Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Rhetoric and Dialectic From the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.Scott Jacobs - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):261-286.
    Normative pragmatics can bridge the differences between dialectical and rhetorical theories in a way that saves the central insights of both. Normative pragmatics calls attention to how the manifest strategic design of a message produces interpretive effects and interactional consequences. Argumentative analysis of messages should begin with the manifest persuasive rationale they communicate. But not all persuasive inducements should be treated as arguments. Arguments express with a special pragmatic force propositions where those propositions stand in particular inferential relations to one (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   48 citations  
  • Rational Choice and Moral Agency.David Copp - 1999 - Philosophical Review 108 (2):297.
    The “ultimate objective” of this book, says David Schmidtz, “is to examine the degree to which being moral is co-extensive with being rational”. For Schmidtz, an “end” gives us a reason for action provided that its pursuit is not undercut by some other end. Morality has a two-part structure. A person’s goal is “moral” if “pursuing it helps [her] to develop in a reflectively rational way,” provided its pursuit does not violate “interpersonal moral constraints”. Interpersonal constraints are imposed by “collectively (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
    The paper's thesis is that dialogue is not an adequate model for all types of argument. The position of Walton is taken as the contrary view. The paper provides a set of descriptions of dialogues in which arguments feature in the order of the increasing complexity of the argument presentation at each turn of the dialogue, and argues that when arguments of great complexity are traded, the exchanges between arguers are turns of a dialogue only in an extended or metaphorical (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Theaetetus. Plato - 1890 - Clarendon Press.
    The Theaetetus is a seminal text in the philosophy of knowledge, acknowledged as one of Plato's finest works. Cast as a conversation between Socrates and a student, Theaetetus, it explores the key philosophical issue: what is knowledge? This new edition combines the acclaimed translation by John McDowell with a valuable introduction and notes.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   86 citations  
  • Aristotelian Problems.James G. Lennox - 1994 - Ancient Philosophy 14 (S1):53-77.
  • The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University of Toronto Press.
  • The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, 'Reason and the Rationalization of Society'.Jürgen Habermas - 1984 - Polity..
  • Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.FransH Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):271-291.
    Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • How to Make and Defend a Proposal in a Deliberation Dialogue.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3):177-239.
    In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to count (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Topics. Aristotle - 1997 - Oxford University Press USA.
    them. Though Aristotle does not say so, presumably the questioner who conceals in this way must be prepared, when challenged, to show that the conclusion ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   43 citations  
  • Coalescent Argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.
    Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucial connection between a claim and the attitudes, beliefs, feelings, values and needs to which it is connected dispute partners are able to identify points of agreement and disagreement. These points can then be utilized to effect coalescence, a joining or merging of divergent positions, by forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   145 citations  
  • Critical Thinking an Introduction.Alec Fisher - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.
    This text meets the requirements of the OCR AS specification for critical thinking. Alec Fisher shows students how they can develop a range of creative and critical thinking skills that are transferable to other subjects and contexts.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Syntax and Semantics of Questions.Lauri Karttunen - 1977 - Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1):3--44.
    W. Labov's & T. Labov's findings concerning their child grammar acquisition ("Learning the Syntax of Questions" in Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language, Campbell, R. & Smith, P. Eds, New York: Plenum Press, 1978) are interpreted in terms of different semantics of why & other wh-questions. Z. Dubiel.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   253 citations  
  • Responding to Alternative and Polar Questions.María Biezma & Kyle Rawlins - 2012 - Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (5):361-406.
    This paper gives an account of the differences between polar and alternative questions, as well as an account of the division of labor between compositional semantics and pragmatics in interpreting these types of questions. Alternative questions involve a strong exhaustivity presupposition for the mentioned alternatives. We derive this compositionally from the meaning of the final falling tone and its interaction with the pragmatics of questioning in discourse. Alternative questions are exhaustive in two ways: they exhaust the space of epistemic possibilities, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition.Marta Spranzi - 2011 - John Benjamins.
    introduction Dialectic and the notion of tradition The past does not pull back but presses forward. (Hannah Arendt 1977: 10) Through the confrontation over ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • What is Wrong with Classical Negation?Nils Kürbis - 2015 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 92 (1):51-86.
    The focus of this paper are Dummett's meaning-theoretical arguments against classical logic based on consideration about the meaning of negation. Using Dummettian principles, I shall outline three such arguments, of increasing strength, and show that they are unsuccessful by giving responses to each argument on behalf of the classical logician. What is crucial is that in responding to these arguments a classicist need not challenge any of the basic assumptions of Dummett's outlook on the theory of meaning. In particular, I (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • The Web of Belief.W. V. O. Quine & J. S. Ullian - 1970 - New York: Random House.
    A compact, coherent introduction to the study of rational belief, this text provides points of entry to such areas of philosophy as theory of knowledge, methodology of science, and philosophy of language. The book is accessible to all undergraduates and presupposes no philosophical training.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   287 citations  
  • Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Vale Press.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   331 citations  
  • Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.
    Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Yes and No.I. Rumfitt - 2000 - Mind 109 (436):781-823.
    In what does the sense of a sentential connective consist? Like many others, I hold that its sense lies in rules that govern deductions. In the present paper, however, I argue that a classical logician should take the relevant deductions to be arguments involving affirmative or negative answers to yes-or-no questions that contain the connective. An intuitionistic logician will differ in concentrating exclusively upon affirmative answers. I conclude by arguing that a well known intuitionistic criticism of classical logic fails if (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   85 citations  
  • Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   315 citations  
  • Two Dogmas of Empiricism Symposium.W. V. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60:20.
  • Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.
    Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact, and truth which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1073 citations  
  • Deliberation Digitized: Designing Disagreement Space Through Communication-Information Services.Mark Aakhus - 2013 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1):101-126.
    A specific issue for argumentation theory is whether information and communication technologies play any role in governing argument — that is, as parties engage in practical activities across space and time via ICTs, does technology matter for the interplay of argumentative content and process in managing disagreement? The case made here is that technologies do matter because they are not merely conduits of communication but have a role in the pragmatics of communication and argumentation. In particular, ICTs should be recognized (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Debating Multiple Positions in Multi-Party Online Deliberation: Sides, Positions, and Cases.Marcin Lewiński - 2013 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1):151-177.
    Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue”. However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this paper is to shed extra light on such (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The Logic of Questions.David Harrah - 2002 - In Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Springer. pp. 1--60.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Questions.C. L. Hamblin - 1958 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36 (3):159 – 168.
  • Dialectics, Evaluation, and Argument.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (1).
    A critical examination of the dialectical approach, focusing on a comparison ofthe illative and the dialectical definitions of argument. I distinguish a moderate, a strong and a hyper dialectical conception of argument. I critique Goldman's argument for the moderate conception and Johnson's argument for the strong conception, and argue that the moderate conception is correct.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Disputation by Design.Sally Jackson - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):183-198.
    In normative pragmatics, a kind of empirical discourse analysis organized by normative theory, the analysis of any communication process begins with an idealized model of the discourse that can be compared with actual practices. Idealizations of argumentation can be found, among other places, in theoretical descriptions of ‘critical discussion’ and other dialogue types. Comparing ideal models with actual practices can pinpoint defects in the models (leading to theoretical refinements), but it can also identify deficiencies in practice. This latter possibility invites (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Is Pragmatics or Praxeology the Foundation of Logic?Leo Apostel - 1981 - Philosophica 28.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
    In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Dialectic and Political Thought and Action.Richard McKeon - 1954 - Ethics 65 (1):1-33.
  • Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach.Scott Jacobs & Sally Jackson - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):161-176.
    Digressions in argumentative discussion are a kind of failure of relevance. Examination of what actual cases look like reveals several properties of argumentative relevance: (1) The informational relevance of propositions to the truth value of a conclusion should be distinguished from the pragmatic relevance of argumentative acts to the task of resolving a disagreement. (2) Pragmatic irrelevance is a collaborative phenomenon. It does not just short-circuit reasoning; it encourages a failure to take up the demands of an argumentative task. (3) (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Two Sides of Any Issue.Dale Jacquette - 2005 - Argumentation 21 (2):115-127.
    Seneca in his Moral Epistles to Lucilium ridicules Protagoras’ claim that both sides of any position can be equally well argued. Cicero, on the contrary, in the surviving fragments of his dialogue, the Republic, maintains in the person of Laelius that the thorough exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of any position pro and con is the best and often the only dialectical avenue to the discovery of difficult truths. There are therefore at least two sides to the issue of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Rob Grootendorst, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer Verlag. pp. 271-291.
  • Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):271-291.
    Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  • Division and Definition in the Sophist.Lesley Brown - 2010 - In David Charles (ed.), Definition in Greek Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 151--171.
  • Deliberative Rationalality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy.Seyla Benhabib - 1994 - Constellations 1 (1):26-52.
  • Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Logic as Related to Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 2012 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 45 (2):148.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Two Concepts of Argument.Daniel J. O'Keefe - 1992 - In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications. pp. 11--79.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   77 citations  
  • Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectic Perspective.Frans H. van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1989 - Argumentation 2 (2):271-92.
    Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations