Argumentation 32 (3):397-430 (2018)

Abstract
A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-017-9441-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,518
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.
Modality in Argumentation.Andrea Rocci - 2017 - Springer Verlag.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Framing Fracking.Elena Musi & Mark Aakhus - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):112-135.
Argumentation and Meaning.Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli & Andrea Rocci - 2020 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 9 (1):1-18.
Should Climate Scientists Fly?Jean Goodwin - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (2):157-203.
Engaging Publics Through Climate Math.Tiara R. Na’Puti, Phaedra C. Pezzullo, Leah Sprain & Lydia Reinig - 2018 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (3):316-346.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Does Arguing From Coherence Make Sense?Stefano Bertea - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):433-446.
Paley’s Argument for Design.Graham Oppy - 2002 - Philo 5 (2):161-173.
Argument Has No Function.Jean Goodwin - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):69-90.
The Resolution Function of Argument.Tom Wiwcharuk - 1990 - Dissertation, York University (Canada)

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-01-04

Total views
14 ( #687,924 of 2,421,631 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #152,248 of 2,421,631 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes