13 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Jean H. M. Wagemans [12]Jean Wagemans [4]Jean Hm Wagemans [2]
See also
Jean H.M. Wagemans
University of Amsterdam
  1.  56
    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.  24
    Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations.Jean Wagemans - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):97-108.
    The practice of justifying scientific explanations generates argumentative patterns in which several types of arguments may play a role. This paper is aimed at identifying these patterns on the basis of an exploration of the institutional conventions regarding the nature, the shape and the quality of scientific explanations as reflected in the writings of influential philosophers of science. First, a basic pattern for justifying scientific explanations is described. Then, two types of extensions of this pattern are presented. These extensions are (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  3.  10
    Annotating Argument Schemes.Jacky Visser, John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Jean Wagemans & Douglas Walton - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (1):101-139.
    Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitatively provide such insight are few and far between. This is all the more true for argument scheme corpora, which tend (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  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  
  5.  22
    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  
  6.  7
    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  
  7. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.].Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.) - 2019 - Sic Sat.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  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  
  9.  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  
  10.  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  
  11.  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.
  12.  28
    Review of M. Spranzi, The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition. [REVIEW]Jean Hm Wagemans - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):89-92.
  13.  20
    What's Hot In... Argumentation Theory.Jean Hm Wagemans - 2011 - The Reasoner 5 (4):61.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark