361 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Douglas Walton [244]Douglas N. Walton [119]Douglas C. Walton [1]DouglasN Walton [1]
Douglas Neil Walton [1]
See also
Douglas Walton
University of Windsor
  1. Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  2.  96
    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   105 citations  
  3.  65
    Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - L. Erlbaum Associates.
    This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   47 citations  
  4.  38
    The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
    We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the procedural and dialogical aspects of argumentation. The model applies proof standards to determine the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. The model uses different types of premises (ordinary premises, assumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (stated, questioned, accepted or rejected) to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate, for each premise separately. (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  5.  55
    Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.
    Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation presents the basic tools for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of common arguments for beginners. The book teaches by using examples of arguments in dialogues, both in the text itself and in the exercises. Examples of controversial legal, political, and ethical arguments are analyzed. Illustrating the most common kinds of arguments, the book also explains how to evaluate each kind by critical questioning. Douglas Walton shows how arguments can be reasonable under the right dialogue conditions by (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  6. Reasoning From Paradigms and Negative Evidence.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas N. Walton - 2011 - Pragmatics and Cognitionpragmatics and Cognition 19 (1):92-116.
    Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy.Douglas Walton - 2003 - University Alabama Press.
    Although fallacies have been common since Aristotle, until recently little attention has been devoted to identifying and defining them. Furthermore, the concept of fallacy itself has lacked a sufficiently clear meaning to make it a useful tool for evaluating arguments. Douglas Walton takes a new analytical look at the concept of fallacy and presents an up-to-date analysis of its usefulness for argumentation studies. Walton uses case studies illustrating familiar arguments and tricky deceptions in everyday conversation where the charge of fallaciousness (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  8. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority.Douglas Walton - 1997 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    A new pragmatic approach, based on the latest developments in argumentation theory, analyzing appeal to expert opinion as a form of argument. Reliance on authority has always been a common recourse in argumentation, perhaps never more so than today in our highly technological society when knowledge has become so specialized—as manifested, for instance, in the frequent appearance of "expert witnesses" in courtrooms. When is an appeal to the opinion of an expert a reasonable type of argument to make, and when (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  9. The New Dialectic Conversational Contexts of Argument.Douglas N. Walton - 1998 - University of Toronto Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  10.  80
    Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
    This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  11.  11
    Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  12. Legal Argumentation and Evidence.Douglas Walton - 2002 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    A leading expert in informal logic, Douglas Walton turns his attention in this new book to how reasoning operates in trials and other legal contexts, with special emphasis on the law of evidence. The new model he develops, drawing on methods of argumentation theory that are gaining wide acceptance in computing fields like artificial intelligence, can be used to identify, analyze, and evaluate specific types of legal argument. In contrast with approaches that rely on deductive and inductive logic and rule (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  13. Epistemic and Dialectical Models of Begging the Question.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Synthese 152 (2):237-284.
    This paper addresses the problem posed by the current split between the two opposed hypotheses in the growing literature on the fallacy of begging the question the epistemic hypothesis, based on knowledge and belief, and the dialectical one, based on formal dialogue systems. In the first section, the nature of split is explained, and it is shown how each hypothesis has developed. To get the beginning reader up to speed in the literature, a number of key problematic examples are analyzed (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  14.  29
    Emotive Language in Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.
    This book analyzes the uses of emotive language and redefinitions from pragmatic, dialectical, epistemic and rhetorical perspectives, investigating the relationship between emotions, persuasion and meaning, and focusing on the implicit dimension of the use of a word and its dialectical effects. It offers a method for evaluating the persuasive and manipulative uses of emotive language in ordinary and political discourse. Through the analysis of political speeches and legal arguments, the book offers a systematic study of emotive language in argumentation, rhetoric, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  15.  47
    Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law.Douglas N. Walton - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
    Recent work in artificial intelligence has increasingly turned to argumentation as a rich, interdisciplinary area of research that can provide new methods related to evidence and reasoning in the area of law. Douglas Walton provides an introduction to basic concepts, tools and methods in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence as applied to the analysis and evaluation of witness testimony. He shows how witness testimony is by its nature inherently fallible and sometimes subject to disastrous failures. At the same time such (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  16.  78
    Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
    This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  17.  8
    Abductive Reasoning.Douglas Walton - 2004 - University Alabama Press.
    This book examines three areas in which abductive reasoning is especially important: medicine, science, and law. The reader is introduced to abduction and shown how it has evolved historically into the framework of conventional wisdom in logic. Discussions draw upon recent techniques used in artificial intelligence, particularly in the areas of multi-agent systems and plan recognition, to develop a dialogue model of explanation. Cases of causal explanations in law are analyzed using abductive reasoning, and all the components are finally brought (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  18. Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1991 - Greenwood Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  19.  65
    Action Theory.M. Brand & Douglas N. Walton (eds.) - 1976 - Reidel.
    INTRODUCTION BY THE EDITORS Gilbert Ryle, in his Concept of Mind (1949), attacked volitional theories of human actions; JL Austin, in his "If and Cans" ...
  20. Argument From Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, dialectical (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  21. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
    Second edition of the introductory guidebook to the basic principles of constructing sound arguments and criticising bad ones. Non-technical in approach, it is based on 186 examples, which Douglas Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, discusses and evaluates in clear, illustrative detail. Walton explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical responses. This edition takes into account (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  22. 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   12 citations  
  23.  30
    Ad Hominem Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University Alabama Press.
    Walton gives a clear method for analyzing and evaluating cases of ad hominem arguments found in everyday argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  24. Arguments From Ignorance.Douglas Walton - 1995 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    _Arguments from Ignorance _explores the situations in which the argument from ignorance functions as a respectable form of reasoning and those in which it is indeed fallacious. Douglas Walton draws on everyday conversations on all kinds of practical matters in which the _argumentum ad ignorantiam _is used quite appropriately to infer conclusions. He also discusses the inappropriate use of this kind of argument, referring to various major case studies, including the Salem witchcraft trials, the McCarthy hearings, and the Alger Hiss (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  25.  30
    Profiles of Dialogue for Relevance.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (4):523-562.
    This paper uses argument diagrams, argumentation schemes, and some tools from formal argumentation systems developed in artificial intelligence to build a graph-theoretic model of relevance shown to be applicable as a practical method for helping a third party judge issues of relevance or irrelevance of an argument in real examples. Examples used to illustrate how the method works are drawn from disputes about relevance in natural language discourse, including a criminal trial and a parliamentary debate.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  26.  13
    An Arugmentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpertation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27. Argument Diagramming in Logic, Artificial Intelligence, and Law.Chris Reed, Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence, and Law 22 (1):87-109.
  28. Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2007 - Anthropology and Philosophy 8 (1/2):101-120.
    Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples of everyday conversational argumentation where determination of relevance and irrelevance can be assisted by means of adopting a new dialectical approach. According to the new dialectical theory, dialogue types are normative frameworks with specific goals and rules that can be applied to conversational argumentation. In this paper is shown how such dialectical models of reasonable argumentation can be applied to a determination of whether an (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  29.  6
    Representing Argumentation Schemes with Constraint Handling Rules.Thomas F. Gordon, Horst Friedrich & Douglas Walton - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (2):91-119.
    We present a high-level declarative programming language for representing argumentation schemes, where schemes represented in this language can be easily validated by domain experts, including developers of argumentation schemes in informal logic and philosophy, and serve as executable specifications for automatically constructing arguments, when applied to a set of assumptions. This new rule language for representing argumentation schemes is validated by using it to represent twenty representative argumentation schemes.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2008 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):525-549.
    In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  31. The Place of Emotion in Argument.Douglas Walton - 1992 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    Appeals to emotion—pity, fear, popular sentiment, and _ad hominem_ attacks—are commonly used in argumentation. Instead of dismissing these appeals as fallacious wherever they occur, as many do, Walton urges that each use be judged on its merits. He distinguished three main categories of evaluation. First, is it reasonable, even if not conclusive, as an argument? Second, is it weak and therefore open to critical questioning for argument? And third, is it fallacious? The third category is a strong charge that incurs (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  32. What We Hide in Words: Value-Based Reasoning and Emotive Language.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Journal of Pragmatics 42:1997-2013.
    There are emotively powerful words that can modify our judgment, arouse our emotions and influence our decisions. This paper shows how the use of emotive meaning in argumentation can be explained by showing how their logical dimension, which can be analysed using argumentation schemes, combines with heuristic processes triggered by emotions. Arguing with emotive words is shown to use value-based practical reasoning grounded on hierarchies of values and maxims of experience for evaluative classification.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33.  14
    Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):221-243.
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  34.  41
    A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  35. Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies.Douglas N. Walton - 1984
  36.  2
    A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognitionpragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
  37. The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language .Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1:1-37.
  38.  27
    Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments Than They Are.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):159-184.
    This paper offers a solution to the problem of understanding how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by “seeming to be valid”, or (better) appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation of how fallacies are deceptive is based on heuristics and paraschemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem that sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, this (...)
    Direct download (17 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  39. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority.Douglas Walton - 1999 - Philosophy 74 (289):454-457.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  40.  21
    On a Razor's Edge: Evaluating Arguments From Expert Opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  41. What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?Douglas N. Walton - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (8):399-419.
    In redefining logic, philosophers need to go back to the Aristotelian roots of the subject, to expand the boundaries of the subject to include informal logic and to give up false oppositions between informal and formal logic.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  42.  6
    When Expert Opinion Evidence Goes Wrong.Douglas Walton - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-33.
    This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combining argument schemes with (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. Slippery Slope Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
    A "slippery slope argument" is a type of argument in which a first step is taken and a series of inextricable consequences follow, ultimately leading to a disastrous outcome. Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking treat the slippery slope argument as a fallacy. Walton argues that used correctly in some cases, they can be a reasonable type of argument to shift a burden of proof in a critical discussion, while in other cases they are used incorrectly. Walton identifies (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  44.  16
    Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (2):159-186.
    Using persuasive definitions and persuasive language generally to put a spin on an argument has often held to be suspicious, if not deceptive or even fallacious. However, if the purpose of a persuasive definition is to persuade, and if rational persuasion can be a legitimate goal, putting forward a persuasive definition can have a legitimate basis in some cases. To clarify this basis, the old subject of definitions is reconfigured into a new dialectical framework in which, it is argued, a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  45. Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy.Douglas N. Walton - 1985 - Greenwood Press.
  46.  31
    Enthymemes, Common Knowledge, and Plausible Inference.Douglas N. Walton - 2001 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 34 (2):93-112.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  47.  27
    Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1990 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    This book is an analysis of the distinctive form of reasoning, called practical reasoning by Aristotle (as opposed to theoretical reasoning), that serves to guide behaviour.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  48.  58
    Wrenching From Context: The Manipulation of Commitments.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):283-317.
    This article analyses the fallacy of wrenching from context, using the dialectical notions of commitment and implicature as tools. The data, a set of key examples, is used to sharpen the conceptual borderlines around the related fallacies of straw man, accent, misquotation, and neglect of qualifications. According to the analysis, the main characteristics of wrenching from context are the manipulation of the meaning of the other’s statement through devices such as the use of misquotations, selective quotations, and quoting out of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  49.  37
    Reasoning From Classifications and Definitions.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):81-107.
    In this paper we analyze the uses and misuses of argumentation schemes from verbal classification, and show how argument from definition supports argumentation based on argument from verbal classification. The inquiry has inevitably included the broader study of the concept of definition. The paper presents the schemes for argument from classification and for argument from definition, and shows how the latter type of argument so typically supports the former. The problem of analyzing arguments based on classification is framed in a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  50. Begging the Question as a Pragmatic Fallacy.Douglas N. Walton - 1994 - Synthese 100 (1):95 - 131.
    The aim of this paper is to make it clear how and why begging the question should be seen as a pragmatic fallacy which can only be properly evaluated in a context of dialogue. Included in the paper is a review of the contemporary literature on begging the question that shows the gradual emergence over the past twenty years or so of the dialectical conception of this fallacy. A second aim of the paper is to investigate a number of general (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
1 — 50 / 361