Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Studies in the Way of Words.Paul Grice - 1989 - Philosophical Quarterly 40 (160):393-395.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   383 citations  
  • Is Trust an Epistemological Notion?Gloria Origgi - 2004 - Episteme 1 (1):61-72.
    Although there is widespread agreement that our epistemic dependence on other people's knowledge is a key ingredient of our cognitive life, the role of trust in this dependence is much more open to debate. Is trust in epistemic authority—or “epistemic trust” for short—an epistemological notion in any sense, or is it simply a bridge-concept that connects our epistemological concerns to moral issues? Should we depict it in terms of the more familiar sociological notion of trust as a basis for cooperation?
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • No More Charity, Please! Enthymematic Parsimony and the Pitfall of Benevolence.Fabio Paglieri - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa. pp. 1--26.
    Why are enthymemes so frequent? Are we dumb arguers, smart rhetoricians, or parsimonious reasoners? This paper investigates systematic use of enthymemes, criticizing the application of the principle of charity to their interpretation. In contrast, I propose to analyze enthymematic argumentation in terms of parsimony, i.e. as a manifestation of the rational tendency to economize over scant resources. Consequences of this view on the current debate on enthymemes and on their rational reconstruction are discussed.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 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   110 citations  
  • Argument Has No Function.Jean Goodwin - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):69-90.
    Douglas Walton has been right in calling us to attend to the pragmatics of argument. He has, however, also insisted that arguments should be understood and assessed by considering the functions they perform; and from this, I dissent. Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice. As an alternative to a functional theory of argumentative pragmatics, I propose a design view, which draws attention to (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • What Does Arguing Look Like?Jean Goodwin - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (1):79-93.
  • The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University of Toronto Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   78 citations  
  • An Inquiry Into the Human Mind.Thomas Reid - 1813 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Dilemmas of Trust.Trudy Govier - 1998 - Carleton University Press.
    Trust facilitates communication, love, friendship, and co-operation and is fundamentally important to human relationships and personal development. Using examples from daily life, interviews, literature, and film, Govier describes the role of trust in friendship and in family relationships as well as the connection between self-trust, self-respect, and self-esteem. She examines the reasons we trust or distrust others and ourselves, and the expectations and vulnerabilities that accompany those attitudes. But trust should not be blind. Acknowledging that distrust is often warranted, Govier (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Social Trust and Human Communities.Trudy Govier - 1997
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Knowledge in a Social World.Alvin I. Goldman - 1999 - Oxford University Press.
    Knowledge in a Social World offers a philosophy for the information age. Alvin Goldman explores new frontiers by creating a thoroughgoing social epistemology, moving beyond the traditional focus on solitary knowers. Against the tides of postmodernism and social constructionism Goldman defends the integrity of truth and shows how to promote it by well-designed forms of social interaction. From science to education, from law to democracy, he shows why and how public institutions should seek knowledge-enhancing practices. The result is a bold, (...)
  • Faultless Disagreement.Max Kölbel - 2004 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (1):53-73.
    There seem to be topics on which people can disagree without fault. For example, you and I might disagree on whether Picasso was a better artist than Matisse, without either of us being at fault. Is this a genuine possibility or just apparent? In this paper I pursue two aims: I want to provide a systematic map of available responses to this question. Simultaneously, I want to assess these responses. I start by introducing and defining the notion of a faultless (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   133 citations  
  • Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.Fred Kauffeld - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):245-266.
    This paper joins the voices warning against hasty transference of legal concepts of presumption to other kinds of argumentation, especially to deliberation about future acts and policies. Comparison of the pragmatics which respectively constitute the illocutionary acts of accusing and proposing reveals important differences in the ways presumptions prompt accusers and proposers to undertake probative responsibilities and, also, points to corresponding differences in their probative duties. This comparison has theoretically important implication regarding the norms governing persuasive argumentation. The paper is (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  • One Question, Two Answers.Jean Goodwin - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Arguments That Backfire.Daniel H. Cohen - 2005 - In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (eds.), The Uses of Argument. OSSA. pp. 58-65.
    One result of successful argumentation – able arguers presenting cogent arguments to competent audiences – is a transfer of credibility from premises to conclusions. From a purely logical perspective, neither dubious premises nor fallacious inference should lower the credibility of the target conclusion. Nevertheless, some arguments do backfire this way. Dialectical and rhetorical considerations come into play. Three inter-related conclusions emerge from a catalogue of hapless arguers and backfiring arguments. First, there are advantages to paying attention to arguers and their (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Arguers as Editors.Dale Hample & JudithM Dallinger - 1990 - Argumentation 4 (2):153-169.
    People use editorial criteria to decide whether to say or to suppress potential arguments. These criteria constitute people's standards as to what effective and appropriate arguments are like, and reflect general interaction goals. A series of empirical investigations has indicated that the standards fall into three classes: those having to do with argument effectiveness, those concerned with personal issues for arguer and target, and those centered on discourse quality. The essay also sketches the affinities certain types of people have for (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments.Dale Hample, Ben Warner & Dorian Young - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):21-37.
    Since argument frames precede most other arguing processes, argument editing among them, one’s frames may well predict one’s preferred editorial standards. This experiment assesses people’s arguing frames, gives them arguments to edit, and tests whether the frames actually do predict editorial preferences. Modest relationships between argument frames and argument editing appear. Other connections among frames, editing, and additional individual differences variables are more substantial. Particularly notable are the informative influences of psychological reactance. A new theoretical contribution is offered, connecting argument (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Enthymematic Parsimony.Fabio Paglieri & John Woods - 2011 - Synthese 178 (3):461 - 501.
    Enthymemes are traditionally defined as arguments in which some elements are left unstated. It is an empirical fact that enthymemes are both enormously frequent and appropriately understood in everyday argumentation. Why is it so? We outline an answer that dispenses with the so called "principle of charity", which is the standard notion underlying most works on enthymemes. In contrast, we suggest that a different force drives enthymematic argumentation—namely, parsimony, i.e. the tendency to optimize resource consumption, in light of the agent's (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Studies in the Way of Words.Paul Grice - 1989 - Synthese 84 (1):153-161.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   366 citations  
  • Manifest Rationality.Ralph Johnson - 2000 - Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  • An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.Dan Sperber - 2001 - Philosophical Topics 29 (1/2):401-413.
  • A Normative Pragmatic Perspective on Appealing to Emotions in Argumentation.Beth Innocenti Manolescu - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (3):327-343.
    Is appealing to emotions in argumentation ever legitimate and, if so, what is the best way to analyze and evaluate such appeals? After overviewing a normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation, I present answers to these questions from pragma-dialectical, informal logical, and rhetorical perspectives, and note positions shared and supplemented by a normative pragmatic perspective. A normative pragmatic perspective holds that appealing to emotions in argumentation may be relevant and non-manipulative; and that emotional appeals may be analyzed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • A Systematic Theory of Argumentation the Pragma-Dialectical Approach.F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst - 2004
  • 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   236 citations