Switch to: References

Citations of:

Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge

State University of New York Press (1977)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Experimenters' Regress: From Skepticism to Argumentation.Benoı̂t Godin & Yves Gingras - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):133-148.
    Harry Collins' central argument about experimental practice revolves around the thesis that facts can only be generated by good instruments but good instruments can only be recognized as such if they produce facts. This is what Collins calls the experimenters' regress. For Collins, scientific controversies cannot be closed by the ‘facts’ themselves because there are no formal criteria independent of the outcome of the experiment that scientists can apply to decide whether an experimental apparatus works properly or not.No one seems (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • On Presumptions, Burdens of Proof, and Explanations.Petar Bodlović - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (2):255-294.
    On the standard view, all presumptions share the same deontic function: they asymmetrically allocate the burden of proof. But what, exactly, does this function amount to? Once presumptions are rejected, do they place the burden of arguing, the burden of explanation, or the most general burden of reasoning on their opponents? In this paper, I take into account the differences between cognitive and practical presumptions and argue that the standard accounts of deontic function are at least ambiguous, and likely implausible. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Deliberación e identidad colectiva. Usos compromisorios, directivos y expresivos de la argumentación.Hubert Marraud - 2020 - Co-herencia 17 (32):67-95.
    La concepción predominante de la argumentación sigue privilegiando la dimensión representacional del lenguaje y, en consecuencia, ignora o infravalora las funciones compromisorias, directivas o expresivas de la argumentación. En este artículo examino los usos de la argumentación en la esfera pública -con especial atención a la deliberación y a la negociación- para poner de manifiesto y reivindicar la importancia de las funciones no persuasivas de la argumentación, entre las que se destaca la construcción y moldeado de identidades sociales.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    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  
  • Cognitive Values, Theory Choice, and Pluralism: On the Grounds and Implications of Philosophical Diversity.Guy Stanwood Axtell - 1991 - Dissertation, University of Hawai'i
    This dissertation focuses on the development of a pragmatic account of normative discourse. The approach taken to the subject of study is metaphilosophical. Prevalent contemporary treatments of norm governance and cognitive evaluation, are examined in light of background metaphilosophical views adopted by such schools as logical empiricism, pragmatism, and schools associated with contemporary sociology of scientific knowledge. I examine metaphilosophical assumptions that pre-structure treatment of conceptual issues such as belief-modification, theory choice, and explanation, pursuing these issues across a wide range (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability.Corina Andone - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):59-78.
    In this paper, the author examines the burden of proof in the argu- mentative confrontations taking part in practices of political accountability. She does so by explaining how politicians maneuver strategically with the burden of proof in an attempt at winning the discussion in which they are involved. After making clear the role of the burden of proof in defining the difference of opinion in argumentative confrontations, the author outlines the constraints imposed by practices of political accountability on the burden (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton's Theory of Criticism.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):221-230.
    In his theory of criticism, D. N. Walton presupposes that an opponent either critically questions an argument, without supplementing this questioning with any reasoning of her own, or that she puts forward a critical question and supplements it with a counterargument, that is, with reasoning in defense of an opposite position of her own. In this paper, I show that there is a kind of in-between critical option for the opponent that needs to be taken into account in any classification (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Parmenides as Secret Hero. Gregor Betz’s Theorie Dialektischer Strukturen : Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt Am Main, 2010, 292 Pp, ISBN: 978-3-465-03629-6, EUR 49.00.Frank Zenker - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):513-525.
    Parmenides as Secret Hero. Gregor Betz’s Theorie Dialektischer Strukturen (Theory of Dialectical Structures) Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-13 DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9213-z Authors Frank Zenker, Department of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Lund University, Kungshuset, Lundagård, 222 22 Lund, Sweden Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Implicatures and Hierarchies of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (University of Windsor, ON 18-21 May 2011). OSSA. pp. 1-17.
    Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Emerging Infectious Diseases: Coping with Uncertainty. [REVIEW]Louise Cummings - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):171-188.
    The world’s scientific community must be in a state of constant readiness to address the threat posed by newly emerging infectious diseases. Whether the disease in question is SARS in humans or BSE in animals, scientists must be able to put into action various disease containment measures when everything from the causative pathogen to route(s) of transmission is essentially uncertain. A robust epistemic framework, which will inform decision-making, is required under such conditions of uncertainty. I will argue that this framework (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
    This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator’s role in legal procedures. The main feature of the model is a division into an argumentation phase, where the adversaries plea their case and the adjudicator has a largely mediating role, and a decision phase, where the adjudicator decides the dispute on (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • 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  
  • Controversy Spaces: The Dialectical Nature of Change in the Sciences and Philosophy.Oscar Nudler - 2011 - In Controversy Spaces: A Model of Scientific and Philosophical Change. John Benjamins. pp. 10--9.
    The paper outlines the model of controversy spaces. The model of controversy spaces integrates two different elements of the dialectical tradition. On the one hand, dialectics in its ancient meaning: the practice of controversial dialogue. On the other hand, the model incorporates dialectics understood as a pattern of change in intellectual history, based on the confrontation between opposite standpoints. I will be argued in this paper, the dialectical tradition was almost completely left aside in modernity and substituted by a monolectic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Thought Experiments: State of the Art.Michael T. Stuart, Yiftach Fehige & James R. Brown - 2018 - In Michael T. Stuart, Yiftach J. H. Fehige & James Robert Brown (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments. London, UK: Routledge. pp. 1-28.
    This is the introduction to the Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Analogical Reasoning in Public Health.Louise Cummings - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (2):169-197.
    Analogical reasoning is a valuable logical resource in a public health context. It is used extensively by public health scientists in risk assessments of new technologies, environmental hazards and infectious diseases. For its part, the public also avails of analogical reasoning when it assesses a range of public health problems. In this article, some of these uses of analogical reasoning in public health are examined. Analogical arguments have courted approval and disapproval in roughly equal measure by a long succession of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2015 - In Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer International Publishing.
  • Commentary on Blair.James B. Freeman - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness.Imran Aijaz, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):259-282.
    How is the burden of proof to be distributed among individuals who are involved in resolving a particular issue? Under what conditions should the burden of proof be distributed unevenly? We distinguish attitudinal from dialectical burdens and argue that these questions should be answered differently, depending on which is in play. One has an attitudinal burden with respect to some proposition when one is required to possess sufficient evidence for it. One has a dialectical burden with respect to some proposition (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
    Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   52 citations  
  • Defeasible Conditionalization.Paul D. Thorn - 2014 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (2-3):283-302.
    The applicability of Bayesian conditionalization in setting one’s posterior probability for a proposition, α, is limited to cases where the value of a corresponding prior probability, PPRI(α|∧E), is available, where ∧E represents one’s complete body of evidence. In order to extend probability updating to cases where the prior probabilities needed for Bayesian conditionalization are unavailable, I introduce an inference schema, defeasible conditionalization, which allows one to update one’s personal probability in a proposition by conditioning on a proposition that represents a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Commentary on “America Vs. Apple: The Argumentative Function of Metonyms”: Defeasible Rhetoric: Networks, Security, & Metonyms.G. Thomas Goodnight - unknown
    The government took Apple to court to demand decryption of a terrorist cell phone. The warrant issued rested on the assumption that law enforcement should be able to do its work through extension of “access” across the population of encrypted iphones. Each phone exists as a defeasible site whose cooperation is assumed to be opened by the the manufacturer if directed to do so by government, unless cause can be shown otherwise. Defeasible argument couples rhetorically with metonymic force as a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Pinto's Argument, Inferences and Dialectic.Mark Weinstein - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (2).
  • The “Logic” of Informal Logic.J. Anthony Blair - unknown
    Are there any logical norms for argument evaluation besides soundness and inductive strength? The paper will look at several concepts or models introduced over the years, including those of Wisdom, Toulmin, Wellman, Rescher, defeasible reasoning proponents and Walton to consider whether there is common ground among them that supplies an alternative to deductive validity and inductive strength.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Commentary on Ralph H. Johnson’s “On Distinguishing Between an Objection and a Criticism”.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Analogy Argumentation in Law: A Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW]Harm Kloosterhuis - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):173-187.
    In this paper I investigate the similarities betweenthe dialectical procedure in the pragma-dialecticaltheory and dialectical procedures in AI and Law. I dothis by focusing on one specific type of reasoning inlaw: analogy argumentation. I will argue that analogyargumentation is not only a heuristic forfinding new premises, but also a part of thejustification of legal decisions. The relevantcriteria for the evaluation of analogy argumentationare not to be found at the logical level of inference,but at the procedural level of the discussion. I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Argumentation and the Force of Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):268-295.
    Argumentation involves offering and/or exchanging reasons – either reasons for adopting various attitudes towards specific propositional contents or else reasons for acting in various ways. This paper develops the idea that the force of reasons is through and through a normative force because what good reasons accomplish is precisely to give one a certain sort of entitlement to do what they are reasons for. The paper attempts to shed light on what it is to have a reason, how the sort (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • The Philosophy of Argument.J. Anthony Blair - unknown
    The paper argues that argument and argumentation deserve philosophical attention but do not receive it, and proposes some explanations. It then asks whether there is a field of philosophy, “philosophy of argument,” that might attract philosophers’ attention. A case is made that such a field exists. However, challenges to that case seriously undermine it. Thus those who want philosophers to pay more attention to argument must find other ways to make their case.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Law, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 2004 - In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 569--588.
  • Making Sense of “Informal Logic”.Ralph H. Johnson - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):231-258.
    This paper is an exercise in intellectual history, an attempt to understand how a specific term—”informal logic”— came to be interpreted in so many different ways. I trace the emergence and development of “informal logic” to help explain the many different meanings, how they emerged and how they are related. This paper is also, to some degree, an account of a movement that developed outside the mainstream of philosophy, whose origins lie in a desire to make logic useful (echoing Dewey).
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Criticism in Need of Clarification.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):401-423.
    It furthers the dialectic when the opponent is clear about what motivates and underlies her critical stance, even if she does not adopt an opposite standpoint, but merely doubts the proponent’s opinion. Thus, there is some kind of burden of criticism. In some situations, there should an obligation for the opponent to offer explanatory counterconsiderations, if requested, whereas in others, there is no real dialectical obligation, but a mere responsibility for the opponent to cooperate by providing her motivations for being (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):233-265.
    This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises. Presumptions in Enthymemes.Fabrizio Macagno & Giovanni Damele - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (3):361-389.
    The implicit dimension of enthymemes is investigated from a pragmatic perspective to show why a premise can be left unexpressed, and how it can be used strategically. The relationship between the implicit act of taking for granted and the pattern of presumptive reasoning is shown to be the cornerstone of kairos and the fallacy of straw man. By taking a proposition for granted, the speaker shifts the burden of proving its un-acceptability onto the hearer. The resemblance of the tacit premise (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Truth About Truth as a Condition of Premise Adequacy.James B. Freeman - unknown
    Is truth a condition of premise adequacy? We may distinguish objective and subjective argument correctness. Objective correctness means true premises rendering the conclusion true or probable. Subjective correctness means acceptable pr emises rendering the conclusion acceptable. Acceptability depends on evidence available and so is internalist. Objective and subjective correctness of the premises is ordinarily distinct. For connection adequacy, objective rightness and subjective righ tness coincide. We recognize entailment or rendering probably a priori. Logic is thus internalist. Logic needs an internalist (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Mapping the Structure of Debate.Jeffrey Yoshimi - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (1):1-22.
    Although debate is a richly structured and prevalent form of discourse, it has received little scholarly attention. Logicians have focused on the structure of individual arguments—how they divide into premises and conclusions, which in turn divide into various constituents. In contrast, I focus on the structure of sets of arguments, showing how arguments are themselves constituents in high-level dialectical structures. I represent debates and positions by graphs whose vertices correspond to arguments and whose edges correspond to two inter-argument relations: “dispute” (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reasoning Under Uncertainty: The Role of Two Informal Fallacies in an Emerging Scientific Inquiry.Louise Cummings - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (2).
    lt is now commonplace in fallacy inquiry for many of the traditional informal fallacies to be viewed as reasonable or nonfallacious modes of argument. Central to this evaluative shift has been the attempt to examine traditional fallacies within their wider contexts of use. However, this pragmatic turn in fallacy evaluation is still in its infancy. The true potential of a contextual approach in the evaluation of the fallacies is yet to be explored. I examine how, in the context of scientific (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 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   10 citations  
  • The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
  • Distortion and Excluded Middles.Jonathan E. Adler - unknown
    Why is there so much distortion in ordinary, political, social, and ethical argument? Since we have a pervasive interest in reasoning well and corresponding abilities, the extent of distortion invites explanation. The leading candidates are the need to economize, widespread, fallacious heuristics or assumptions, and self-defensive biases. I argue that these are not sufficient. An additional force is the intellectual pressure generated by acceptance of norms of conversation and argument, which exclude ‘middles’ of, prominently, neither accept nor reject. I conjecture (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Being a Correct Presumption Vs. Being Presumably the Case.Lilian Bermejo-Luque - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (1):1-25.
    I argue for the distinction between presuming that p and maintaining that presumably p. In order to make sense of this distinction, I defend a non-inferentialist conception of presumptions and offer an account of the correctness conditions for both presumptions and presumptive inferences. I characterize presumptions as a type of constative speech-act having certain semantic correctness conditions. In turn, regarding presumptive inferences, my strategy is to provide the correctness conditions for the use of an epistemic modal such as “presumably.” This (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Argument and Medicine: A Model of Reasoning for Clinical Practice.Kara Gilbert & Gordon Whyte - unknown
    In a doctor-linguist collaboration, a framework of reasoning in clinical contexts is presented. Arguments used for inquiry, justification and persuasion are sketched in diagnosis, counselling, and management settings integral to everyday clinical practice thereby extending the diagnostic function typically associated with clinical reasoning per se. A system of logic, a method of persuasive orientation, and a synthesis of negotiation in dialogue are then elaborated to illustrate the complexity of argument practice in medical culture.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialogues in Argumentation.Von Burg Ron - 2016 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This volume focuses on dialogue and argumentation in contexts which are marked by truculence and discord. The contributors include well known argumentation scholars who discuss the issues this raises from the point of view of a variety of disciplines and points of view. The authors seek to address theoretically challenging issues in a way that is relevant to both the theory and the practice of argument. The collection brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasoning From Paradigms and Negative Evidence.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas N. Walton - 2011 - Pragmatics and Cognition 19 (1):92-116.
    Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Ambiguity in Argument.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.
    The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities . However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Luhmanns Flucht in die Paradoxie.Walter L. Bühl - 2000 - In Peter-Ulrich Merz-Benz & Gerhard Wagner (eds.), Die Logik der Systeme. Universitätsverlag Konstanz. pp. 225--256.
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Account of Warrants in Bermejo-Luque’s Giving Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2011 - Theoria : An International Journal for Theory, History and Fundations of Science 26 (3):311-320.
    This paper highlights the difference between Lilian Bermejo-Luque’s account of warrants with the quite different accounts of warrants offered by Toulmin, Hitchcock, and myself, and lays out some of the reasons why I think a “Toulminesque” account of warrants captures crucial aspects of arguing more adequately than her account does.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Arguments That Take Counterconsiderations Into Account.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):240-275.
    This paper examines arguments that take counter- considerations into account, and it does so from a dialogical point of view. According to my account, a counterconsideration is part of a critical reaction from a real or imagined opponent, and an arguer may take it into account in his argument in at least six fully responsive ways. Conductive arguments will be characterized as one of these types. In this manner, the paper aims to show how conducive, and related kinds of argument (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Johnson`s The Rise of Informal Logic: Essays on Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Politics.David Hitchcock - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (2):269-83.
  • “Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Argument” by James Freeman.Alec Fisher - 1992 - Informal Logic 14 (2):193-204.
  • The CDF Collaboration and Argumentation Theory: The Role of Process in Objective Knowledge.William Rehg & Kent W. Staley - 2008 - Perspectives on Science 16 (1):1-25.
    : For philosophers of science interested in elucidating the social character of science, an important question concerns the manner in which and degree to which the objectivity of scientific knowledge is socially constituted. We address this broad question by focusing specifically on philosophical theories of evidence. To get at the social character of evidence, we take an interdisciplinary approach informed by categories from argumentation studies. We then test these categories by exploring their applicability to a case study from high-energy physics. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations