Argumentation

ISSNs: 0920-427X, 1572-8374

31 found

View year:

  1.  4
    Two Types of Refutation in Philosophical Argumentation.Catarina Dutilh Novaes - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):493-510.
    In this paper, I highlight the significance of practices of refutation in philosophical inquiry, that is, practices of showing that a claim, person or theory is wrong. I present and contrast two prominent approaches to philosophical refutation: refutation in ancient Greek dialectic, in its Socratic variant as described in Plato’s dialogues, and as described in Aristotle’s logical texts; and the practice of providing counterexamples to putative definitions familiar from twentieth century analytic philosophy, focusing on the so-called Gettier problem. Moreover, I (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  4
    Bramhall Versus Hobbes: The Rhetoric of Religion vs. the Rhetoric of Philosophy.Shai Fogel - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):481-491.
    The paper uses the controversy about liberty between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and Archbishop John Bramhall to illustrate the conflict between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of religion. The first part of the paper introduces initial definitions of these two types of rhetoric. The following three parts deal with three distinct parts of the controversy, as Hobbes and Bramhall define them: to the reader, arguments from scripture, and arguments from reason. The fact that Hobbes and Bramhall themselves divide (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  2
    Primatologists and Philosophers Debate on the Question of the Origin of Morality: A Dialectical Analysis of Philosophical Argumentation Strategies and the Pitfalls of Cross-Disciplinary Disagreement.Joaquín Galindo - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):511-540.
    The paper presents a dialogical approach applied to the analysis of argumentative strategies in philosophy and examines the case of the critical comments to the Tanner Lectures given by the Dutch biologist and primatologist, Frans de Waal, at Princeton University in November 2003. The paper is divided into five parts: the first advances the hypothesis that what seem puzzling aspects of philosophical argumentation to scholars in other academic fields are explained by the global role played by a series of arguments (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  1
    Representing the Structure of a Debate.Maralee Harrell - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):595-610.
    In this article I aim to use the 1948 Russell-Copleston debate to highlight some recent problems I have experienced teaching argument analysis in my philosophy courses. First, I will use argument diagramming to represent the arguments in the debate while reflecting on the use of this approach use to teach argument analysis skills. Then, I will discuss the tools and methods scholars have proposed to represent debates, rather than just individual arguments. Finally, I will argue that there is not, but (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  7
    Is Natural Selection in Trouble? When Emotions Run High in a Philosophical Debate.Fernando Leal - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):541-567.
    This paper deals in detail with a fairly recent philosophical debate centered around the ability of the theory of natural selection to account for those phenotypical changes which can be argued to make organisms better adapted to their environments. The philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor started the debate by claiming that natural selection cannot do the job. He follows two main lines of argumentation. One is based on an alleged conceptual defect in the theory, the other on alleged empirical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  2
    Argumentation in Philosophical Controversies.Fernando Leal & Hubert Marraud - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):455-479.
    Anyone interested in philosophical argumentation should be prepared to study philosophical debates and controversies because it is an intensely dialogical, and even contentious, genre of argumentation. There is hardly any other way to do them justice. This is the reason why the present special issue addresses philosophical argumentation within philosophical debates. Of the six articles in this special issue, one deals with a technical aspect, the diagramming of arguments, another contrasts two moments in philosophical argumentation, Antiquity and the twentieth century, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  1
    An Unconscious Universal in the Mind is Like an Immaterial Dinner in the Stomach. A Debate on Logical Generalism.Hubert Marraud - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (4):569-593.
    The debate on the a fortiori and the universal that took place between April 1914 and April 1919 in the journal Mind has a double interest for argumentation theorists. First, the discussion is an example of a philosophical polylogue that exhibits the characteristics of a quasi-engaged dialogue. “The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument”. Argumentation 12, pp. 325–339. Reprinted in J.A. Blair, Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation, pp. 231–244. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.), confirming Blair’s hypothesis that journal papers and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  16
    Arguing with Children: Exploring Problems of Charity and Strawmanning.Swagatanjali Bauri - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):415-438.
    This paper will highlight how the existing approaches to the Strawman Fallacy and the Principle of Charity are unable to fully accommodate the problems of interpreting children’s arguments. A lack of charity is as problematic as an excess of charity when arguing with children, and can contribute to misinterpretation of arguments. An application of moderate charity avoids the pitfalls of misrepresenting children. However, interpreting children’s arguments with the appropriate amount of charity is a challenging task. The argumentative context is relevant (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  3
    Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings.Diego Castro - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):393-414.
    When parties attempt to persuade their opponents of the tenability of a certain standpoint using reasons, they will often find that the circumstances of the dialogue hinder their chances of resolution. Power imbalances, cognitive biases, lack of time or hidden interests are some of the circumstances they need to face. I will label these circumstances as suboptimal settings for argumentation. According to the pragma-dialectical tradition, higher-order conditions for critical discussion are unfulfilled in these cases. The main question of this paper (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  5
    “Agreement Builds and Disagreement Destroys:” How Polish Undergraduates and Graduates Understand Interpersonal Arguing.Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska & Dale Hample - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):365-392.
    This is a descriptive study of how Polish undergraduates and graduates perceive face to face arguing. We had some reasons to suppose that they would not be especially aggressive. The Polish culture has a number of proverbs warning against combative arguing, with “agreement builds and disagreement destroys” being illustrative. In addition, up until 1989 public dissent and open disagreements were suppressed by the government, and older generations often found it prudent to avoid arguing. We compared Polish results with previously reported (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  3
    Ruth Amossy: In Defense of Polemics, Springer, Argumentation Library, Volume 42, 2021. [REVIEW]Jean-Claude Guerrini - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):447-451.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  5
    Demanding a halt to metadiscussions.Beth Innocenti - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):345-364.
    How do social actors get addressees to stop retreating to metadiscussions that derail ground-level discussions, and why do they expect the strategies to work? The question is of both theoretical and practical interest, especially with regard to ground-level discussions of systemic sexism and racism derailed by qualifying “not all men” and “not all white people” perform the sexist or racist actions that are the topic of discussion. I use a normative pragmatic approach to analyze two exemplary messages designed to halt (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Secundum Quid and the Pragmatics of Arguments. The Challenges of the Dialectical Tradition.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):317-343.
    The phrase secundum quid et simpliciter is the Latin expression translating and labelling the sophism described by Aristotle as connected with the use of some particular expression “absolutely or in a certain respect and not in its proper sense.” This paper presents an overview of the analysis of this fallacy in the history of dialectics, reconstructing the different explanations provided in the Aristotelian texts, the Latin and medieval dialectical tradition, and the modern logical approaches. The secundum quid emerges as a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  2
    Michel Meyer.Christian Plantin - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):453-454.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  2
    Frans H. A. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (Eds.): Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical Studies About Argumentative Discourse in Context. [REVIEW]Harry Weger - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):439-445.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  11
    Bothsiderism.Scott F. Aikin & John P. Casey - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):249-268.
    This paper offers an account of a fallacy we will call bothsiderism, which is to mistake disagreement on an issue for evidence that either a compromise on, suspension of judgment regarding, or continued discussion of the issue is in order. Our view is that this is a fallacy of a unique and heretofore untheorized type, a fallacy of meta-argumentation. The paper develops as follows. After a brief introduction, we examine a recent bothsiderist case in American politics. We use this as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  4
    Raymond S. Nickerson, Argumentation, The Art of Persuasion: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, xiv + 443 pp, Hardcover $114.95, Paperback $44.86, ISBN: 978–1-108–79,987-4.J. Anthony Blair - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):305-316.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  3
    When Evaluative Adjectives Prevent Contradiction in a Debate.Thierry Herman & Diane Liberatore - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):155-176.
    This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words, and one of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  4
    Arguments and Reason-Giving.Matthew W. McKeon - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):229-247.
    Arguments figure prominently in our practices of reason-giving. For example, we use them to advance reasons for their conclusions in order to justify believing something, to explain why we believe something, and to persuade others to believe something. Intuitively, using arguments in these ways requires a certain degree of self-reflection. In this paper, I ask: what cognitive requirements are there for using an argument to advance reasons for its conclusion? Towards a partial response, the paper’s central thesis is that in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  4
    Questions, Presuppositions and Fallacies.Andrei Moldovan - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):287-303.
    In this paper I focus on the fallacy known as Complex Question or Many Questions. After a brief introduction, in Sect. 2 I highlight its pragmatic dimension, and in Sect. 3 its dialectical dimension. In Sect. 4 I present two accounts of this fallacy developed in argumentation theory, Douglas Walton’s and the Pragma-Dialectics’, which have resources to capture both its pragmatic and its dialectical nature. However, these accounts are unsatisfactory for various reasons. In Sect. 5 I focus on the pragmatic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  8
    The Cultural Embeddedness of Arguments Raised as a Part of the Bulgarian Debate About the Ratification of the Istanbul Convention.Hristo Valchev - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):177-202.
    The paper presents an analysis of the cultural embeddedness of arguments, raised as a part of the Bulgarian debate about the ratification of the Istanbul convention. The method I employed was the localization procedure of Generalized Argumentation theory. Through a qualitative analysis of empirical argumentation data, I identified arguments in favour of or against the ratification of the Istanbul convention. Information about the cultural background against which these arguments were raised, i.e. about Bulgarian culture, was gathered from the part of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  8
    Why We Need Skepticism in Argument: Skeptical Engagement as a Requirement for Epistemic Justice.Lucy Alsip Vollbrecht - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):269-285.
    The Argumentative Adversariality debate is over the question of whether argument must be adversarial. A particular locus of this debate is on skeptical challenges in critical dialogue. The Default Skeptical Stance in argument is a practical manifestation of argumentative adversariality. Views about the on-the-ground value of the DSS vary. On one hand, in “The Social & Political Limitations of Philosophy”, Phyllis Rooney argues that the DSS leads to epistemic injustice. On the other, Allan Hazlett in his recent piece “Critical Injustice” (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  3
    Internal Deliberation Defending Climate-Harmful Behavior.Maria Wolrath Söderberg & Nina Wormbs - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):203-228.
    Most people in countries with the highest climate impact per capita are well aware of the climate crisis and do not deny the science. They worry about climate and have climate engaged attitudes. Still, their greenhouse-gas emissions are often high. How can we understand acting contrary to our knowledge? A simple answer is that we do not want to give up on benefits or compromise our quality of life. However, it is painful to live with discrepancies between knowledge and action. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  8
    Socratic Irony and Argumentation.Timo Airaksinen - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):85-100.
    Socratic irony can be understood independently of the immortal heroics of Plato’s Socrates. We need a systematic account and criticism of it both as a debate-winning strategy of argumentation and teaching method. The Speaker introduces an issue pretending to be at a lower intellectual level than her co-debaters, or Participants. An Audience looks over and evaluates the results. How is it possible that the Speaker like Socrates is, consistently, in the winning position? The situation is ironic because the Participants fight (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  7
    Getting Out in Front of the Owl of Minerva Problem.David Godden - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):35-60.
    Our meta-argumentative vocabulary supplies the conceptual tools used to reflectively analyse, regulate, and evaluate our argumentative performances. Yet, this vocabulary is susceptible to misunderstanding and abuse in ways that make possible new discursive mistakes and pathologies. Thus, our efforts to self-regulate our reason-transacting practices by articulating their norms makes possible new ways to violate and flout those very norms. Scott Aikin identifies the structural possibility of this vicious feedback loop as the Owl of Minerva Problem. In the spirit of a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  7
    Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural Approach.Martin Hinton & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):61-84.
    In this paper, we formulate a procedure for assessing reasoning as it is expressed in natural arguments. The procedure is a specification of one of the three aspects of argumentation assessment distinguished in the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation that makes use of the argument categorisation framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments. The theoretical framework and practical application of both the CAPNA and the PTA are described, as well as the evaluation procedure that combines the two. The procedure (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27.  6
    Reasonable Reconstruction of Socratic Irony in Public Discourse.Michael J. Hoppmann - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):101-121.
    Reasonable reconstruction of public statements is an essential component of civil discourse especially in contentious political contexts. This essay addresses the problems posed by irony through the perspective of the speaker and the audience. I argue that existing attempts to systematize the identification and reconstruction of irony focus unduly on forms of contrary irony, thereby neglecting the more complex figure of Socratic Irony. Socratic Irony, which can be characterized by the invocation of the voice of the other, is distinguished from (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28.  2
    From Theory of Rhetoric to the Practice of Language Use: The Case of Appeals to Ethos Elements.Marcin Koszowy, Katarzyna Budzynska, Martín Pereira-Fariña & Rory Duthie - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):123-149.
    In their book Commitment in Dialogue, Walton and Krabbe claim that formal dialogue systems for conversational argumentation are “not very realistic and not easy to apply”. This difficulty may make argumentation theory less well adapted to be employed to describe or analyse actual argumentation practice. On the other hand, the empirical study of real-life arguments may miss or ignore insights of more than the two millennia of the development of philosophy of language, rhetoric, and argumentation theory. In this paper, we (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  29.  11
    Adversariality in Argumentation: Shortcomings of Minimal Adversariality and A Possible Reconstruction.Iñaki Xavier Larrauri Pertierra - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):17-34.
    Minimal adversariality consists in the opposition of contradictory conclusions in argumentation, and its usual metaphorical expression as a game between combating arguers has seen it be criticized from a number of perspectives: the language used, whether cooperation best attains the argumentative telos of epistemic betterment, and the ideal nature of the metaphor itself. This paper explores primarily the idealization of deductive argumentation, which is problematic due to its attenuated applicability to a dialectic involving premises and justificatory biases that are left (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30.  4
    Charles Arthur Willard (1945–2021): In Memoriam.Barbara J. O’Keefe & Daniel J. O’Keefe - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):151-154.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  3
    Modal Qualification and the Speech-Act of Arguing in LNMA: Practical Aspects and a Theoretical Issue.Alejandro Secades Gómez - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):1-15.
    This work analyses the speech-act of arguing as proposed by Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation with the help of diagrams, examples and basic formalization techniques. The focus is set on one of the most novel issues of LNMA, modal qualification, and the distinction between epistemic and ontological modals. The first conclusion is that employing LNMA in order to analyse and evaluate actual argumentation as it is proposed is too complex to be applied as is. The second conclusion, at a theoretical (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues