20 found

Year:

  1.  52
    Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. [REVIEW]Andrew Aberdein - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):455-461.
  2.  6
    Christopher W. Tindale: The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception.Daniel Beresheim - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):451-454.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  2
    Toulmin’s Logical Types.David Botting - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):433-449.
    In “The Uses of Argument” Toulmin introduces a number of concepts that have become popular in argumentation theory, such as data, claim, warrant, backing, force, field, and, most fundamentally, the concept of a “logical type”. Toulmin never defines the concept of a logical type or a field very clearly, and different interpretations can be found in the literature, either reconstructing what Toulmin has in mind, or revising his concepts to suit other concerns. A natural history of these concepts is not (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  7
    The Structure of Arguments by Analogy in Law.Luís Duarte D’Almeida & Cláudio Michelon - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):359-393.
    Successful accounts of analogy in law have two burdens to discharge. First, they must reflect the fact that the conclusion of an argument by analogy is a normative claim about how to decide a certain case. Second, they must not fail to accord relevance to the fact that the source case was authoritatively decided in a certain way. We argue in the first half of this paper that the common view of the structure of analogical arguments in law cannot overcome (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  3
    On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-Revisionism.David Godden - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):395-431.
    Visual arguments can seem to require unique, autonomous evaluative norms, since their content seems irreducible to, and incommensurable with, that of verbal arguments. Yet, assertions of the ineffability of the visual, or of visual-verbal incommensurability, seem to preclude counting putatively irreducible visual content as functioning argumentatively. By distinguishing two notions of content, informational and argumentative, I contend that arguments differing in informational content can have equivalent argumentative content, allowing the same argumentative norms to be rightly applied in their evaluation.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  4
    Using Argumentative Tools to Understand Inner Dialogue.Sara Greco - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):331-358.
    The starting point of this paper is the acknowledgement that individual reasoning, understood as inner dialogue, and social argumentation, albeit they are two different phenomena, share some similarities. On this basis, this paper sets out to apply instruments from argumentation theory to inner dialogue in order to better explain it. Within this framework, some limitations to the study of inner dialogue are also discussed; and methodological suggestions are provided in order to grasp what could be considered data on “inner dialogue” (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7.  4
    Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):221-243.
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  2
    Re-Contextualising Argumentative Meanings: An Adaptive Perspective.Thanh Nyan - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):267-299.
    The study of context can benefit greatly from re-examining some of the concepts arising from Anscombre and Ducrot’s argumentation theory from an adaptive perspective. By focusing on discourse dynamism, AT provides fresh angles from which to view key issues, such as the nature of context triggers; whether context construction is necessarily a background activity; in what way utterances set themselves up as contexts for the upcoming discourse; and the nature of the inferences whereby background knowledge and information are accessed. The (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  3
    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  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  4
    Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion.Jacky Visser - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):245-266.
    In this paper a dialogue game for critical discussion is developed. The dialogue game is a formalisation of the ideal discussion model that is central to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The formalisation is intended as a preparatory step to facilitate the development of computational tools to support the pragma-dialectical study of argumentation. An important dimension of the pragma-dialectical discussion model is the role played by speech acts. The central issue addressed in this paper is how the speech act perspective (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  7
    Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
    This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places in addition to players and positions into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  11
    Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close Relationships: A Revised Model.Ioana A. Cionea, Adam S. Richards & Sara K. Straub - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):121-163.
    This manuscript examines argument engagement in close relationships. Two pilot studies were conducted to identify what factors naïve actors report matter to them when considering whether to engage in an interpersonal argument, and to develop and pre-test measurement scales for these factors. The main study examined which of these factors predicted participants’ behavioral intent to engage in an argument about different topics and with different partners. Results indicated intent to engage was predicted by five factors: one’s orientation to the topic, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  11
    Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination.Stephen M. Croucher, Alfred DeMaris, Audra R. Diers-Lawson & Shannon Roper - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):23-43.
    This study has two purposes. First, the study evaluates the reliability of self-reports of argumentativeness by comparing self-reported argumentativeness with two other reports of the same target: evaluations by friends and evaluations by intimates. Second, the study examines whether particular characteristics presage a larger or smaller disparity in different reporters’ reports. We found the reliability of both the approach and avoidance subscales to be acceptable for the intimate partner’s responses, but only marginally acceptable when the scale was answered by a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  7
    Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence.Christian Dahlman - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):83-99.
    Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  11
    F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen : Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Sara Greco - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):213-220.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  19
    Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience?Xingming Hu - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):165-177.
    Peter van Inwagen defines a successful argument in philosophy as one that can be used to convert an audience of ideal agnostics in an ideal debate. Sarah McGrath and Thomas Kelly recently argue that van Inwagen’s definition cannot be correct since the idea of ideal agnostics is incoherent with regard to an absolute paradigm of a successful philosophical argument. This paper defends van Inwagen’s definition against McGrath and Kelly’s objection.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  7
    Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse.Mathilde Janier & Chris Reed - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):45-82.
    Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  8
    The Formalization of Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):101-119.
    This paper makes an independent start with formalizing the rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions. It does not deal with the well-known code of conduct consisting of ten rules but with the system consisting of fifteen rules on which the code of conduct is based. The rules of this system are scrutinized and problems they raise are discussed. Then a formal dialectical system is defined that reflects most of the contents of these rules. The aim is to elucidate (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  8
    Institutional Argumentation and Institutional Rules: Effects of Interactive Asymmetry on Argumentation in Institutional Contexts.Mark Andrew Thompson - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):1-21.
    Recent approaches to studying argumentation in institutions have pointed out the role of institutional rules in constraining argumentation that takes place in institutional contexts. However, few studies explain how these rules concretely affect actual argumentation. In particular, little work has been done as to the consequences of interactional asymmetry which often exists between participants in institutional contexts. While previous studies have suggested that this asymmetry exists as an aberration in the deliberative process, this paper argues that asymmetry is built into (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  8
    Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice.Harry Weger - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):209-211.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues