Switch to: References

Citations of:

Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning

L. Erlbaum Associates (1996)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. In Memoriam Douglas N. Walton: The Influence of Doug Walton on AI and Law.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (3):281-326.
    Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Legal Case-Based Reasoning as Practical Reasoning.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):93-131.
    In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we provide a reconstruction of the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions for a particular well-known case from property law. This is done through the use of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents to replicate the contrasting views involved in the actual decision. This reconstruction suggests that the reasoning involved can be separated into three distinct levels: factual and normative levels and a level connecting (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory.Nancy L. Green - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
    Various argumentation analysis tools permit the analyst to represent functional components of an argument (e.g., data, claim, warrant, backing), how arguments are composed of subarguments and defenses against potential counterarguments, and argumentation schemes. In order to facilitate a study of argument presentation in a biomedical corpus, we have developed a hybrid scheme that enables an analyst to encode argumentation analysis within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which can be used to represent the discourse structure of a text. This (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Teaching a Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals.Kevin D. Ashley - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370.
    The research described here explores the idea of using Supreme Court oral arguments as pedagogical examples in first year classes to help students learn the role of hypothetical reasoning in law. The article presents examples of patterns of reasoning with hypotheticals in appellate legal argument and in the legal classroom and a process model of hypothetical reasoning that relates them to work in cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence. The process model describes the relationships between an advocate’s proposed test for deciding (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argument From Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, dialectical (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Ratio Juris 18 (4):434-463.
    . A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at , helps a user display an argument on the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
  • A Framework for the Extraction and Modeling of Fact-Finding Reasoning From Legal Decisions: Lessons From the Vaccine/Injury Project Corpus. [REVIEW]Vern R. Walker, Nathaniel Carie, Courtney C. DeWitt & Eric Lesh - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (4):291-331.
    This article describes the Vaccine/Injury Project Corpus, a collection of legal decisions awarding or denying compensation for health injuries allegedly due to vaccinations, together with models of the logical structure of the reasoning of the factfinders in those cases. This unique corpus provides useful data for formal and informal logic theory, for natural-language research in linguistics, and for artificial intelligence research. More importantly, the article discusses lessons learned from developing protocols for manually extracting the logical structure and generating the logic (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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  
  • Baseballs and Arguments From Fairness.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):423-449.
    This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme for argument from fairness is shown to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Just Following the Rules: Collapse / Incoherence Problems in Ethics, Epistemology, and Argumentation Theory.Patrick Bondy - 2020 - In J. Anthony Blair & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor, ON, Canada: pp. 172-202.
    This essay addresses the collapse/incoherence problem for normative frameworks that contain both fundamental values and rules for promoting those values. The problem is that in some cases, we would bring about more of the fundamental value by violating the framework’s rules than by following them. In such cases, if the framework requires us to follow the rules anyway, then it appears to be incoherent; but if it allows us to make exceptions to the rules, then the framework “collapses” into one (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.D. Walton & C. A. Reed - 2005 - Synthese 145 (3):339-370.
    The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Assessing Relevance.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Lingua 210:42-64.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 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  
  • Reasonable Responses: The Thought of Trudy Govier.Hundleby Catherine (ed.) - 2017 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This tribute to the breadth and influence of Trudy Govier’s philosophical work begins with her early scholarship in argumentation theory, paying special attention to its pedagogical expression. Most people first encounter Trudy Govier’s work and many people only encounter it through her textbooks, especially A Practical Study of Argument, published in many editions. In addition to the work on argumentation that has continued throughout her career, much of Govier’s later work addresses social philosophy and the problems of trust and response (...)
    Direct download  
     
    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  
  • Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (1):85-113.
    This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1):141-159.
    The problem is to find a model of dialogue that allows retractions where they seem reasonable or even required, and puts sanctions on them whenever they would be disruptive of a well-organized process of dialogue. One ty pe of solution will let retraction rules determine which retractions are permissible, and if permissible what the consequences of retraction are. These rules vary according to the type of dialogue and to the type of commitment to which the retraction per tains. To accommodate (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy .F. Macagno, D. Walton, G. Rowe & C. Reed - 2006 - Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):111-124,.
    This paper explains how to use a new software tool for argument diagramming available free on the Internet, showing especially how it can be used in the classroom to enhance critical thinking in philosophy. The user loads a text file containing an argument into a box on the computer interface, and then creates an argument diagram by dragging lines from one node to another. A key feature is the support for argumentation schemes, common patterns of defeasible reasoning historically know as (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. [REVIEW]Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
    This paper presents a formal reconstruction of a Dutch civil legal case in Prakken’s formal model of adjudication dialogues. The object of formalisation is the argumentative speech acts exchanged during the dispute by the adversaries and the judge. The goal of this formalisation is twofold: to test whether AI & law models of legal dialogues in general, and Prakken’s model in particular, are suitable for modelling particular legal procedures; and to learn about the process of formalising an actual legal dispute.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Before and After Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):221-238.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Refutation by Parallel Argument.André Juthe - 2008 - Argumentation 23 (2):133–169.
    This paper discusses the method when an argument is refuted by a parallel argument since the flaw of the parallel argument is clearly displayed. The method is explicated, examined and compared with two other general methods.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 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  
  • Are Aesthetic Judgements Purely Aesthetic? Testing the Social Conformity Account.Matthew Inglis & Andrew Aberdein - forthcoming - ZDM.
    Many of the methods commonly used to research mathematical practice, such as analyses of historical episodes or individual cases, are particularly well-suited to generating causal hypotheses, but less well-suited to testing causal hypotheses. In this paper we reflect on the contribution that the so-called hypothetico-deductive method, with a particular focus on experimental studies, can make to our understanding of mathematical practice. By way of illustration, we report an experiment that investigated how mathematicians attribute aesthetic properties to mathematical proofs. We demonstrate (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (205):39-56.
  • 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  
  • Informalizing Formal Logic.Antonis Kakas - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (2):169-204.
    This paper presents a way in which formal logic can be understood and reformulated in terms of argumentation that can help us unify formal and informal reasoning. Classical deductive reasoning will be expressed entirely in terms of notions and concepts from argumentation so that formal logical entailment is equivalently captured via the arguments that win between those supporting concluding formulae and arguments supporting contradictory formulae. This allows us to go beyond Classical Logic and smoothly connect it with human reasoning, thus (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • Are There Methods of Informal Logic?Hans V. Hansen & Daniel H. Cohen - unknown
    This presentation seeks to understand informal logic as a set of methods for the logical evaluation of natural language arguments. Some of the methods identified are the fallacies method, deductivism, warrantism and argument schemes. A framework for comparing the adequacy of the methods is outlined consisting of the following categories: learner- and user-efficiency, subjective and objective reliability, and scope. Within this framework, it is also possible to compare informal and formal logic.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Participants’ Reasoning in Controversy Coverage.Peter A. Cramer - unknown
    In their analyses of controversy, many researchers begin with the assumption that it is a juvenile or failed dialectical exchange. In conceptualizing controversy this way, they get caught in an is-ought dilemma, often shaping controversy into a two-sided affair involving an open issue with arguments marshalled but then simultaneously pointing out its shortcomings against these same criteria. As Dascal has pointed out, thinking of controversy as a juvenile dialectical exchange seems to be a therapeutic gesture that may present it as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Role of Arguments From Consequences in Practical Argumentation.Eveline T. Feteris - unknown
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Rule of Similarity as Intercultural Basis of Defeasible Argumentation.Michael Hoppmann - unknown
    This paper is concerned with the deconstruction of defeasible argument schemes. It will be claimed that one of the central elements of all defeasible argument schemes is the rule of similarity which demands that one must ascribe similar propositions to essentially similar entities in order to be treated as reasonable. This rule is presented as interculturally valid and of such central importance that it could even been used as a defining quality of defeasible argumentation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • What Types of Arguments Are There?James B. Freeman - unknown
    Our typology is based on two ground adequacy factors, one logical and one epistemic. Logically, the step from premises to conclusion may be conclusive or only ceteris paribus. Epistemically, warrants may be backed a priori or a posteriori. Hence there are four types of arguments: conclusive a priori, defeasible a priori, defeasible a posteriori, and prima facie conclusive a posteriori. We shall give an example of each and compare our scheme with other typologies.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • 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  
  • AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes.Henry Prakken - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.
    This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
    This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  • Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions.David Godden & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Computational Representation of Practical Argument.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Peter McBurney - 2006 - Synthese 152 (2):157-206.
    In this paper we consider persuasion in the context of practical reasoning, and discuss the problems associated with construing reasoning about actions in a manner similar to reasoning about beliefs. We propose a perspective on practical reasoning as presumptive justification of a course of action, along with critical questions of this justification, building on the account of Walton. From this perspective, we articulate an interaction protocol, which we call PARMA, for dialogues over proposed actions based on this theory. We outline (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Aggression, Politeness, and Abstract Adversaries.Catherine Hundleby - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):238-262.
    Trudy Govier argues in The Philosophy of Argument that adversariality in argumentation can be kept to a necessary minimum. On her ac-count, politeness can limit the ancillary adversariality of hostile culture but a degree of logical opposition will remain part of argumentation, and perhaps all reasoning. Argumentation cannot be purified by politeness in the way she hopes, nor does reasoning even in the discursive context of argumentation demand opposition. Such hopes assume an idealized politeness free from gender, and reasoners with (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Commentary on Visser on Computer Support for Pragma-Dialectic Argumentation Analysis.Ami Mamolo - unknown
  • Refuting a Standpoint by Appealing to Its Outcomes: Reductio Ad Absurdum Vs. Argument From Consequences.Henrike Jansen - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):249-266.
    Used informally, the Reductio ad Absurdum (RAA) consists in reasoning appealing to the logically implied, absurd consequences of a hypothetical proposition, in order to refute it. This kind of reasoning resembles the Argument from Consequences, which appeals to causally induced consequences. These types of argument are sometimes confused, since it is not worked out how these different kinds of consequences should be distinguished. In this article it is argued that the logical consequences in RAA-argumentation can take different appearances and that (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • 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  
  • Commentary on Blair.David Hitchcock - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
    In this paper, I argue that arguments from expert opinion, i.e., inferences from “Expert E says that p” to “p,” where the truth value of p is unknown, are weak arguments. A weak argument is an argument in which the premises, even if true, provide weak support—or no support at all—for the conclusion. Such arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments unless the fact that an expert says that p makes p significantly more likely to be true. However, research on (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument.D. N. Walton - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
    There are two views of the ad hominem argument found in the textbooks and other traditional treatments of this argument, the Lockean or ex concessis view and the view of ad hominem as personal attack. This article addresses problems posed by this ambiguity. In particular, it discusses the problem of whether Aristotle's description of the ex concessis type of argument should count as evidence that he had identified the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Argumentation schemes are used as the basis for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Pinto's Argument, Inferences and Dialectic.Mark Weinstein - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (2).
  • Dialectical Shifts Underlying Arguments From Consequences.Douglas Walton - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (1):54-83.
    Eight structural criteria are developed as part of a dialogical method by testing them against seven examples of arguments from negative consequences. The aim is to provide a method for evaluating the arguments in the examples as fallacious or not. It is shown that any method that can be satisfactorily used to evaluate such examples needs to be based on two techniques. The first is careful application of argumentation underlying shifts from one type of dialog to another schemes. The second (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • 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  
  • Informal Logic: An Overview.J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
    In this overview article, we first explain what we take informal logic to be, discussing misconceptions and distinguishing our conception of it from competing ones; second, we briefly catalogue recent informal logic research, under 14 headings; third, we suggest four broad areas of problems and questions for future research; fourth, we describe current scholarly resources for informal logic; fifth, we discuss three implications of informal logic for philosophy in particular, and take note ofpractical consequences of a more general sort.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Walton’s Argumentation Schemes.Lumer Christoph - unknown
    The contribution critically discusses Walton's argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark