20 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  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  2.  73
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  3. 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  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  4.  15
    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  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  5.  89
    Psychologism in the Logic of John Stuart Mill: Mill on the Subject Matter and Foundations of Ratiocinative Logic.David M. Godden - 2005 - History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (2):115-143.
    This paper considers the question of whether Mill's account of the nature and justificatory foundations of deductive logic is psychologistic. Logical psychologism asserts the dependency of logic on psychology. Frequently, this dependency arises as a result of a metaphysical thesis asserting the psychological nature of the subject matter of logic. A study of Mill's System of Logic and his Examination reveals that Mill held an equivocal view of the subject matter of logic, sometimes treating it as a set of psychological (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  6.  55
    Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  7.  13
    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  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  8.  54
    Rethinking the Debriefing Paradigm: The Rationality of Belief Perseverance.David M. Godden - 2012 - Logos and Episteme 3 (1):51-74.
    By examining particular cases of belief perseverance following the undermining of their original evidentiary grounds, this paper considers two theories of rational belief revision: foundation and coherence. Gilbert Harman has argued for coherence over foundationalism on the grounds that the foundations theory absurdly deems most of our beliefs to be not rationally held. A consequence of the unacceptability of foundationalism is that belief perseverance is rational. This paper defends the intuitive judgement that belief perseverance is irrational by offering a competing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  9.  19
    Commentary On: Chris Campolo's "Argumentative Virtues and Deep Disagreement".David M. Godden - unknown
  10.  37
    Psychologism and the Development of Russell's Account of Propositions.David M. Godden & Nicholas Griffin - 2009 - History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (2):171-186.
    This article examines the development of Russell's treatment of propositions, in relation to the topic of psychologism. In the first section, we outline the concept of psychologism, and show how it can arise in relation to theories of the nature of propositions. Following this, we note the anti-psychologistic elements of Russell's thought dating back to his idealist roots. From there, we sketch the development of Russell's theory of the proposition through a number of its key transitions. We show that Russell, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  11. Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
    In this paper we show how dialogue-based theories of argumentation can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution. Specifically we consider the role of persuasion in online dispute resolution by showing how persuasion dialogues can be functionally embedded in negotiation dialogues, and how negotiation dialogues can shift to persuasion dialogues. We conclude with some remarks on how persuasion dialogues might be modelled is such a way as to allow them to be implemented in a mechanical or computerized (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  12.  61
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13.  60
    Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation.David M. Godden - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (2):219-243.
    The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14.  22
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15.  10
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16.  8
    Commentary on Aberdein.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17.  10
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18.  9
    On the Relation of Argumentation and Inference.David M. Godden - unknown
  19.  9
    Commentary on Krabbe.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  8
    Reconstruction and Representation: Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark