Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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   1 citation  
  • 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   7 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   10 citations  
  • 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  
  • Argumentation, Rationality, and Psychology of Reasoning.David Godden - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (2):135-166.
    This paper explicates an account of argumentative rationality by articulating the common, basic idea of its nature, and then identifying a collection of assumptions inherent in it. Argumentative rationality is then contrasted with dual-process theories of reasoning and rationality prevalent in the psychology of reasoning. It is argued that argumentative rationality properly corresponds only with system-2 reasoning in dual-process theories. This result challenges the prescriptive force of argumentative norms derives if they derive at all from their descriptive accuracy of our (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • 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   3 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 (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   3 citations  
  • 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   14 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  
  • 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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   2 citations  
  • 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  
  • The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation–A Map.Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):189-212.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 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   7 citations  
  • 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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   7 citations