Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • 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 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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 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  
  • 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   5 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  
  • Commentary on “Where is the Reasonable?”.Jean Goodwin - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Normative Argumentation Theory Without Fundamental Principles.Popa Eugen Octav - unknown
    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.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Norms of Legitimate Dissensus.Christian Kock - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (2):179-196.
    The paper calls for argumentation theory to learn from moral and political philosophy. Several thinkers in these fields help understand the occurrence of what we may call legitimate dissensus: enduring disagreement even between reasonable people arguing reasonably. It inevitably occurs over practical issues, e.g., issues of action rather than truth, because there will normally be legitimate arguments on both sides, and these will be incommensurable, i.e., they cannot be objectively weighed against each other. Accordingly, ‘inference,’ ‘validity,’ and ‘sufficiency’ are inapplicable (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):27-58.
    We shall investigate the similarities and dissimilarities between old and new dialectic. For the ‘old dialectic’, we base our survey mainly on Aristotle’s Topics and Sophistical Refutations, whereas for the ‘new dialectic’, we turn to contemporary views on dialogical interaction, such as can, for the greater part, be found in Walton’s The New Dialectic. Three issues are taken up: types of dialogue, fallacies, and strategies. Though one should not belittle the differences in scope and outlook that obtain between the old (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments.H. M. Wagemans Jean - unknown
    The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Economic Reasoning and Fallacy of Composition: Pursuing a Woods-Walton Thesis.A. Finocchiaro Maurice - unknown
    Woods and Walton deserve credit for including a discussion of “economic reasoning” and its susceptibility to the “fallacy of composition.” Unfortunately, they did not sufficiently pursue the topic, and argumentation scholars have apparently ignored their pioneering effort. Yet, obviously, economic argumentation is extremely important, and economists constantly harp on this fallacy. This paper calls attention to this problem, elaborating my own approach, which is empirical, historical, and meta-argumentational.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Truth and Argument Evaluation.Patrick Bondy - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):142-158.
    The aim of this paper is to defend the claim that arguments are truth-directed, and to discuss the role that truth plays in the evaluation of arguments that are truth-directed. It concludes that the proper place of truth is in the metatheory in terms of which a theory of evaluation is to be worked out, rather than in the theory of evaluation itself as a constraint on premise adequacy.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguing or Reasoning? Argumentation in Rhetorical Context.Manfred Kraus - unknown
    If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, since rhetoric is not a dialogically structured activity. If special norms apply to the ‘solo’ performances of rhetoric, the orator’s activity may be more appropriately described as reasoning than as arguing. By analyzing in what respect rhetorical texts can be interpreted as dialogue-based and subject to criteria of Informal Logic, the virtues of rhetorical argumentation in contrast to logic and dialectic emerge.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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   12 citations  
  • 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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Conspiracy and Bias: Argumentative Features and Persuasiveness of Conspiracy Theories.Oswald Steve - unknown
    This paper deals with the argumentative biases Conspiracy Theories typically suffer from and pursues two goals: the identification of recurring argumentative and rhetorical features of conspiracy theories, which translates into an attempt to elaborate their argumentative profile ; the elaboration of a cognitively-grounded account of CTs in terms of their persuasiveness. To fulfil goal, I examine online instances of different cases of CTs. Building on the general rhetorical features of CTs identified by Byford, I elaborate a first argumentative profile surveying (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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   1 citation  
  • Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of Hypocrisy.Scott F. Aikin - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):155-169.
    Though textbook tu quoque arguments are fallacies of relevance, many versions of arguments from hypocrisy are indirectly relevant to the issue. Some arguments from hypocrisy are challenges to the authority of a speaker on the basis of either her sincerity or competency regarding the issue. Other arguments from hypocrisy purport to be evidence of the impracticability of the opponent’s proposals. Further, some versions of hypocrisy charges from impracticability are open to a counter that I will term tu quoque judo.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 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 (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • 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.
  • ‘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  
  • 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  
  • Commentary on Tseronis.Robert H. Ennis - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • Arguing by Apostrophizing.Beth Innocenti & Manfred Kraus - unknown
    I submit that arguers may use apostrophe to pressure reluctant auditors to adhere to norms of argumentation, and illustrate with the exemplary case of Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 speech at Cooper Union. Lincoln uses apostrophe to manifest the norm of tenta-tively considering a reasonable case and to discharge his obligation to adhere to the norm; and in doing so pressures auditors to adhere to it.
    Direct download (2 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   7 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  
  • 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
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Frans H. Van Eemeren (2012): Maniobras Estratégicas En El Discurso Argumentativo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas & Editorial Plaza y Valdés (Series “Theoria Cum Praxi”, No. 9). Spanish Translation, by Cristián Santibáñez and María Elena Molina, Of: Frans H. Van Eemeren (2010): Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam (Series “Argumentation in Context”, No. 2). [REVIEW]Fernando Leal - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):129-132.
    Each one of the five books authored or co-authored by Frans van Eemeren which have so far been translated into Spanish clearly fulfills a different role. Following the chronological order, we first have Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984; Spanish translation 2013), a book that contains the theoretical spadework in the field of pragmatics on which the whole edifice of pragma-dialectics is erected. Then follows Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992; Spanish translation 2002, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Foundations for Nothing and Facts for Free?Frank Zenker & Fred Kauffeld - unknown
    According to Michael Rescorla’s recent defense of dialectical egalitarianism reasoned discourse lacks a foundational structure, but saves the foundational intuition that some propositions are basic. On this view, I may select the reasons forwarded in support of a claim according to their being accepted by particular communities/audiences. I discuss the epistemic risk of doing so, and clarify if Rescorla’s is an epistemic approach in disguise.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Suspicion as an Argumentative Move: Semantic Analysis of a Pivotal Concept in Banks ’Anti-Money Launderingargumentative Activities‘.Rudi Palmieri & Eddo Rigotti - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (3):287-321.
    In order to comply with Anti-Money Laundering laws, financial intermediaries are being engaged with unprecedented communicative activities, mainly oriented at detecting suspicious activities which must be reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit. The polysemous notion of ‘suspicion’ is pivotal to these communicative activities and needs to be clarified in order to establish to what extent argumentation is involved in their fulfillment. To this purpose, we apply the method of semantic analysis developed within Congruity Theory bringing to light the different semantic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Where is the Reasonable? Objectivity and Bias of Practical Argument.Lewinski Marcin - unknown
    The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Consideraciones en torno a la pragma-dialéctica.Jhon Biro & Harvey Siegel - 2015 - Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura 24 (2):193-201.
    El presente trabajo complemenJa las referencias a la lengua aut6ctona de los día­ guitas chilenos, en la encrucijada histórica de la conquista hispana en el siglo Xlll , cuya primera parte se publicó en WGOS N 2 l.En este número conJrastamos las hipó­ tesis de don Ricardo Latcham con la crftica de don Jorge /ribarren; se ofrece, aderruís, un suscinJo panorama de la situación lingüística en el noroeste argenJino, y las anota­ ciones espedficamenJe lingüísticas sobre el "cacán" de Antonio Tovar, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Hominem Fallacy.David Hitchcock - 2006 - In F. H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Haft-van Rees & A. M. (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. L. Erlbaum Associates. pp. 103.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • More About Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of Tu Quoque.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - unknown
  • Conflict and Consultation: Strategic Manoeuvring in Response to an Antibiotic Request.Nanon Labrie & Douglas Walton - unknown
    In recent years, the model of shared decision-making has become increasingly promoted as the preferred standard in doctor-patient communication. As the model considers doctor and patient as coe-qual partners that negotiate their preferred treatment options in order to reach a shared decision, shared de-cision-making notably leaves room for the usage of argumentation in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of argumentative conflict in consultation is the discussion that emerges between doctors and their patients concerning antibiotics as a method (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “Please, Don’T Let Me Be Misunderstood”: The Role of Argumentation in a Sociology of Academic Misunderstandings.Yves Gingras - 2007 - Social Epistemology 21 (4):369 – 389.
    Academic debates are so frequent and omnipresent in most disciplines, particularly the social sciences and humanities, it seems obvious that disagreements are bound to occur. The aim of this paper is to show that whereas the agent who perceives his/her contribution as being misunderstood locates the origin of the communication problem on the side of the receiver who "misinterprets" the text, the emitter is in fact also contributing to the possibility of this misunderstanding through the very manner in which his/her (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations