Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction of Crisis Diary-Writing as a Communicative Activity Type.Iva Svačinová - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (2):237-264.
    This paper concerns the character of argumentation in inner dialogue, i.e. dialogue that an individual keeps to herself in her own mind. The problem of inner dialogue research is the methodological difficulty connected with its externalization. In the text, the activity of crisis diary-writing is suggested as a way of naturally externalizing inner decision-making. By adopting a pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation, the text attempts to characterize crisis diary-writing as an argumentative activity type. The argumentative characterization of crisis diary-writing involves identifying (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory.Lotte van Poppel - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (1):177-208.
    This paper offers a review of the argumentation-theoretical literature on metaphor in argumentative discourse. Two methodologies are combined: the pragma-dialectical theory is used to study the argumentative functions attributed to metaphor, and distinctions made in metaphor theory and the three-dimensional model of metaphor are used to compare the conceptions of metaphor taken as starting point in the reviewed literature. An overview is provided of all types of metaphors distinguished and their possible argumentative functions. The study reveals that not all possible (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Eddo Rigotti and Sara Greco: Inference in Argumentation. A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes: 2019, Springer, Cham.Christophe Geudens - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (3):399-402.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):387-403.
    This paper describes the development of pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentative discourse. First the development of the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is explained, with the rules that are to be complied with in order to avoid fallacies from occurring. Then the integration is discussed of rhetorical insight in the dialectical framework. In this endeavour, the concept of strategic manoeuvring is explained that allows for a more refined and more profoundly justified analysis of argumentative discourse and a better (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • A Pragma-Dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion.Frans H. van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):365-386.
    According to the pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness, in case of a difference of opinion the protagonist and the antagonist of a standpoint should attempt to find out by means of a critical discussion whether the protagonist's standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonist's criticism. In this paper, the authors formulate the latest version of their basic rules for the performance of speech acts in the various stages that can beanalytically distinguished in a critical discussion that can lead to the resolution (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Towards a Theory of Mathematical Argument.Ian J. Dove - 2009 - Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):136-152.
    In this paper, I assume, perhaps controversially, that translation into a language of formal logic is not the method by which mathematicians assess mathematical reasoning. Instead, I argue that the actual practice of analyzing, evaluating and critiquing mathematical reasoning resembles, and perhaps equates with, the practice of informal logic or argumentation theory. It doesn’t matter whether the reasoning is a full-fledged mathematical proof or merely some non-deductive mathematical justification: in either case, the methodology of assessment overlaps to a large extent (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • How to Think About Informal Proofs.Brendan Larvor - 2012 - Synthese 187 (2):715-730.
    It is argued in this study that (i) progress in the philosophy of mathematical practice requires a general positive account of informal proof; (ii) the best candidate is to think of informal proofs as arguments that depend on their matter as well as their logical form; (iii) articulating the dependency of informal inferences on their content requires a redefinition of logic as the general study of inferential actions; (iv) it is a decisive advantage of this conception of logic that it (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • ‘Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization’ in Public Argumentation and Controversies.Marcelo Dascal, Amnon Knoll & Daniel Cohen - unknown
    We describe and analyze an important cognitive obstacle in inter- and intra-community ar-gumentation processes, which we propose to call 'Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization'. This social phenomenon consists in the collective use of shared cognitive patterns based upon dichotomous schemati-zation of knowledge, values, and affection. We discuss the formative role of CSD on a community’s collec-tive cognition, identity, and public discourse, as well as the challenges it raises to reasoned argumentation, and how different approaches to argumentation undertake to face this obstacle to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Informal Logic and the Concept of 'Argument'.Matthew John Pezzaniti - unknown
    In this thesis I present an exploration into the concept of ‘argument’ in informal logic. I have separated the work into three major areas: the historical antecedents to the informal logicians, the Windsor group of informal logicians, and recent developments in informal logic and the concept of ‘argument.’ In doing so I provide insight into the concept of ‘argument’ within informal logic.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Tseronis.Robert H. Ennis - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pragmatics of Deductive Arguments.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
  • 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.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Exploiting the Room for Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Dealing with Audience Demand in the European Parliament.Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garrsen & Robert Thomas Craig - unknown
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialogue Types, Argumentation Schemes, and Mathematical Practice: Douglas Walton and Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein - 2021 - Journal of Applied Logics 8 (1):159-182.
    Douglas Walton’s multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types (§1) and argumentation schemes (§2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Trust, Relevance, and Arguments.Fabio Paglieri & Cristiano Castelfranchi - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):216-236.
    This paper outlines an integrated approach to trust and relevance with respect to arguments: in particular, it is suggested that trust in relevance has a central role in argumentation. We first distinguish two types of argumentative relevance: internal relevance, i.e. the extent to which a premise has a bearing on its purported conclusion, and external relevance, i.e. a measure of how much a whole argument is pertinent to the matter under discussion, in the broader dialogical context where it is proposed. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Choosing Variants of Pragmatic Argumentation in Anticipation of Countermoves in Health Brochures.Lotte van Poppel & Linda Carozza - unknown
    In this paper, I will determine the strategic function of the use of four variants of pragmatic argumentation in the context of advisory health brochures. I argue that each variant functions as a strategic manoeuvre that deals with potential countermoves: with variant I and II writers can address anticipated doubt with respect to the standpoint and with variants III and IV they can strategically erase potential criti-cism or possible alternatives to the proposed action.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Preciseness is a Virtue: What Are Critical Questions?Michael J. Hoppmann - unknown
    The paper compares the uses of “critical question” in recent publications on the topic, contrasting explicit definitions where they exist and reconstructing implicit definitions where possible, and suggests a taxonomy of different “critical questions” as they are used in argumentative evaluation and criticism. In distinguishing different meanings of “critical question” horizontally between authors and vertically within the analysis, it strives to make a contribution to the ongoing work on the systematization of argumentative criticism.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model.Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund & Gerald Niccolai - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):301-329.
    Education and cognition research today generally recognize the tri-dimensional nature of reasoning processes as involving cognitive, social and emotional phenomena. However, there is so far no theoretical framework articulating these three dimensions from a descriptive perspective. This paper aims at presenting a first model of how group emotions work in collective reasoning, and specifies their social and cognitive functions. This model is inspired both from a multidisciplinary literature review and our extensive previous empirical work on an international corpus of videotaped (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
    The introduction of the concept of strategic maneuvering into the pragma-dialectical theory makes it possible to formulate testable hypotheses regarding the persuasiveness of argumentative moves that are made in argumentative discourse. After summarizing the standard pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, van Eemeren, Garssen, and Meuffels explain what the extension of the pragma-dialectical approach with strategic maneuvering involves and discuss the fallacies in terms of the extended pragma-dialectical approach as derailments of strategic maneuvering. Then they give an empirical interpretation of the extended (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Processing Topics From the Beneficial Cognitive Model in Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion Dialogues.Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):325-339.
    A persuasion dialogue is a dialogue in which a conflict between agents with respect to their points of view arises at the beginning of the talk and the agents have the shared, global goal of resolving the conflict and at least one agent has the persuasive aim to convince the other party to accept an opposing point of view. I argue that the persuasive force of argument may have not only extreme values but also intermediate strength. That is, I wish (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Nothing Persuades Like Success: Reflections on Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion. A Reply to Debowska-Kozlowska: Comment To: Processing Topics From the Beneficial Cognitive Model in Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion Dialogues.Fabio Paglieri - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):341-348.
    In this brief commentary of Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska’s insightful analysis of persuasive outcomes (Processing topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in partially and over-successful persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 2014), I articulate some suggestions for future development of her ideas. My main claim is that, while instances of partially and over-successful persuasion are indeed worthy of further theoretical inquiry, the topical analysis proposed by Debowska-Kozlowska may benefit from integration with other approaches.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory.Christof Rapp & Tim Wagner - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):7-30.
    Although he does not provide a general analysis of argumentation, Aristotle is a highly influential source of modern argumentation theory. In his treatises the Topics, the Sophistical Refutations and the Rhetoric, Aristotle presents complementary aspects of a theory of sound arguments that are seen as the most effective means of persuasion. Aristotle’s central notion of a deductive argument (sullogismos) does not include references to an addressee, the situative context or non-verbal aspects of communication, and thus differs from some modern views (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
    Formal dialectic has its roots in ancient dialectic. We can trace this influence in Charles Hamblin’s book on fallacies, in which he introduced his first formal dialectical systems. Earlier, Paul Lorenzen proposed systems of dialogical logic, which were in fact formal dialectical systems avant la lettre, with roles similar to those of the Greek Questioner and Answerer. In order to make a comparison between ancient dialectic and contemporary formal dialectic, I shall formalize part of the Aristotelian procedure for Academic debates. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq.Ahmed Sahlane - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):459-488.
    The present study examined how the pre-war debate of the US decision to invade Iraq (in March 2003) was discursively constructed in the US/British mainstream newspaper opinion/editorial (op/ed) argumentation. Drawing on theoretical insights from critical discourse analysis and argumentation theory, I problematised the fallacious discussion used in the pro-war op/eds to build up a ‘moral/legal case’ for war on Iraq based on adversarial (rather than dialogical) argumentation. The proponents of war deployed ‘instrumental rationality’ (ends-justify-means reasoning), ‘ethical necessity’ (Bush’s ‘Preemption Doctrine’) (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Argumentative Ordering of Utterances for Language Generation in Multi-Party Human–Computer Dialogue.Vladimir Popescu & Jean Caelen - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):205-237.
    In trying to control various aspects concerning utterance production in multi-party human–computer dialogue, argumentative considerations play an important part, particularly in choosing appropriate lexical units so that we fine-tune the degree of persuasion that each utterance has. A preliminary step in this endeavor is the ability to place an ordering relation between semantic forms (that are due to be realized as utterances, by the machine), concerning their persuasion strength, with respect to certain (explicit or implicit) conclusions. Thus, in this article, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Uses of Argument in Communicative Contexts.Robert C. Pinto - 2003 - Argumentation 24 (2):227-252.
    This paper challenges the view that arguments are (by definition, as it were) attempts to persuade or convince an audience to accept (or reject) a point of view by presenting reasons for (or against) that point of view. I maintain, first, that an arguer need not intend any effect beyond that of making it manifest to readers or hearers that there is a reason for doing some particular thing (e.g., for believing a certain proposition, or alternatively for rejecting it), and (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Introduction.Ana Laura Nettel & Georges Roque - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):1-17.
    Introduction Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-17 DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9238-3 Authors Ana Laura Nettel, Law Department, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana—Azcapotzalco (UAM-A), Amsterdam 180-403 Colonia Hipódromo Condesa, 06100 Mexico, DF, Mexico Georges Roque, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), CRAL, EHESS/CNRS, 96 Bd. Raspail, 75006 Paris, France Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Is Unsaying Polite?Berislav Žarnić - 2012 - In Majda Trobok, Nenad Miščević & Berislav Žarnić (eds.), Between Logic and Reality: Modeling Inference, Action and Understanding. Springer. pp. 201--224.
    This paper is divided in five sections. Section 11.1 sketches the history of the distinction between speech act with negative content and negated speech act, and gives a general dynamic interpretation for negated speech act. “Downdate semantics” for AGM contraction is introduced in Section 11.2. Relying on semantically interpreted contraction, Section 11.3 develops the dynamic semantics for constative and directive speech acts, and their external negations. The expressive completeness for the formal variants of natural language utterances, none of which is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Problem of Relevance.John W. Davie - unknown
    My project is a systematic inquiry into the problem of relevance, which has been identified as an enduring difficulty in, for example, informal logic and information science where it plays a fundamental role in argument and information searches, respectively. My first task involves determining exactly what the problem of relevance is. To achieve that, I collected problem statements from the literature but I also analysed literature on relevance to discover further problems. The key problem that I investigate concerns the question, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Analogy, Similarity, and the Periodic Table of Arguments.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):63-75.
    The aim of this paper is to indicate the systematic place of arguments based on the concept of analogy within the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, a new method for describing and classifying arguments that integrates traditional dialectical accounts of arguments and fallacies and rhetorical accounts of the means of persuasion into a comprehensive framework. The paper begins with an inventory of existing approaches to arguments based on analogy, similarity and adjacent concepts. Then, the theoretical framework of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Whataboutisms and Inconsistency.Axel Arturo Barceló Aspeitia - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):433-447.
    Despite being very common in both public and private argumentation, accusations of selective application of general premises, also known as “whataboutisms”, have been mostly overlooked in argumentation studies, where they are, at most, taken as accusations of inconsistency. Here I will defend an account according to which allegations of this sort can express the suspicion that the argumentation put forward by one party does not reflect his or her actual standpoint and reasons. Distinguishing this kind of argumentative moves is important (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialectical Trade-Offs in the Design of Protocols for Comptuer-Mediated Deliberation.Marcin Lewiński - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Schemes of Inference, Conflict, and Preference in a Computational Model of Argument.Floris Bex & Chris Reed - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • “You’Re Moving From Irrelevant to Irrational”—Critical Reactions in Internet Discussion Forums.Marcin Lewinski - unknown
    This paper scrutinizes some peculiarities of the culture of Internet argumentation: it is a qualitative pragma-dialectical study of different strategies arguers employ to question or attack argumentation of their opponents in online political discussion forums. The basic assumption of the paper is that this particular context of argumentation—or: argumentative activity type—creates special opportunities and constraints for critical reactions regarding propositional content and relevance of argumentation. These opportunities and constraints, it is argued, may lead online discussions to being endless, yet not (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the Production of a Multimodal News Item: An Argumentative Approach.Marta Zampa & Marina Bletsas - 2018 - Semiotica 2018 (220):155-172.
    Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 155-172.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Commentary On: Marcin Lewiński’s “‘You’Re Moving From Irrelevant to Irrational’—Critical Reactions in Internet Discussion Forums”.Gilbert Plumer - 2009 - In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA Conference [CD-ROM]. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 1-3.
  • 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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Mediators’ Reframing as a Constitutive Element of a Reconciliatory Argumentative Style.Sara Greco & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Soria - 2021 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 10 (1):73-96.
    This paper shows that reframing of conflict can be considered as a constitutive element of a “reconciliatory argumentative style”, which is typical of dispute mediators, whose aim is to steer parties towards the resolution of their conflict. On the basis of a systematic empirical analysis of mediation cases, we first show that reframing encompasses a change of issue, which may or may not be justified by arguments. Then, we show how it is functional to the three aspects of mediators’ strategic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Implicitness Functions in Family Argumentation.Antonio Bova - 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. Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Andone, C. .Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. [REVIEW]Isabela Ieţcu-Fairclough - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (3):325-332.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Just Following the Rules: Collapse / Incoherence Problems in Ethics, Epistemology, and Argumentation Theory.Patrick Bondy - 2020 - In J. Anthony Blair & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor, ON, Canada: pp. 172-202.
    This essay addresses the collapse/incoherence problem for normative frameworks that contain both fundamental values and rules for promoting those values. The problem is that in some cases, we would bring about more of the fundamental value by violating the framework’s rules than by following them. In such cases, if the framework requires us to follow the rules anyway, then it appears to be incoherent; but if it allows us to make exceptions to the rules, then the framework “collapses” into one (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • ­A Defense of Analogy Inference as Sui Generis.André Lars Joen Juthe - forthcoming - Logic and Logical Philosophy:1.
    Accounts of analogical inference are usually categorized into four broad groups: abductive, deductive, inductive and sui generis. The purpose of this paper is to defend a sui generis model of analogical inference. It focuses on the sui generis account, as developed by Juthe [2005, 2009, 2015, 2016] and Botting’s [2017] criticism of it. This paper uses the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation as the methodological framework for analyzing and reconstructing argumentation. The paper has two main points. First, that Juthe’s arguments against (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What Do Normative Approaches to Argumentation Stand to Gain From Rhetorical Insights?Frank Zenker - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):415-436.
    Rhetorical analyses typically characterize structural, topical, and stylistic features of written or spoken argumentative text, and may also consider the context of interaction as well as the epistemic and social standing of participants as these relate to the goals of gaining, sustaining, and strengthening an audience’s adherence to a thesis or a course of action. Such considerations, broadly conceived, are taken to constitute rhetorical insights, insofar as they bear on effecting audience persuasion or, for that matter, fail to do so. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Denying Antecedents and Affirming Consequents: The State of the Art.David Godden & Frank Zenker - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (1):88-134.
    Recent work on conditional reasoning argues that denying the antecedent [DA] and affirming the consequent [AC] are defeasible but cogent patterns of argument, either because they are effective, rational, albeit heuristic applications of Bayesian probability, or because they are licensed by the principle of total evidence. Against this, we show that on any prevailing interpretation of indicative conditionals the premises of DA and AC arguments do not license their conclusions without additional assumptions. The cogency of DA and AC inferences rather (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Commentary on van Eemeren & Houtlosser.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Monologue, Dilogue or Polylogue: Which Model for Public Deliberation?Marcin Lewinski & J. Anthony Blair - unknown
    “Reasonable hostility” is a norm of communicative conduct initially developed by studying public exchanges in education governance meetings in local U.S. communities. In this paper I consider the norm’s usefulness for and applicability to a U.S. state-level public hearing about a bill to legalize civil unions. Following an explication of reasonable hostility and grounded practical theory, the approach to inquiry that guides my work, I describe Hawaii’s 2009, 18-hour public hearing and analyze selected seg-ments of it. I show that this (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Paradox of Charity.Marcin Lewiński - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (4):403-439.
    The principle of charity is used in philosophy of language and argumentation theory as an important principle of interpretation which credits speakers with “the best” plausible interpretation of their discourse. I contend that the argumentation account, while broadly advocated, misses the basic point of a dialectical conception which approaches argumentation as discussion between two parties who disagree over the issue discussed. Therefore, paradoxically, an analyst who is charitable to one discussion party easily becomes uncharitable to the other. To overcome this (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Topics in Contemporary Legal Argumentation: Some Remarks on the Topical Nature of Legal Argumentation in the Continental Law Tradition.Guenther Kreuzbauer - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):71-85.
    The article discusses topics in the context of contemporary legal argumentation. It starts with a sketch of the development of topics from ancient times until the present day. Here the author focuses on the theory of the German legal philosopher Theodor Viehweg, which was most influential to legal argumentation in the 20th century. Then a modern concept of topics is introduced and finally the author discusses the role of topics in contemporary legal argumentation. In this part the distinction between topoi (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark