Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Normative Theory of Argument Strength.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (1):1-24.
    In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We also provide some evidence based on our recent work on the fallacies as to why Bayesian probability might, in fact, be able to supply such an account. In the remainder of the article we discuss the general characteristics that make a specifically Bayesian approach desirable, and critically evaluate putative flaws of Bayesian probability that have been raised in the argumentation literature.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Fallacy and Argumentational Vice.Andrew Aberdein - 2013 - In Dima Mohammed & Marcin Lewinski (eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 22–25, 2013. OSSA.
    If good argument is virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of fallacies to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through case studies of several fallacies, with particular emphasis on the ad hominem.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Inquiry: A New Paradigm for Critical Thinking.Mark Battersby (ed.) - 2018 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    This volume reflects the development and theoretical foundation of a new paradigm for critical thinking based on inquiry. The field of critical thinking, as manifested in the Informal Logic movement, developed primarily as a response to the inadequacies of formalism to represent actual argumentative practice and to provide useful argumentative skills to students. Because of this, the primary focus of the field has been on informal arguments rather than formal reasoning. Yet the formalist history of the field is still evident (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Is There a Role for Adversariality in Teaching Critical Thinking?Sharon Bailin & Mark Battersby - forthcoming - Topoi:1-11.
    There has been considerable recent debate regarding the possible epistemic benefits versus the potential risks of adversariality in argumentation. Nonetheless, this debate has rarely found its way into work on critical thinking theory and instruction. This paper focuses on the implications of the adversariality debate for teaching critical thinking. Is there a way to incorporate the benefits of adversarial argumentation while mitigating the problems? Our response is an approach based on dialectical inquiry which focuses on a confrontation of opposing views (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Emergent Vs. Dogmatic Arguing.Marco Rühl - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):151-171.
    More than current scholarship in argumentation suggests, successful defense of standpoints depends on learning. As long as arguers comply with a minimum co-operativity, argumentation has genuinely an epistemic interest insofar as any position agreed upon becomes agreeable, i.e., intersubjectively shared because those who did not share it have learned why it is agreeable. Since the epistemic interest of argumentation is absent from most of current scholarship, `intersubjectification' is basically treated as being always possible. In this paper I argue that `intersubjectification' (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reductionism in Fallacy Theory.Christoph Lumer - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (4):405-423.
    (1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and adequate argumentation. Such reductionism has several advantages compared to an unsystematic action, which is quite usual in current fallacy but which at least in part is due to the poor state of positive argumentation theory itself. (2) After defining 'fallacy' (3) some principle ideas and (4) the exact criteria (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Argument Quality and Cultural Difference.Siegel Harvey - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (2):183-201.
    Central to argumentation theory is a concern with normativity. Argumentation theorists are concerned, among other things, with explaining why some arguments are good (or at least better than others) in the sense that a given argument provides reasons for embracing its conclusion which are such that a fair- minded appraisal of the argument yields the judgment that the conclusion ought to be accepted -- is worthy of acceptance -- by all who so appraise it.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation.Lilian Bermejo-Luque - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):85-105.
    I propose a characterization of the dialectical dimension of argumentation by considering the activity of arguing as involving a “second order intersubjectivity”. I argue that argumentative communication enables this kind of intersubjectivity as a matter of the recursive nature of acts of arguing—both as justificatory and as persuasive devices. Calling attention to this feature is a way to underline that argumentative discourses represent the explicit part of a dynamic activity, “a mechanism of rational validation”, as Rescher showed, which is a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Subordinating Truth–Is Acceptability Acceptable?George Boger - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (2):187-238.
    Argumentation logicians have recognized a specter of relativism to haunt their philosophy of argument. However, their attempts to dispel pernicious relativism by invoking notions of a universal audience or a community of model interlocutors have not been entirely successful. In fact, their various discussions of a universal audience invoke the context-eschewing formalism of Kant’s categorical imperative. Moreover, they embrace the Kantian method for resolving the antinomies that continually vacillates between opposing extremes – here between a transcendent universal audience and a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):41-69.
    This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and rationalistic elements (Sect. 3). The problematic philosophical underpinnings of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Rationality, Reasonableness, and Critical Rationalism: Problems with the Pragma-Dialectical View. [REVIEW]Harvey Siegel & John Biro - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (2):191-203.
    A major virtue of the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation is its commitment to reasonableness and rationality as central criteria of argumentative quality. However, the account of these key notions offered by the originators of this theory, Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, seems to us problematic in several respects. In what follows we criticize that account and suggest an alternative, offered elsewhere, that seems to us to be both independently preferable and more in keeping with the epistemic approach to arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Limits of Truth: Exploring Epistemological Approaches to Argumentation.Michael Hg Hoffmann - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):245-260.
    Some proponents of epistemological approaches to argumentation assume that it should be possible to develop non-relative criteria of argument evaluation. By contrast, this paper argues that any evaluation of an argument depends on the cognitive situation of the evaluator, on background knowledge that is available for this evaluator in a certain situation, and --in some cases--on the belief-value-system this person shares.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Probabilistic Arguments in the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2011 - In Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rozenberg; Sic Sat. pp. 1141-1154.
    The aim of the paper is to develop general criteria of argumentative validity and adequacy for probabilistic arguments on the basis of the epistemological approach to argumentation. In this approach, as in most other approaches to argumentation, proabilistic arguments have been neglected somewhat. Nonetheless, criteria for several special types of probabilistic arguments have been developed, in particular by Richard Feldman and Christoph Lumer. In the first part (sects. 2-5) the epistemological basis of probabilistic arguments is discussed. With regard to the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A Abordagem Epistemológica À Argumentação Em Discussão.Rodrigo Freitas Costa Canal - 2016 - Clareira: Revista de Filosofia da Região Amazônica 3 (1):84-111.
    O objetivo deste trabalho é discutir criticamente o empreendimento denominado de Abordagem Epistemológica a Argumentação. De modo a satisfazer minimamente esse objetivo, o artigo introduz algumas distinções conceituais mínimas para se entender o problema da função e do objetivo da argumentação, cuja a solução é disputada pelas três alternativas principais em seu estudo, abordagens essas que apresentamos na seção a seguir desta. Como a abordagem epistemológica é o nervo deste trabalho, argumenta-se que para se compreender minimamente, mas de forma rigorosa, (...)
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is Classical Mathematics Appropriate for Theory of Computation?Farzad Didehvar - manuscript
    Throughout this paper, we are trying to show how and why our Mathematical frame-work seems inappropriate to solve problems in Theory of Computation. More exactly, the concept of turning back in time in paradoxes causes inconsistency in modeling of the concept of Time in some semantic situations. As we see in the first chapter, by introducing a version of “Unexpected Hanging Paradox”,first we attempt to open a new explanation for some paradoxes. In the second step, by applying this paradox, it (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Two Types of Debunking Arguments.Peter Königs - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (3):383-402.
    Debunking arguments are arguments that seek to undermine a belief or doctrine by exposing its causal origins. Two prominent proponents of such arguments are the utilitarians Joshua Greene and Peter Singer. They draw on evidence from moral psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary theory in an effort to show that there is something wrong with how deontological judgments are typically formed and with where our deontological intuitions come from. They offer debunking explanations of our emotion-driven deontological intuitions and dismiss complex deontological theories (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • 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  
  • Commentary on Zenker.Harvey Siegel - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Why Should Educators Care About Argumentation?Harvey Siegel - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
    Educators who are reflective about their educational endeavours ask themselves questions like: What is the aim of education? What moral, methodological, or other constraints govern our educational activities and efforts? One natural place to look for answers is in the philosophy of education, which (among other things) tries to provide systematic answers to these questions. One general answer offered by the philosophy of education is that the aim of education consists in fostering the development of students' rationality. On this view, (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Epistemology Mathematicized.John Woods - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):292-331.
    Epistemology and informal logic have overlapping and broadly similar subject matters. A principle of methodological symmetry is: philosophical theories of sufficiently similar subject matters should engage similar methods. Suppose the best way to do epistemology is in highly formalized ways, with a large role for mathematical methods. The symmetry principle suggests this is also the best way to do the logic of the reasoning and argument, the subject matter of informal logic. A capitulation to mathematics is inimical to informal logicians, (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map.Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):189-212.
    An overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation, explaining what it is, justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach.systematizing the main directions and theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Humanist Principles Underlying Philosophy of Argument.George Boger - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (2):149-174.
    This discussion reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument to extract principles common to their thinking. It shows that a growing concern with dialogical pragmatics is better appreciated as a part of applied ethics than of applied epistemology. The discussion concludes by indicating a possible consequence for philosophy of argument and invites further discussion by asking whether argumentation philosophy has an implicit, underlying moral, or even political, posture.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like?Bermejo-Luque Lilian - unknown
    Within the epistemological approach to Argumentation Theory, there are two opposing views on what a theory of argumentation should look like. On the one hand, there are those interested in providing epistemological criteria for good argumentation. For these theorists, the main question is "should we accept this claim on the basis of those reasons?". On the other hand, there are those interested in “characterizing” what is good argumentation. For them, the main question is: "does this piece of argumentation count as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Epistemic Inferiority of Pragma-Dialectics – Reply to Botting.Christoph Lumer - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):51-82.
    In a recent paper in this journal, David Botting defended pragma-dialectics against epistemological criticisms by exponents of the epistemological approach to argumentation, i.e. Harvey Siegel, John Biro and me. In particular, Botting tries to justify with new arguments a Functional Claim, that the function of argumentation is to resolve disputes, and a Normative Claim, that standpoints that have the unqualified consensus of all participants in a dispute will generally be epistemically sound. In this reply it is shown that Botting’s arguments (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation–A Map.Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):189-212.
  • DAMed If You Do; DAMed If You Don’T: Cohen’s “Missed Opportunities”.Bailin Sharon & Battersby Mark - unknown
    In his paper, “Missed Opportunities in Argument Evaluation,” Daniel Cohen has in his sights a “curious” asymmetry in how we evaluate arguments: while we criticize arguments for failing to point out obvious objections to the proposed line of reasoning, we do not consider it critically culpable to fail to take into account arguments for the position. Cohen views this omission as a missed opportunity, for which he lays the blame largely at the metaphorical feet of the “Dominant Adversarial Model” of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Some Axioms Underlying Argumentation Theory.George Boger - unknown
    This paper examines whether philosophers of argument, in spite of their disavowing ‘timeless principles’, nevertheless embrace a set of principles, or axioms, to underlie argumentation theory. First, it reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument; second, it extracts some principles common to their philosophies; and third, it draws out possible consequences for argumentation theory and asks whether such theory has an underlying political posture.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367.
    Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts that argument content and source reliability (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Useful Argumentation: A Critique of the Epistemological Approach.Brian Huss - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):261-275.
    The main rationale for adopting the epistemological approach to argumentation seems to take the form of a criticism of the consensus theory. This criticism says that some instances of clearly bad argumentation count as acceptable instances of argumentation on the consensus theory. Supposedly, the epistemological approach does not have this problem. I suggest that the kind of normativity argumentation theorists should be concerned with is the normativity associated with giving real-world advice on how to partake in a critical discussion. I (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Truth and the Virtue of Arguments.Robert C. Pinto - unknown
    In a 2006 paper I claimed that the virtue arguments or inferences must have is not that they be truth-preserving, but that they be entitlement-preserving. I offered two reasons there why such a conception of argument virtue is needed for a satisfactory treatment of defeasible arguments and inferences. This paper revisits that claim, and assesses the prospects for a more thorough defence than was offered in that paper.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation as an Ethical and Political Choice.Menashe Schwed - unknown
    The paper's two theses are: First, that the historical and philosophical roots of argumentation are in ethics and politics, and not in any formal ideal, be it mathematical, scientific or other. Furthermore, argumentation is a human invention, deeply tied up with the emergence of democracy in ancient Greece. Second, that argumentation presupposes and advances concurrently humanistic values, especially the autonomy of the individual to think and decide in a free and uncoerced manner.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others?Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
    Norms—that is, specifications of what we ought to do—play a critical role in the study of informal argumentation, as they do in studies of judgment, decision-making and reasoning more generally. Specifically, they guide a recurring theme: are people rational? Though rules and standards have been central to the study of reasoning, and behavior more generally, there has been little discussion within psychology about why (or indeed if) they should be considered normative despite the considerable philosophical literature that bears on this (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • 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  
  • New Work on Critical Thinking: Comments on Frímannsson, Holma and Ritola.Harvey Siegel - 2016 - Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi 4 (1):55-62.
    New Work on Critical Thinking: Comments on Frímannsson, Holma and Ritola.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Irresolvable Conflicts and Begging the Question.Juho Ritola - unknown
    I will first look at some of the existing literature on irresolvable conflicts, shortly discuss the fallacy of begging the question, and then examine some questions that irresolvable conflicts bring to surface with respect to this fallacy. In particular, I will argue that even though such conflicts invite an analysis of the fallacy based on the doubt of the opponent, an analysis in terms of justified belief of the arguer is preferable.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Pragma-Dialectic’s Necessary Conditions for a Critical Discussion.Frank Zenker - unknown
    I present a “reduced” version of the fifteen Pragma-dialectical rules and inquire into their theoretical status as necessary conditions for a critical discussion. Questions: In what respect is PD’s non-sufficiency a deficiency, can and must it be remedied? Brief answers: with respect to defining the concept ‘critical discussion,’ possibly, yes, if, and only if, one seeks to identify the concept ‘critical discussion’; no, if PD is for fallacy-detection.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Pragma-Dialectician's Dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar.Harvey Siegel & John Biro - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (4):457-480.
    Garssen and van Laar in effect concede our main criticism of the pragma-dialectical approach. The criticism is that the conclusions of arguments can be ‘P-D reasonable’ yet patently unreasonable, epistemically speaking. The concession consists in the claim that the theory “remains restricted to the investigation of standpoints in the light of particular sets of starting points” which are “up to individual disputants to create” and the admission that all the relevant terms of normative appraisal have been redefined. We also discuss (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation.John Biro & Harvey Siegel - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (1):91-101.
    In this paper we defend a particular version of the epistemic approach to argumentation. We advance some general considerations in favor of the approach and then examine the ways in which different versions of it play out with respect to the theory of fallacies, which we see as central to an understanding of argumentation. Epistemic theories divide into objective and subjective versions. We argue in favor of the objective version, showing that it provides a better account than its subjectivist rival (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • In Defence of Virtue: The Legitimacy of Agent-Based Argument Appraisal.Andrew Aberdein - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (1):77-93.
    Several authors have recently begun to apply virtue theory to argumentation. Critics of this programme have suggested that no such theory can avoid committing an ad hominem fallacy. This criticism is shown to trade unsuccessfully on an ambiguity in the definition of ad hominem. The ambiguity is resolved and a virtue-theoretic account of ad hominem reasoning is defended.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Defining Rhetorical Argumentation.Christian Kock - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):437-464.
    If there is a specifically rhetorical approach to argumentation, I believe it is one that studies argumentation that is specifically rhetorical. So if we want to ask, “What is the rhetorical approach to argumentation?” we should first ask, “What is rhetorical argumentation?” It is worthwhile focusing on this question because various misleading definitions of rhetorical argumentation have been in circulation for almost as long as rhetoric has existed. Some misleading definitions see the defining property of rhetorical argumentation in the arguer’s (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations