16 found
Order:
See also
David Godden
Michigan State University
  1. A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  2. On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability.David M. Godden - 2008 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (2):pp. 101-129.
    Typically, common knowledge is taken as grounds for the acceptability of a claim, while appeals to popularity are seen as fallacious attempts to support a claim. This paper poses the question of whether there is any categorical difference between appeals to common knowledge and appeals to popular opinion as argumentative moves. In answering this question, I argue that appeals to common knowledge do not, on their own, provide adequate grounds for a claim’s acceptability.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  3.  1
    A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognitionpragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  4.  63
    The Importance of Belief in Argumentation: Belief, Commitment and the Effective Resolution of a Difference of Opinion.David M. Godden - 2010 - Synthese 172 (3):397-414.
    This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5.  5
    Deep Disagreements: A Meta-Argumentation Approach.Maurice Finocchiaro & David M. Godden - unknown
    This paper examines the views of Fogelin, Woods, Johnstone, etc., concerning deep disa-greements, force-five standoffs, philosophical controversies, etc. My approach is to reconstruct their views and critiques of them as meta-arguments, and to elaborate the meta-argumentative aspects of radical disa-greements. It turns out that deep disagreements are resolvable to a greater degree than usually thought, but only by using special principles and practices, such as meta-argumentation, ad hominem argumentation, Ramsey’s principle, etc.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6.  11
    Defeasibility in Judicial Opinion: Logical or Procedural?David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):6-19.
    While defeasibility in legal reasoning has been the subject of recent scholarship, it has yet to be studied in the context of judicial opinion. Yet, being subject to appeal, judicial decisions can default for a variety of reasons. Prakken (2001) argued that the defeasibility affecting reasoning involved in adversarial legal argumentation is best analysed as procedural rather than logical. In this paper we argue that the defeasibility of ratio decendi is similarly best explained and modeled in a procedural and dialectical (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  6
    The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - unknown
    The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  3
    Redefining Knowledge in a Way Suitable for Argumentation Theory.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - unknown
    Knowledge plays an important role in argumentation. Yet, recent work shows that standard conceptions of knowledge in epistemology may not be entirely suitable for argumentation. This paper explores the role of knowledge in argumentation, and proposes a notion of knowledge that promises to be more suitable for argumentation by taking account of: its dynamic nature, the defeasibility of our commitments, and the non-monotonicity of many of the inferences we use in everyday reasoning and argumentation.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  2
    Departmental Boundaries Within the Corporate Body of Theory: Quine on the Holistic Foundations of Logic: Dialogue.David M. Godden - 2006 - Dialogue 45 (3):505-528.
    ABSTRACT This article argues that Quine's holistic and naturalized semantics provides an inadequate account of the foundations of logical expressions and misrepresents the internal structure of theories. By considering a Quinean model of theoretical revision, I identify the status and foundation holism provides to the propositions of logic. I contend that a central tenet of Quinean holism—the Revisability Doctrine—cannot be held consistently, and that the inconsistencies surrounding it mark a series of pervasive errors within naturalized holism. In response, I propose (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  3
    Reconstruction and Representation: Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  1
    Departmental Boundaries Within the Corporate Body of Theory: Quine on the Holistic Foundations of Logic.David M. Godden - 2006 - Dialogue 45 (3):505-528.
    ABSTRACT: This article argues that Quine’s holistic and naturalized semantics provides an inadequate account of the foundations of logical expressions and misrepresents the internal structure of theories. By considering a Quinean model of theoretical revision, I identify the status and foundation holism provides to the propositions of logic. I contend that a central tenet of Quinean holism-the Revisability Doctrine-cannot be held consistently, and that the inconsistencies surrounding it mark a series of pervasive errors within naturalized holism. In response, I propose (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  1
    Departmental Boundaries Within the Corporate Body of Theory.David M. Godden - 2006 - Dialogue 45 (3):505-528.
    ABSTRACT: This article argues that Quine’s holistic and naturalized semantics provides an inadequate account of the foundations of logical expressions and misrepresents the internal structure of theories. By considering a Quinean model of theoretical revision, I identify the status and foundation holism provides to the propositions of logic. I contend that a central tenet of Quinean holism-the Revisability Doctrine-cannot be held consistently, and that the inconsistencies surrounding it mark a series of pervasive errors within naturalized holism. In response, I propose (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  1
    On the Relation of Argumentation and Inference.David M. Godden - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  1
    The Epistemic Utility of Toulmin’s Argument Fields.David M. Godden - unknown
    Toulmin’s DWC model recognizes a plurality of argument cultures through the thesis of field dependency: that the normative features of arguments vary from one field to the next. Yet, little consensus exists concerning the nature and foundations of argument fields. This paper explores the question of whether Toulminian fields have any useful role to play in the epistemic evaluation of arguments.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Commentary on Aberdein.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Commentary on Krabbe.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography