Results for 'argumentation'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  38
    Coalescent Argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.
    Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucial connection between a claim and the attitudes, beliefs, feelings, values and needs to which it is connected dispute partners are able to identify points of agreement and disagreement. These points can then be utilized to effect coalescence, a joining or merging of divergent positions, by forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   75 citations  
  2.  26
    Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice.Sally Jackson - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):243-263.
    This essay proposes a design perspective on argumentation, intended as complementary to empirical and critical scholarship. In any substantive domain, design can provide insights that differ from those provided by scientific or humanistic perspectives. For argumentation, the key advantage of a design perspective is the recognition that humanity’s natural capacity for reason and reasonableness can be extended through inventions that improve on unaided human intellect. Historically, these inventions have fallen into three broad classes: logical systems, scientific methods, and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  3.  21
    Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):61-79.
    In this contribution the prototypical argumentative patterns are discussed in which pragmatic argumentation is used in the context of legal justification in hard cases. First, the function and implementation of pragmatic argumentation in prototypical argumentative patterns in legal justification are addressed. The dialectical function of the different parts of the complex argumentation are explained by characterizing them as argumentative moves that are put forward in reaction to certain forms of critique. Then, on the basis of an exemplary (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4.  40
    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 (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  5.  14
    Cognitive Semiotics in Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration.Paul Van den Hoven - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (2):157-176.
    Argumentation is a cognitive category. Texts cannot be said to be argumentation, nor can argumentation be said to lie in texts. This is an almost trivial semiotic point of departure, but it is quite relevant nevertheless. In this contribution, three reasons are developed to emphasize and to articulate the semiotic component of argumentation to show that it is a crucial element that cannot be disregarded. Two of these reasons are mentioned only in passing as other contributions (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  6.  30
    Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments.Dima Mohammed - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):221-245.
    In this paper, I review and compare major literature on goals in argumentation scholarship, aiming to answer the question of how to take the different goals of arguers into account when analysing and evaluating public political arguments. On the basis of the review, I suggest to differentiate between the different goals along two important distinctions: first, distinguish between goals which are intrinsic to argumentation and goals which are extrinsic to it and second distinguish between goals of the act (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  7.  52
    Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.David Zarefsky - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):317-330.
    Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  8.  70
    Choice is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation[REVIEW]Christian Kock - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):61-80.
    Leading contemporary argumentation theories such as those of Ralph Johnson, van Eemeren and Houtlosser, and Tindale, in their attempt to address rhetoric, tend to define rhetorical argumentation with reference to (a) the rhetorical arguer’s goal (to persuade effectively), and (b) the means he employs to do so. However, a central strand in the rhetorical tradition itself, led by Aristotle, and arguably the dominant view, sees rhetorical argumentation as defined with reference to the domain of issues discussed. On (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  9.  70
    The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):39-61.
    The notion of “the burden of proof” plays an important role in real-world argumentation contexts, in particular in law. It has also been given a central role in normative accounts of argumentation, and has been used to explain a range of classic argumentation fallacies. We argue that in law the goal is to make practical decisions whereas in critical discussion the goal is frequently simply to increase or decrease degree of belief in a proposition. In the latter (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  10. What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education.Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
    The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  11.  69
    Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies.Harvey Siegel & John Biro - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (3):277-292.
    In Biro and Siegel we argued that a theory of argumentation mustfully engage the normativity of judgments about arguments, and we developedsuch a theory. In this paper we further develop and defend our theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  12.  40
    A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.
    This paper answers the question how pragmatic argumentation which occurs in a legal context, can be analyzed and evaluated adequately. First, the author surveys various ideas taken from argumentation theory and legal theory on the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation. Then, on the basis of these ideas, she develops a pragma-dialectical instrument for analyzing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Finally she demonstrates how this instrument can be used by giving an exemplary analysis (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  13.  16
    Modality and its Conversational Backgrounds in the Reconstruction of Argumentation.Andrea Rocci - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (2):165-189.
    The paper considers the role of modality in the rational reconstruction of standpoints and arguments. The paper examines in what conditions modal markers can act as argumentative indicators and what kind of cues they provide for the reconstruction of argument. The paper critically re-examines Toulmin’s hypothesis that the meaning of the modals can be analyzed in terms of a field-invariant argumentative force and field-dependent criteria in the light of the Theory of Relative Modality developed within linguistic semantics, showing how this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  14.  93
    Considering the Roles of Values in Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2013 - Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).
    Building upon the role values take in Walton’s theory of practical reasoning, this paper will frame the question of how values should be evaluated into the broader question of what reasonable practical argumentation is. The thesis argued for is that if a positive evaluation of practical reasoning argumentation requires that the argument avoid a morally negative conclusion, then the role of values should be given a central, rather than supportive, position in practical argument evaluation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  75
    Conviction, Persuasion, and Argumentation: Untangling the Ends and Means of Influence. [REVIEW]Daniel J. O'Keefe - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):19-32.
    This essay offers a start on sorting out the relationships of argumentation and persuasion by identifying two systematic ways in which definitions of argumentation differ, namely, their descriptions of the ends and of the means involved in argumentative discourse. Against that backdrop, the traditional “conviction-persuasion” distinction is reassessed. The essay argues that the traditional distinction correctly recognizes the difference between the end of influencing attitudes and that of influencing behavior—but that it misanalyzes the means of achieving the latter (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  16.  27
    Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning.Douglas Walton, Christopher W. Tindale & Thomas F. Gordon - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):85-119.
    Plausible (eikotic) reasoning known from ancient Greek (late Academic) skeptical philosophy is shown to be a clear notion that can be analyzed by argumentation methods, and that is important for argumentation studies. It is shown how there is a continuous thread running from the Sophists to the skeptical philosopher Carneades, through remarks of Locke and Bentham on the subject, to recent research in artificial intelligence. Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  17.  42
    Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):41-69.
    This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and rationalistic elements (Sect. 3). The problematic (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  18.  18
    The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory.Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):283-300.
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19.  52
    Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory.Nancy L. Green - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
    Various argumentation analysis tools permit the analyst to represent functional components of an argument (e.g., data, claim, warrant, backing), how arguments are composed of subarguments and defenses against potential counterarguments, and argumentation schemes. In order to facilitate a study of argument presentation in a biomedical corpus, we have developed a hybrid scheme that enables an analyst to encode argumentation analysis within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which can be used to represent the discourse structure of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  20.  25
    “Let Me Tell You Why!”. When Argumentation in Doctor–Patient Interaction Makes a Difference.Sara Rubinelli & Peter J. Schulz - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (3):353-375.
    This paper throws some light on the nature of argumentation, its use and advantages, within the setting of doctor–patient interaction. It claims that argumentation can be used by doctors to offer patients reasons that work as ontological conditions for enhancing the decision making process, as well as to preserve the institutional nature of their relationship with patients. In support of these claims, selected arguments from real-life interactions are presented in the second part of the paper, and analysed by (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  21.  41
    State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation[REVIEW]A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (4):447-473.
    In this paper, a survey is presented of the main approaches to the structure of argumentation. The paper starts with a historical overview of the distinctions between various types of argument structure. Next, the main definitions given in the various approaches are discussed as well as the methods that are proposed to deal with doubtful cases.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  22.  22
    The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Eveline T. Feteris - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):459-470.
    In this paper, the author develops an instrument for the rational reconstruction of argumentation in which a judicial decision is justified by referring to the consequences in relation to the purpose of the rule. The instrument is developed by integrating insights from legal theory and legal philosophy about the function and use of arguments from consequences in relation to the purpose of a rule into a pragma-dialectical framework. Then, by applying the instrument to the analysis of examples from legal (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  23.  15
    Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.Corina Andone - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (1):1-18.
    In this paper, the author examines the use of pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability in which the politicians explain and justify a future course of action which they plan to undertake in order to solve an existing problem. The author explains some vital institutional characteristics of the practices under discussion and demonstrates how these institutional characteristics constrain the use of pragmatic argumentation. In addition, the author shows which criteria arguers commonly invoke in practices of political (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24.  73
    Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. [REVIEW]Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
    In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25.  11
    Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.Nanon Labrie & Peter J. Schulz - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (1):33-55.
    General practice consultation has often been characterized by pragma-dialecticians as an argumentative activity type. These characterizations are typically derived from theoretical insights and qualitative analyses. Yet, descriptions that are based on quantitative data are thus far lacking. This paper provides a detailed account of the development of an instrument to guide the quantitative analysis of argumentation in doctor–patient consultation. It describes the implementation and preliminary results of a content analysis of seventy videotaped medical consultations of which the extent and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26.  32
    A System of Argumentation Forms in Aristotle.Simon Wolf - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):19-40.
    In his works on argumentation, Aristotle develops three main forms: apodeictical, dialectical, and rhetorical argumentation; dialectic is subdivided into several subspecies. The purpose of this paper is to discuss all of the forms described by Aristotle, to examine their differences and to point out their interrelations. This leads to an examination of the differentiating criteria and their applicability in the case of each argumentation form—and in particular to the question regarding the number of criteria that are necessary (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  27.  17
    Argumentation Theorists Argue That an Ad is an Argument.M. Louise Ripley - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (4):507-519.
    Using print ads and recognizing the role of visual images in argument and the presence of arguments in ads , this paper argues that the work of argumentation theorists from Aristotle to van Eemeren and Grootendorst can be used to support the thesis that ads are arguments. I cite as evidence definitions, demarcations, delineations, and descriptions of argument put forth by leading scholars in the field of argumentation. This includes Aristotle, Informal Logic, Toulmin , Johnson and Blair , (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  28.  31
    Arguing Without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation.Raphaël Micheli - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):115-126.
    If we consider the field of argumentation studies, we notice that many approaches consider argumentation in a pragmatic manner and define it as a verbal activity oriented towards the realization of a goal . The idea that subtends—in an explicit or implicit way—most of these approaches is that argumentation fundamentally aims to produce an effect upon an addressee, and that this effect consists in a change of attitude with respect to a viewpoint : argumentation theories inevitably (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  29.  16
    Teaching Argumentation Theory to Doctors: Why and What.Sara Rubinelli & Claudia Zanini - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):66-80.
    This paper supports the need for health professionals to be trained in argumentation theory, by illustrating the challenges that they face in interacting with patients and according to the different models of consultation that patients prefer. While there is no ideal model of consultation that can be promoted universally, the ability to construct arguments in support of health professionals’ points of view, as well as the ability to engage in critical discussion with patients, translate in essential skills for reaching (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  30.  91
    Argumentation and Risk Communication About Genetic Testing: Challenges for Healthcare Consumers and Implications for Computer Systems.Nancy Green - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):113-129.
    As genetic testing for the presence of potentially health-affecting mutations becomes available for more genetic conditions, many people will soon be faced with the decision of whether or not to have a genetic test. Making an informed decision requires an understanding and evaluation of the arguments for and against having the test. As a case in point, this paper considers argumentation involving the decision of whether to have a BRCA gene test, one of the first commercially available genetic tests. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31.  35
    Complex Argumentation in a Critical Discussion.A. F. Snoeck Henkemans - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):405-419.
    In this paper, it is explained that a dialogical approach to complex argumentation can be fruitful for solving two important problems concerning the analysis of the argumentation structure. First, such an approach makes it possible to clarify the distinction between coordinative and multiple argumentation structures, and to identify clues in the presentation for each of these structures. Second, a dialogical approach can provide a basis for dealing more adequately with refutations of counterarguments.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  32.  67
    The Strategic Function of Variants of Pragmatic Argumentation in Health Brochures.Lotte van Poppel - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):97-112.
    In this paper, I examine the strategic function of four variants of pragmatic argumentation in the context of advisory health brochures. I argue that each variant functions as a strategic manoeuvre that deals with potential countermoves: with variant I and II writers can address anticipated doubt with respect to the standpoint and with variants III and IV they can strategically erase potential criticism of or possible alternatives to the proposed action. Keywords: health brochures, health communication, pragma-dialectical theory, pragmatic (...), strategic maneuvering. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  33.  80
    Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation.Ana Nettel & Georges Roque - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):55-69.
    This article deals with the relationship between argumentation and persuasion. It defends the idea that these two concepts are not as opposed as all too often said. If it is important to recognize their differences (there are argumentative discourses without persuasion and persuasive discourses without argumentation), there is nevertheless an overlap, in which characteristics are taken from both. We propose to call this overlap “persuasive argumentation”. In order to bridge argumentation and persuasion, we will first distinguish (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  34.  74
    Argumentation and Interpersonal Justification.Alvin I. Goldman - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (2):155-164.
    There are distinct but legitimate notions of both personal justification and interpersonal justification. Interpersonal justification is definable in terms of personal justification. A connection is established between good argumentation and interpersonal justification.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  35.  45
    Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy That Promotes Discussion and Reasoning. [REVIEW]Shirley Simon & Katherine Richardson - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (4):469-493.
    The value of argumentation in science education has become internationally recognised and has been the subject of many research studies in recent years. Successful introduction of argumentation activities in learning contexts involves extending teaching goals beyond the understanding of facts and concepts, to include an emphasis on cognitive and metacognitive processes, epistemic criteria and reasoning. The authors focus on the difficulties inherent in shifting a tradition of teaching from one dominated by authoritative exposition to one that is more (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  36.  33
    The Common Topic in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Precursor of the Argumentation Scheme.Antoine C. Braet - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (1):65-83.
    In the present article I attribute to the common topic in the Rhetoric a two-fold suggestive function and a guarantee function. These three functions are possible because this type of topic, while often quite abstract, nevertheless contains thought-steering, substantial terms, and formulates a generally empirical or normative endoxon. Assuming that according to Aristotle an enthymeme has at least two premises, it would appear that a common topic is the abstract principle behind the often implicit major premise. This means that the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  37.  24
    Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Harm Kloosterhuis - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):471-483.
    Empirical research in the field of legal interpretation shows that, in many cases, analogy argumentation is complex rather than simple. Traditional analytical approaches to analogy argumentation do not explore that complexity. In most cases analogy argumentation is reconstructed as a simple form of argumentation that consists of two premises and a conclusion. This article focuses on the question of how to analyze and evaluate complex analogy argumentation. It is shown how the pragma-dialectical approach provides clues (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  38.  31
    The Construction of Argumentation in Judicial Texts: Combining a Genre and a Corpus Perspective. [REVIEW]Davide Mazzi - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):21-38.
    Research on legal discourse has developed according to a variety of perspectives. As for descriptive accounts, two approaches are noteworthy. Firstly, Anglophone scholars have dealt with legal language from a genre-based viewpoint. Secondly, French studies have focused on argumentation in judicial texts, by considering the forms of reasoning involved in it and, albeit more rarely, its linguistic constituents. This paper aims at reinforcing the linguistic component of the analysis of legal discourse, by carrying out a corpus-based genre analysis on (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  39.  23
    Aristotle's Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation.Vega Renon Luis - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (1):95-113.
    Aristotle's conception and use of ta endoxa are key points to our understanding of Aristotelian dialectic. But, nowadays, they are not of historical or hermeneutic importance alone, as, in Aristotle's treatment of endoxa, we still see a relevant contribution to the modern study of argumentation. I propose here an interpretation of endoxa to that effect: namely, as plausible propositions. This version is not only defensible in the Aristotelian context, it may also shed new light on some of his assumptions (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  40.  24
    Proofs, Mathematical Practice and Argumentation.Begoña Carrascal - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):305-324.
    In argumentation studies, almost all theoretical proposals are applied, in general, to the analysis and evaluation of argumentative products, but little attention has been paid to the creative process of arguing. Mathematics can be used as a clear example to illustrate some significant theoretical differences between mathematical practice and the products of it, to differentiate the distinct components of the arguments, and to emphasize the need to address the different types of argumentative discourse and argumentative situation in the practice. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41.  67
    The Role of Rhetoric in Rational Argumentation.Nicholas Rescher - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):315-323.
    The structure of this discussion will be tripartite. First it will set out a way of distinguishing between rhetoric and strictly rational argumentation. Next it will consider some of the ramifications of this proposed way of looking at the matter – in particular what its implications are for rationality and for rhetoric, respectively. Finally it examines how this perspective bears on the project of philosophizing. The paper's ultimate aim, accordingly, is to consider what light such an analysis can shed (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  42.  15
    The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (4):489-506.
    In this article the author develops a framework for a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Ideas taken from legal theory are integrated in a pragma-dialectical model for analyzing and evaluating argumentation, thus providing a more systematic and elaborate framework for assessing the quality of teleological arguments in a legal context. Teleological argumentation in a legal context is approached as a specific form of pragmatic argumentation. The legal criteria that are relevant for the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  43.  49
    Higher-Order Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentation.Gordon R. Mitchell - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):319-335.
    In a critical discussion, interlocutors can strategically maneuver by shading their expressed degree of standpoint commitment for rhetorical effect. When is such strategic shading reasonable, and when does it cross the line and risk fallacious derailment of the discussion? Analysis of President George W. Bush’s 2002–2003 prewar commentary on Iraq provides an occasion to explore this question and revisit Douglas Ehninger’s distinction between argumentation as coercive correction and argumentation as a person-risking enterprise. Points of overlap between Ehninger’s account (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44.  25
    Argumentation and Transformation.Maeve Cooke - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (1):81-110.
    I consider argumentation from the point of view of context-transcendent cognitive transformation through reference to the critical social theory of Jürgen Habermas. My aim is threefold. First, to make the case for a concept of context-transcendent cognitive transformation. Second, to clarify the transformatory role of argumentation itself by showing that, while argumentation may contribute constructively to context-transcendent cognitive transformation, such transformation presupposes the existence of a reality conceptually independent of argumentation. Third, to cast light on the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  45.  17
    Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation.Lilian Bermejo-Luque - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):85-105.
    I propose a characterization of the dialectical dimension of argumentation by considering the activity of arguing as involving a “second order intersubjectivity”. I argue that argumentative communication enables this kind of intersubjectivity as a matter of the recursive nature of acts of arguing—both as justificatory and as persuasive devices. Calling attention to this feature is a way to underline that argumentative discourses represent the explicit part of a dynamic activity, “a mechanism of rational validation”, as Rescher showed, which is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  46.  45
    Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of the Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change. [REVIEW]Jens E. Kjeldsen - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (4):425-443.
    The use of digital presentation tools such as PowerPoint is ubiquitous; however we still do not know much about the persuasiveness of these programs. Examining the use of visual analogy and visual chronology, in particular, this article explores the use of visual argumentation in a Keynote presentation by Al Gore. It illustrates how images function as an integrated part of Gores reasoning.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  47.  22
    A Place for Figures of Speech in Argumentation Theory.Christian Plantin - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):325-337.
    This paper deals with the treatment of figures of speech in Perelman’s and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Treatise on Argumentation (TA), and, more broadly, with the place of figures in argumentation theory. The contrast between two conceptions (or two domains)\n of rhetoric, “a rhetoric of figures” and “a rhetoric of argument” can be traced back to Ramus, and it has been revived in\n the seventies through the perception of an incommensurability between Perelman’s “New Rhetoric” and the École de Liège’s “General\n Rhetoric”. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48.  66
    Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq.Ahmed Sahlane - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):459-488.
    The present study examined how the pre-war debate of the US decision to invade Iraq (in March 2003) was discursively constructed in the US/British mainstream newspaper opinion/editorial (op/ed) argumentation. Drawing on theoretical insights from critical discourse analysis and argumentation theory, I problematised the fallacious discussion used in the pro-war op/eds to build up a ‘moral/legal case’ for war on Iraq based on adversarial (rather than dialogical) argumentation. The proponents of war deployed ‘instrumental rationality’ (ends-justify-means reasoning), ‘ethical necessity’ (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  49.  8
    Justifying My Position in Your Terms: Cross-Cultural Argumentation in a Globalized World. [REVIEW]Yameng Liu - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (3):297-315.
    A ‘community of minds’ has long been presumed to be a condition of possibility for genuine argumentative interactions. In part because of this disciplinary presupposition, argumentation scholars tend to exclude from their scope of inquiry conflict resolution among culturally heterogeneous and ideologically incompatible formations. Such a stance needs to be reexamined in view of recent developments in the on-going process of globalization. The unprecedented worldwide economic and financial integration has created for the first time a ‘generalized interest’ across national (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  50.  17
    Receptivity as a Virtue of Argumentation.Kathryn J. Norlock - 2013 - OSSA10 Virtues of Argumentation.
    I rely on Nel Noddings’ analysis of receptivity as "an essential component of intellectual work," to argue that receptivity is a virtue of argumentation, practicing the principle of charity excellently for the sake of an author and their philosophical community. The deficiency of receptivity is epitomized by the philosopher who listens to attack. The excess of receptivity is the vice of insufficiently critical acceptance of an author regardless of the merits of an argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000