15 found

Year:

  1.  15
    Douglas Walton: Argument Evaluation and Evidence.Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):301-307.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  4
    Virtuous Arguers: Responsible and Reliable.José Ángel Gascón - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):155-173.
    Virtuous arguers are expected to manifest virtues such as intellectual humility and open-mindedness, but from such traits the quality of arguments does not immediately follow. However, it also seems implausible that a virtuous arguer can systematically put forward bad arguments. How could virtue argumentation theory combine both insights? The solution, I argue, lies in an analogy with virtue epistemology: considering both responsibilist and reliabilist virtues gives us a fuller picture of the virtuous arguer.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  6
    The Elusive Notion of “Argument Quality”.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):213-240.
    We all seem to have a sense of what good and bad arguments are, and there is a long history—focusing on fallacies—of trying to provide objective standards that would allow a clear separation of good and bad arguments. This contribution discusses the limits of attempts to determine the quality of arguments. It begins with defining bad arguments as those that deviate from an established standard of good arguments. Since there are different conceptualizations of “argument”—as controversy, as debate, and as justification—and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  2
    Frans H. Van Eemeren and Wu Peng : Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics.Sally Jackson - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):293-299.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  3
    Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health.Sally Jackson & Jodi Schneider - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):241-272.
    Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6.  46
    Arguments From Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias.Moti Mizrahi - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):175-195.
    Accounts of arguments from expert opinion take it for granted that expert judgments count as (defeasible) evidence for propositions, and so an argument that proceeds from premises about what an expert judges to a conclusion that the expert is probably right is a strong argument. In Mizrahi (2013), I consider a potential justification for this assumption, namely, that expert judgments are significantly more likely to be true than novice judgments, and find it wanting because of empirical evidence suggesting that expert (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  8
    Legal Audiences.Fábio Perin Shecaira & Noel Struchiner - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):273-291.
    This paper approaches legal argumentation from a rhetorical perspective. It discusses the nature of the audiences that are targeted by judges in the legal process. Judicial opinions reach diverse groups of people with very different attitudes and expectations: other judges, lawyers, litigants, concerned citizens, etc. One important way in which these groups differ is that some of them are more likely to be persuaded by legalistic, precedent or statute-based arguments, while others expect judges to decide on grounds of justice or (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  5
    Legal Facts in Argumentation-Based Litigation Games.Minghui Xiong & Frank Zenker - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):197-211.
    This paper analyzes legal fact-argumentation in the framework of the argumentation-based litigation game by Xiong :16–19, 2012). Rather than as an ontological one, an ALG treats a legal fact as a fact-qua-claim whose acceptability depends on the reasons supporting it. In constructing their facts-qua-claims, parties to an ALG must interact to maintain a game-theoretic equilibrium. We compare the general interactional constraints that the civil and common law systems assign, and detail what the civil, administrative, and criminal codes of mainland China (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  8
    Virtuous Norms for Visual Arguers.Andrew Aberdein - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):1-23.
    This paper proposes that virtue theories of argumentation and theories of visual argumentation can be of mutual assistance. An argument that adoption of a virtue approach provides a basis for rejecting the normative independence of visual argumentation is presented and its premisses analysed. This entails an independently valuable clarification of the contrasting normative presuppositions of the various virtue theories of argumentation. A range of different kinds of visual argument are examined, and it is argued that they may all be successfully (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  7
    Evaluating Arguments From a Play About Ethics in Science: A Study with Medical Learners.Pablo Antonio Archila - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):53-76.
    Developing critical thinking ability is one of the main goals of medical education, in part because it enhances clinical reasoning, a vital competence in clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence suggesting ways to effectively teach critical thinking in the classroom. Here, we describe the use of a drama-based critical thinking classroom scenario. The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. Ninety-one medical students in Colombia were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  7
    Reasoning and Arguing, Dialectically and Dialogically, Among Individual and Multiple Participants.Michael David Baumtrog - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):77-98.
    Within three of the most well-known contemporary approaches to argumentation, the notions of solo argumentation and arguing with one’s self are given little attention and are typically argued to be able to be subsumed within the dialectical aspects of the approach being propounded. Challenging these claims, this paper has two main aims. The first is to argue that while dialogical argumentation may be most common, there exists individual dialectical argumentation, which is not so easily subsumed within these theories. Second, in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  11
    Frans H. Van Eemeren and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans: Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation.Sara Greco - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):151-153.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  34
    Breaking Out of the Circle.Caravello John - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):25-35.
    What’s wrong with begging the question? Some philosophers believe that question-begging arguments are inevitably fallacious and that their fallaciousness stems from a shared “formal” deficiency. In contrast, some philosophers, like Robinson deny that begging the question is fallacious at all. And others characterize begging the question as an “informal” fallacy of reasoning that can only be understood with the aid of epistemic notions. Sorensen joins this last camp by offering a powerful argument against both Robinson’s skepticism and fully formal approaches (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  7
    Questioning the Virtual Friendship Debate: Fuzzy Analogical Arguments From Classification and Definition.Oliver Laas - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):99-149.
    Arguments from analogy are pervasive in everyday reasoning, mathematics, philosophy, and science. Informal logic studies everyday argumentation in ordinary language. A branch of fuzzy logic, approximate reasoning, seeks to model facets of everyday reasoning with vague concepts in ill-defined situations. Ways of combining the results from these fields will be suggested by introducing a new argumentation scheme—a fuzzy analogical argument from classification—with the associated critical questions. This will be motivated by a case study of analogical reasoning in the virtual friendship (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  9
    Argumentative Patterns in Chinese Medical Consultations.Dawei Pan, Yanjin Chen & Shier Ju - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):37-52.
    Medical argumentation in non-Western societies has attracted little attention. In line with the pragma-dialectical approach to the study of argumentation, this article identifies a prototypical argumentative pattern in Chinese medical consultations. In addition to institutional preconditions, whose relevance to the argumentative pattern has been well cited, a factor that may be equally important has remained unnoticed: the preference for certain drugs, treatments or therapeutic measurements on the basis of folk interpretations of medical phenomena in individual ethnic groups. These preferences may (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues