Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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  
  • Adult as a Source of Expert Opinion in Child’s Argumentation During Family Mealtime Conversations.Antonio Bova - 2015 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 4 (1):4-20.
    The present study addresses the issue of how the differences in age and roles with their parents can affect the children’s choice of the argumentative strategies they adopt in their discussions. The findings show that when children refer to a third person as a source of expert opinion, the expert always proves to be an adult, and not another child. Looking at this argumentative choice typically made by children, it is reasonable to assume that for them the reference to an (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen .Exploring Argumentative Contexts. [REVIEW]Eddo Rigotti - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (2):199-218.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Yellow Rain:Radiolaband the Acoustics of Strategic Maneuvering.Justin Eckstein - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (1):35-56.
    The critically acclaimed WNYC program Radiolab found itself embroiled in a controversy for its recent podcast segment “Yellow Rain.” The intent of the segment was to indict the Reagan administration’s dubious pretenses for labeling yellow rain a chemical weapon. But Radiolab’s interview with survivor and historian Eng Yang took a harsh turn and concluded with one of Radiolab’s hosts, Robert Krulwich calling Yang’s experience hearsay. This essay uses the “Yellow Rain” controversy to highlight two important features of argumentation in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Twenty Years of Management of Care in Chile: What We Know, What We Do Not Know, What is yet to Come. An Analysis of Arguments.Ricardo A. Ayala - 2019 - Medical Humanities 45 (3):267-277.
    For over 20 years, the notion of ‘management of care’ has been foregrounded as key in the jurisdiction of the nursing profession, with the aim of detaching itself from the wider medical umbrella. A number of voices have advocated such centrality. These include juridical, academic and occupational perspectives. Critical stances, although peripheral, have also been voiced. These have been received, at best, with a ‘polite silence’ in mainstream circles.By looking at the arguments surrounding the ‘management of care’ circulated in these (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • 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  
  • Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning.Fabrizio Macagno & Benedetta Zavatta - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):453-488.
    Metaphorical meaning can be analyzed as triggered by an apparent communicative breach, an incongruity that leads to a default of the presumptive interpretation of a vehicle. This breach can be solved through contextual renegotiations of meaning guided by the communicative intention, or rather the presumed purpose of the metaphorical utterance. This paper addresses the problem of analyzing the complex process of reasoning underlying the reconstruction of metaphorical meaning. This process will be described as a type of abductive argument, aimed at (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing About Doing.Christian Kock (ed.) - 2017 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    Christian Kock’s essays show the essential interconnectedness of practical reasoning, rhetoric and deliberative democracy. They constitute a unique contribution to argumentation theory that draws on – and criticizes – the work of philosophers, rhetoricians, political scientists and other argumentation theorists. It puts rhetoric in the service of modern democracies by drawing attention to the obligations of politicians to articulate arguments and objections that citizens can weigh against each other in their deliberations about possible courses of action.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • 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 (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Disability Bioethics Reading of the FDA and EMA Evaluations on the Marketing Authorisation of Growth Hormone for Idiopathic Short Stature Children.Maria Cristina Murano - 2020 - Health Care Analysis 28 (3):266-282.
    The diagnosis of idiopathic short stature refers to children who are considerably shorter than average without any identified medical reason. The US Food and Drug Administration authorised marketing of recombinant human growth hormone for ISS in 2003, while the European Medicines Agency refused it in 2007. This paper examines the arguments for these decisions as detailed in selected FDA and EMA documents. It combines argumentative analysis with an approach to policy analysis called ‘What’s the problem represented to be’. It argues (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    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   11 citations  
  • Agente crítico, democracia deliberativa y el acto de dar razones.Cristián Santibáñez - 2020 - Co-herencia 17 (32):37-65.
    El objetivo de este trabajo es proponer un concepto de agente crítico que dialogue con una práctica democrática deliberativa, considerando qué significa el acto de dar razones. Para tal efecto, en este trabajo se discute, primero, qué significaría ser crítico o tender hacia la criticidad tanto autorreferente como hacia terceros. Esta sección está apoyada principalmente con ideas provenientes de la teoría de la argumentación y de la lógica informal. En segundo término, se aborda el concepto de democracia deliberativa a la (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Critique, the Discourse–Historical Approach, and the Frankfurt School.Bernhard Forchtner - 2011 - Critical Discourse Studies 8 (1):1-14.
    Critical discourse analysis stands on the shoulder of giants – different giants – in order to answer how its critique, its ethico-moral stance, is theoretically grounded and justified. Concerning this question, this article explores the role of the Frankfurt School in the discourse–historical approach. Although references to the Frankfurt School can regularly be found in the DHA's canon, I argue that an even more comprehensive discussion would help in combating accusations of the DHA being unprincipled and politically biased, and further (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Norms in Deliberation: The Role of the Principles of Justice and Universalization in Practical Discourses on the Justice of Norms.Cristina Corredor - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):11-29.
    Discursive theories of justice have been questioned for putting forward high-level principles that should nevertheless play a role in practical discourses in which the justice of a claim is at stake. Here, I will critically examine and systematize the main tenets in Rawls’s and Habermas’s discursive theories, and will suggest that the principles of justice and universalization can and play the role of mandates of optimalization in real deliberations on justice.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Analogy, Similarity, and the Periodic Table of Arguments.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):63-75.
    The aim of this paper is to indicate the systematic place of arguments based on the concept of analogy within the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, a new method for describing and classifying arguments that integrates traditional dialectical accounts of arguments and fallacies and rhetorical accounts of the means of persuasion into a comprehensive framework. The paper begins with an inventory of existing approaches to arguments based on analogy, similarity and adjacent concepts. Then, the theoretical framework of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-Dialectical Framework.Gábor Forgács - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):241-249.
    The article analyzes strategic manoeuvring within the pragmadialectical framework with respect to the selection of starting points in the opening stage to frame the arguments. The Terri Schiavo case is presented, which can provide interesting insights concerning this issue. I would like to show that resolution of the difference of opinion requires the resolution of a subordinate difference of opinion concerning how to label her medical state, and why discussants were not able to resolve this subordinate difference of opinion. After, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):41-58.
    :In this paper, the influence of speech act theory and Grice’s the- ory of conversational implicature on the study of argumentation is discussed. First, the role that pragmatic insights play in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Jackson and Jacobs’ conver- sational approach to argumentation is described. Next, a number of examples of recent work by argumentation scholars is presented in which insights from speech act theory play a prominent role.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment.Fabrizio Macagno & Chrysi Rapanta - 2019 - Studia Paedagogica 24 (4):11-44.
    The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Emotions in Argumentative Narration.Sara Cigada - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (4):401-431.
    This paper studies emotional inferencing triggered by emotion terms using Pragma-Dialectics and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The corpus, in French, is an excerpt of a video-recorded testimony in which a middle school teacher evokes her experience of being in class the day after the Charlie Hebdo attack, thus presenting a case of argumentation in context. The analysis focuses on the argumentative structure and on the rhetorical strategies that trigger emotional inferencing. The emotional inferencing derives from a Locus of Ontological (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Core Ontology for Requirements.Ivan J. Jureta, John Mylopoulos & Stéphane Faulkner - 2009 - Applied Ontology 4 (3):169-244.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 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  
  • Pascal’s Wager: Tracking an Intended Reader in the Structure of the Argument.Iva SVAČINOVÁ - 2016 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 6 (2):391-412.
    Pascal’s wager is the name of an argument in favor of belief in God presented by Blaise Pascal in §233 of Thoughts. Ian Hacking (1972) pointed out that Pascal’s text involves three different versions of the argument. This paper proceeds from this identification, but it concerns an examination of the rhetorical strategy realized by Pascal’s argumentation. The final form of Pascal’s argument is considered as a product that could be established only through a specific process of persuasion led with respect (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is Common Ground a Word or Just a Sound?Paola Cantù - 2007 - In H. V. Hanson (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference: Dissensus & The Search for Common Ground. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 1--9.
    The paper analyses the role played by the concept of ‘common ground’ in argumentation theories. If a common agreement on all the rules of a discursive exchange is required, either at the beginning or at the end of an argumentative practice, then no violation of the rules is possible. The paper suggests an alternative understanding of ‘common ground’ as something that can change during the development of the argumentative practice, and in particular something that can change without the practice being (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Improving Practical Reasoning and Argumentation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2015 - Dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
    This thesis justifies the need for and develops a new integrated model of practical reasoning and argumentation. After framing the work in terms of what is reasonable rather than what is rational (chapter 1), I apply the model for practical argumentation analysis and evaluation provided by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to a paradigm case of unreasonable individual practical argumentation provided by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik (chapter 2). The application shows that by following the model, Breivik is relatively easily able (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • 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  
  • Arguments as Abstract Objects.Paul Simard Smith, Andrei Moldovan & G. C. Goddu - unknown
    In recent discussions concerning the definition of argument, it has been maintained that the word ‘argument’ exhibits the process-product ambiguity, or an act/object ambi-guity. Drawing on literature on lexical ambiguity we argue that ‘argument’ is not ambiguous. The term ‘argument’ refers to an object, not to a speech act. We also examine some of the important implications of our argument by considering the question: what sort of abstract objects are arguments?
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Evaluating Fear Appeals.Beth Innocenti - unknown
    I inquire into the issue of how to evaluate fear appeals. I propose modifications to Douglas Walton's position in Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats that will help improve assessment of fear appeals in complex argumentation such as political discourse. Walton has argued for attending to the underlying practical inference structure involved in fear appeals as well as the type of dialogue in which they occur. I propose, first, that theorists understand the practical reasoning not in terms (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction of Teleological-Evaluative Argumentation in Complex Structures of Legal Justification.Eveline Feteris - unknown
    I give a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of the role of teleological-evaluative argumentation referring to goals and values in the justification of judicial decisions. I establish the role and place of this form of argumentation in complex forms of justification in which the argumentation interacts with other forms of legal argumentation. I will do this by integrating the insights from legal theory and legal philosophy into a pragma-dialectical framework for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “I Suppose You Meant to Say...”: Licit and Illicit Manoeuvring in Argumentative Confrontations.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    When interlocutors start to talk at cross purposes it becomes less likely that they will be able to resolve their differences of opinion. Still, a critic, in the confrontation stage of a discussion, should be given some room of manoeuvre for rephrasing and even for revising the arguer’s position. I will distinguish between licit and illicit applications of this form of strategic manoeuvring by stating three soundness conditions.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Revisiting Aristotle’s Topoi.Christopher W. Tindale - unknown
    In this paper, I investígate a question in the Rhetoric surrounding the metaphorical sense of Aristotle’s topos: one can look to a location for “available means of persuasion,” evoking an image of seeing ; or topoi are viewed as “general lines of argument.” Are they places we go for arguments, or actual lines of arguments? The difference matters, given a propensity to view topoi as forerunners of argument schemes.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rationality of Argumentation Aimed at Multiple Goals.Dima Mohammed - unknown
    In this paper, I critically examine the main accounts of goals in argumentative discourse, aiming to formulate an account that is suitable for the examination of public political arguments, where typically multiple legitimate goals are pursued simultaneously. Such arguments are viewed as contributions to what can be dialectically reconstructed as multiple simultaneous discussions, and are analysed as strategic manoeuvres that can under certain conditions be reasonable but may, if such conditions are violated, become fallacious.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • Argumentation, Decision and Rationality.Fabio Paglieri - unknown
    From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some promising results, this approach remains underdeveloped in argumentation theories, mostly because it is assumed to be merely descriptive. This assumption is mistaken: considering arguments as the product of decisions brings into play various normative models of rational choice. The challenge is rather to reconcile strategic rationality with other normative constraints relevant for argumentation, such as inferential validity and dialectical appropriateness.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • What Is Visual in Visual Argumentation?Georges Roque - unknown
    Is visual argumentation possible? My personal opinion is that it is, despite of the burden of verbal argumentation and the numerous critiques made against visual arguments. Insofar as most of these critiques are related to the difference between words and images, I will focus my paper on this issue, which is a theoretical one, as it seems to me that taking these critiques seriously is a first step before analyzing concretely how visual arguments work.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Using the “Protocols”: Fallacies and Rhetorical Strategies.Andrea Gilardoni - unknown
    In our contribution we will analyze the way the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are used by anti-Semite or anti-Zionist propaganda. We will try to show how persuasive manipulation systematically violates the «pragma-dialectical rules for reasonable discussion». In destroying the possibility of a fair discussion, such strategies are particularly effective in persuading not the other party of a dialectical discussion but the target-audience of this «forbidden rhetoric».
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rationality, Reasonableness and Informal Logic: A Case Study of Chaim Perelman.Rongdong Jin & Christopher W. Tindale - unknown
    Perelman’s discussion about the distinction and relation between the rational and the reason-able could be seen as an attempt to bring forward a new understanding of rationality. In light of the concep-tion of situated reason, this paper argues that Perelman’s explication of the dialectic of the rational and the reasonable highlights the balance of universality and contexuality, and could contribute a fuller conception of rationality to establishing a solid philosophical foundation for Johnson’s informal logic.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Walton.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • Assessing the Cogency of Arguments: Lbree Kinds of Merits.William Rehg - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (2):95-115.
    This article proposes a way of connecting two levels at which scholars have studied discursive practices from a normative perspective: on the one hand, local transactions-face-to-face arguments or dialogues-and broadly dispersed public debates on the other. To help focus my analysis, I select two representatives of work at these two levels: the pragmadialectical model of critical discussion and Habermas's discourse theory of politicallegal deliberation. The two models confront complementary challenges that arise from gaps between their prescriptions and contexts of actual (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Is “Argument” Subject to the Product/Process Ambiguity?Geoff Goddu - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (2):75-88.
    The product/process distinction with regards to “argument” has a longstanding history and foundational role in argumentation theory. I shall argue that, regardless of one’s chosen ontology of arguments, arguments are not the product of some process of arguing. Hence, appeal to the distinction is distorting the very organizational foundations of argumentation theory and should be abandoned.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • 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  
  • Introduction.Dario Martinelli - 2009 - Sign Systems Studies 37 (3/4):353-368.
    Realism has been a central object of attention among analytical philosophers for some decades. Starting from analytical philosophy, the return of realism has spread into other contemporary philosophical traditions and given birth to new trends in current discussions, as for example in the debates about “new realism.” Discussions about realism focused on linguistic meaning, epistemology, metaphysics, theory of action and ethics. The implications for politics of discussion about realism in action theory and in ethics, however, are not much discussed.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Visser on Computer Support for Pragma-Dialectic Argumentation Analysis.Ami Mamolo - unknown
  • Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Creative Argumentation: When and Why People Commit the Metaphoric Fallacy.Francesca Ervas, Antonio Ledda, Amitash Ojha, Giuseppe Antonio Pierro & Bipin Indurkhya - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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  
  • Uses of Arguments From Definition in Children’s Argumentation.G. Schär Rebecca - unknown
    The literature on argumentation and education often conveys that children’s argumentation skills are not well developed; therefore, it would be difficult to find argumentation in small children, as well as in primary school classrooms. However, studies focusing on argumentation in less formal contexts show that there is no need to depart from such a negative stance. If children are given room to pursue their lines of thought, they often produce sophisticated spontaneous argumentation. In this paper I consider arguments from definition (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Pragma-Dialectical Response to Objectivist Epistemic Challenges.Bart Garssen & Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):122-141.
    The epistemologists Biro and Siegel have raised two objections against the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. According to the first objection the pragma-dialectical theory is not genuinely normative. According to the second objection the rejection of justificationism by pragma-dialecticians is unwarranted: they reject justificationism prematurely and they are not consistent in accepting some arguments (‘justifications’) as sound. The first objection is based on what we regard as the misconception that the goal of resolving differences of opinion cannot provide a normative approach. (...)
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations