9 found
Order:
See also
Jean H.M. Wagemans
University of Amsterdam
  1.  57
    The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
    In this contribution, I will develop a comprehensive tool for the reconstruction and evaluation of argumentation from expert opinion. This is done by analyzing and then combining two dialectical accounts of this type of argumentation. Walton’s account of the ‘appeal to expert opinion’ provides a number of useful, but fairly unsystematic suggestions for critical questions pertaining to argumentation from expert opinion. The pragma-dialectical account of ‘argumentation from authority’ offers a clear and systematic, but fairly general framework for the reconstruction and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  2.  6
    An Argumentative Reconstruction of the Computer Metaphor of the Brain.Andreas Bilstrup Finsen, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (3):317-335.
    The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  23
    Analogy, Similarity, and the Periodic Table of Arguments.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):63-75.
    The aim of this paper is to indicate the systematic place of arguments based on the concept of analogy within the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, a new method for describing and classifying arguments that integrates traditional dialectical accounts of arguments and fallacies and rhetorical accounts of the means of persuasion into a comprehensive framework. The paper begins with an inventory of existing approaches to arguments based on analogy, similarity and adjacent concepts. Then, the theoretical framework of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  9
    How Do Scientists Criticize the Computer Metaphor of the Brain?Andreas Bilstrup Finsen, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2021 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 10 (2):171-201.
    The central metaphor in cognitive science is the computer metaphor of the brain. In previous work, we reconstructed the metaphor in a novel way, guided by the assumption that it functions as an explanatory hypothesis. We developed an argumentative pattern for justifying scientific explanations in which this metaphor functions as a standpoint supported by argumentation containing abduction and analogy. In this paper, we use the argumentative pattern as a heuristic to reconstruct recent scientific criticisms against the computer metaphor. The pattern (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  2
    Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural Approach.Martin Hinton & Jean H. M. Wagemans - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-24.
    In this paper, we formulate a procedure for assessing reasoning as it is expressed in natural arguments. The procedure is a specification of one of the three aspects of argumentation assessment distinguished in the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation that makes use of the argument categorisation framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments. The theoretical framework and practical application of both the CAPNA and the PTA are described, as well as the evaluation procedure that combines the two. The procedure (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  4
    Commentary on “The Potential of Argumentation Theory in Enhancing Patient-Centered Care in Breaking Bad News Encounters”.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2018 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (2):138-140.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  20
    Review of J. Crosswhite, Deep Rhetoric: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom. [REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):475-479.
    Recent scholarship in the field of argumentation theory has shown an increasing interest in rethinking the relation between dialectic and rhetoric. In the debate concerning this issue, some scholars take the position of ‘isolationists’. They think that fundamental differences exist between the two disciplines and that it is impossible to translate insights developed within the one discipline in terms of the other. Other scholars can be characterized as ‘combinationalists’. They take the position that insights from dialectic and rhetoric can be (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  67
    Review of M. A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. [REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):271-274.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  29
    Review of M. Spranzi, The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition[REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):89-92.