtlosser, Peter. [REVIEW]Alan Gross - 2003 - Pragmatics and Cognition 11 (2):386-390.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. added 2019-06-06
    The Poetic Syllogism According to Al-FārĀBĪ: An Incorrect Syllogism of the Second Figure: Maroun Aouad Et Gregor Schoeler.Maroun Aouad - 2002 - Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 12 (2):185-196.
    It is well-known that the Arab philosophers of the Aristotelian tradition, like some of their Alexandrian predecessors, attached rhetoric and poetics to logic, and supported this inclusion by the idea that the principal poetic procedure - that is, essentially, metaphor - is a kind of syllogism: the poetic syllogism. However, until now, no texts prior to those of Avicenna had been identified which render the structure of this syllogism explicit. In the present contribution, we present and translate a passage from (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  37. added 2019-06-06
    Ethotic Arguments and Fallacies: The Credibility Function in Multi-Agent Dialogue Systems.Douglas N. Walton - 1999 - Pragmatics and Cognition 7 (1):177-203.
    In this paper, it is shown how formal dialectic can be extended to model multi-agent argumentation in which each participant is an agent. An agent is viewed as a participant in a dialogue who not only has goals, and the capability for actions, but who also has stable characteristics of types that can be relevant to an assessment of some of her arguments used in that dialogue. When agents engage in argumentation in dialogues, each agent has a credibility function that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  38. added 2019-06-06
    Look, Ma! No Frans!Michael J. Wreen - 1994 - Pragmatics and Cognition 2 (2):285-306.
    This paper criticizes the pragma-dialectical conception of a fallacy, according to which a fallacy is an argumentative speech act which violates one or more of the rules of 'rational discussion'. That conception is found to be neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for committing a fallacy. It is also found wanting in several other respects.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  39. added 2019-06-06
    Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument. [REVIEW]A. F. M. - 1980 - Review of Metaphysics 34 (1):143-144.
    A collection of eighteen papers, all but three previously published, the earliest in 1952 and the latest in 1973. Johnstone’s views are well known among metaphilosophers and philosophers of rhetoric, but they deserve wider dissemination because of their greater relevance indicated below.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. added 2019-06-06
    Aristotle’s Concept of Dialectic. [REVIEW]G. L. J. - 1978 - Review of Metaphysics 32 (2):353-354.
    The aim of this study is to understand the place of Aristotle’s dialectic in his overall theory of intellectual activity. On the way to this goal, the reader is treated to a novel and exciting interpretation of the nature of dialectic. Evans argues that Aristotelian dialectic is a method for progressing from what is intelligible to some group of discussants to what is intelligible without qualification. Evans goes behind this distinction to discover how dialectic can be, as Aristotle claims, the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. added 2019-06-06
    On Philosophical Form: A Tear for Adonais.Louis H. Mackey - 1967 - Thought: Fordham University Quarterly 42 (2):238-260.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. added 2019-06-05
    Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Still Weak: A Reply to Seidel.Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):238-252.
    In this paper, I reply to Seidel’s objections against my argument from expert performance to the effect that arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. I clarify what Seidel takes to be unclear points in my argument and show that it withstands Seidel’s objections.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  43. added 2019-06-05
    Studying Rhetorical Audiences – a Call for Qualitative Reception Studies in Argumentation and Rhetoric.Jens Elmelund Kjeldsen - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):136-158.
    In rhetoric and argumentation research studies of empirical audiences are rare. Most studies are speaker- or text focussed. However, new media and new forms of communication make it harder to distinguish between speaker and audience. The active involvement of users and audiences is more important than ever before. Therefore, this paper argues that rhetorical research should reconsider the understanding, conceptualization and examination of the rhetorical audience. From mostly understanding audiences as theoretical constructions that are examined textually and speculatively, we should (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. added 2019-06-05
    Criticism Without Fundamental Principles.Eugen Octav Popa - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):192-216.
    In this paper I develop and defend a form of argumentative normativity that is not based on fundamental principles. I first argue that research agendas that aim to discover fundamental principles of ‘good’ argumentative discourse share one crucial weak spot, viz. circularity. I then argue that this weak spot can be avoided in a pancritical view of normativity.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  45. added 2019-06-05
    Employing and Exploiting the Presumptions of Communication in Argumentation: An Application of Normative Pragmatics.Scott Jacobs - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):159-191.
    Argumentation occurs through and as communicative activity. Communication is organized by pragmatic principles of expression and interpretation. Grice’s theory of conversational implicature provides a model for how people use rational principles to manage the ways in which they reason to representations of arguments, and not just reason from those representations. These principles are systematic biases that make possible reasonable decision-making and intersubjective understandings in the first place; but they also make possible all manner of errors and abuses. Much of what (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. added 2019-06-05
    Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments.Patrick Bondy - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (4):450-466.
    Argumentation theorists are beginning to think of ad hominem arguments as generally legitimate. Virtue argumentation theorists argue that a character trait approach to argument appraisal can explain why ad hominems would are legitimate, when they are legitimate. But I argue that we do not need to appeal to virtue argumentation theory to explain the legitimacy of ad hominem arguments; a more straightforward evidentialist approach to argument appraisal is also committed to their legitimacy. I also argue that virtue argumentation theory faces (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  47. added 2019-06-05
    Inside Arguments: Logic And The Study of Argumentation.Henrique Jales Ribeiro (ed.) - 2012 - Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
    This volume includes a collection of eighteen essays that provide a decisive input to the study of logic and argumentation theory by some of the finest specialists in these areas, covering the main schools of thought and contemporary trends at the beginning of the 21st century. In these essays, the authors clarify the status of what we currently call, ambiguously and problematically, “logic” and “argumentation theory”, and discuss the no less controversial issue of the relationship between these two concepts when (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48. added 2019-06-05
    Strategic Maneuvering Through Shifting Ideographs in Political Discourse.Pamela Pietrucci - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (3):291-311.
    Politicians often need to appeal to a composite audience characterized by heterogeneous values and beliefs. In order to do so, they turn to techniques of ambiguity that make their positions seem broadly applicable. This essay is an analysis of the rhetorical strategy employed by Silvio Berlusconi in his first Liberation Day speech, which illustrates an example of strategic maneuvering through shifting ideographs in political discourse, a rhetor’s persuasion technique that succeeded in manufacturing consent across an ideologically polarized audience. Strategically shifting (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. added 2019-05-13
    The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato and Their SuccessorsRobert Wardy Issues in Ancient Philosophy New York: Routledge, 1996, Viii + 197 Pp., $76.95. [REVIEW]Eugenio Benitez - 1999 - Dialogue 38 (4):901-904.
  50. added 2019-05-12
    Persuasion and Argument in the Malthus-Ricardo Correspondence.Sergio Volodia Marcello Cremaschi & Marcelo Dascal - 1998 - In Warren J. Samuels & Jeff E. Biddle (eds.), Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology. Volume 16. Stamford, Conn, USA: pp. 1-63.
    We reconstruct the text, that is, we analyse the development of the discussion between Malthus and Ricardo both in the correspondence and in published works, paying special attention to (a) the use of methodological statements, (b) some pragmatic features of the controversy, (c) considerations pertaining to the meta-level of the controversy (assessments of the status of the controversy, of ways of solving it, etc.); then, we reconstruct the co-text, that is, unpublished papers by each opponent that were not made available (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
1 — 50 / 633