13 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Robert C. Pinto [30]Robert Charles Pinto [1]
  1.  30
    Argumentation and the Force of Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):268-295.
    Argumentation involves offering and/or exchanging reasons – either reasons for adopting various attitudes towards specific propositional contents or else reasons for acting in various ways. This paper develops the idea that the force of reasons is through and through a normative force because what good reasons accomplish is precisely to give one a certain sort of entitlement to do what they are reasons for. The paper attempts to shed light on what it is to have a reason, how the sort (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  31
    The Uses of Argument in Communicative Contexts.Robert C. Pinto - 2003 - Argumentation 24 (2):227-252.
    This paper challenges the view that arguments are (by definition, as it were) attempts to persuade or convince an audience to accept (or reject) a point of view by presenting reasons for (or against) that point of view. I maintain, first, that an arguer need not intend any effect beyond that of making it manifest to readers or hearers that there is a reason for doing some particular thing (e.g., for believing a certain proposition, or alternatively for rejecting it), and (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  3.  27
    Evaluating Inferences: The Nature and Role of Warrants.Robert C. Pinto - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):287-317.
    Following David Hitchcock and Stephen Toulmin, this paper takes warrants to be material inference rules. It offers an account of the form such rules should take that is designed (a) to implement the idea that an argument/inference is valid only if it is entitlement preserving and (b) to support a qualitative version of evidence proportionalism. It attempts to capture what gives warrants their normative force by elaborating a concept of reliability tailored to its account of the form such rules should (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  4.  15
    Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings.Hans V. Hansen & Robert C. Pinto (eds.) - 1995 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    A major purpose of this book is to make the post-Hamblin work on fallacies available to a wider audience in a single, convenient volume.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  5.  43
    The Account of Warrants in Bermejo-Luque's Giving Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2011 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 26 (3):311-320.
    ABSTRACT: This paper highlights the difference between Lilian Bermejo-Luque’s account of warrants with the quite different accounts of warrants offered by Toulmin, Hitchcock, and myself, and lays out some of the reasons why I think a “Toulminesque” account of warrants captures crucial aspects of arguing more adequately than her account does.RESUMEN: Este artículo subraya la diferencia entre el análisis de los garantes que nos propone Lilian Bermejo-Luque con los de Toulmin, Hitchcok y el mío propio. Presento algunas razones por las (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6. Reasoning a Practical Guide for Canadian Students.Robert C. Pinto, J. Anthony Blair & Katharine Elizabeth Parr - 1993
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7.  6
    Dialectic and the Structure of Argument.Robert C. Pinto - 1984 - Informal Logic 6 (1).
  8.  15
    Douglas Walton (2000), Scare Tactics: Arguments That Appeal to Fear and Threats. [REVIEW]Robert C. Pinto - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (2):261-269.
  9.  27
    Inconsistency, Rationality and Relativism.Robert C. Pinto - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
    In section I, I argue that the principal reason why inconsistency is a fault is that it involves having at least one false belief. In section 2, I argue that inconsistency need not be a serious epistemic fault. The argument in section 2 is based on the notion that what matters epistemically is always in the final analysis an item's effect on attaining the goal of truth. In section 3 I describe two cases in which it is best from an (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  25
    A.F. Snoeck Henkemans,Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. [REVIEW]Robert C. Pinto - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):314-318.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  13
    Marcello Pera (1994), The Discourses of Science (Translated by Clarissa Botsford).Robert C. Pinto - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (1):60-65.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  14
    Govier on Trust.Robert C. Pinto - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):263-291.
    This paper attempts two things: to give the reader a very general idea of the main outlines of what Govier has to say both about social and political trust and about trust in personal relationships, and to present in slightly more detail what she says about the role of trust in acquiring belief and/or knowledge from testimony and about the reasons for trusting such testimony.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Argumentation and its Applications, CD-ROM.Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Robert C. Pinto (eds.) - 2002 - Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark