View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories

105 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
1 — 50 / 105
  1. added 2019-04-08
    Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model.João Sàágua & Michael D. Baumtrog - 2018 - In António Marques & João Sàágua (eds.), Essays on Values and Practical Rationality. Peter Lang. pp. 193-250.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. added 2019-04-08
    Improving Practical Reasoning and Argumentation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2015 - Dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
    This thesis justifies the need for and develops a new integrated model of practical reasoning and argumentation. After framing the work in terms of what is reasonable rather than what is rational (chapter 1), I apply the model for practical argumentation analysis and evaluation provided by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to a paradigm case of unreasonable individual practical argumentation provided by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik (chapter 2). The application shows that by following the model, Breivik is relatively easily able (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. added 2019-03-30
    Evidence, Proofs, and Derivations.Andrew Aberdein - forthcoming - ZDM 51 (4).
    The traditional view of evidence in mathematics is that evidence is just proof and proof is just derivation. There are good reasons for thinking that this view should be rejected: it misrepresents both historical and current mathematical practice. Nonetheless, evidence, proof, and derivation are closely intertwined. This paper seeks to tease these concepts apart. It emphasizes the role of argumentation as a context shared by evidence, proofs, and derivations. The utility of argumentation theory, in general, and argumentation schemes, in particular, (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. added 2019-03-14
    Future Logic: Categorical and Conditional Deduction and Induction of the Natural, Temporal, Extensional, and Logical Modalities.Avi Sion - 1990,1996 - Geneva, Switzerland: CreateSpace & Kindle; Lulu..
    Future Logic is an original, and wide-ranging treatise of formal logic. It deals with deduction and induction, of categorical and conditional propositions, involving the natural, temporal, extensional, and logical modalities. Traditional and Modern logic have covered in detail only formal deduction from actual categoricals, or from logical conditionals (conjunctives, hypotheticals, and disjunctives). Deduction from modal categoricals has also been considered, though very vaguely and roughly; whereas deduction from natural, temporal and extensional forms of conditioning has been all but totally ignored. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. added 2019-03-12
    You Will Respect My Authoritah!? A Reply to Botting.Moti Mizrahi - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (1):106-122.
    In a paper and a reply to critics published in _Informal Logic_, I argue that arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. To appeal to expert opinion is to take an expert’s judgment that _p_ is the case as evidence for _p_. Such appeals to expert opinion are weak, I argue, because the fact that an expert judges that _p_ does not make it significantly more likely that _p_ is true or probable, as evidence from empirical studies on expert performance (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. added 2019-03-12
    The Laws of Thought.Avi Sion - 2008, 2014 - Geneva, Switzerland: CreateSpace & Kindle; Lulu..
    The Laws of Thought is an exploration of the deductive and inductive foundations of rational thought. The author here clarifies and defends Aristotle’s Three Laws of Thought, called the Laws of Identity, Non-contradiction and Exclusion of the Middle – and introduces two more, which are implicit in and crucial to them: the Fourth Law of Thought, called the Principle of Induction, and the Fifth Law of Thought, called the Principle of Deduction. This book is a thematic compilation drawn from past (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. added 2019-01-15
    Dialecticality and Deep Disagreement.Scott Aikin - 2018 - Symposion. Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 5 (2):173-179.
    Scott F. Aikin ABSTRACT: In this paper, I will argue for a complex of three theses. First, that the problem of deep disagreement is an instance of the regress problem of justification. Second, that the problem of deep disagreement, as a regress problem, depends on a dialecticality requirement for arguments. Third, that the dialecticality requirement...
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. added 2019-01-15
    Why the Dialectical Tier is an Epistemic Animal.Scott Aikin - 2018 - In S. & Maillat Oswald (ed.), rgumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017. London, UK: pp. 11-22.
    Ralph Johnson has proposed a “two tiered” conception of argument, comprising of the illative core and the dialectical tier. This paper's two-part thesis is that (i) the dialectical tier is best understood as an epistemic requirement for argument, and (ii) once understood epistemically, the dialectical tier requirement can be defended against the leading objections.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. added 2018-12-13
    Autologos. Ein Dialog über die Fundamentallogik.Gregor Damschen - 2015 - In Gregor Damschen & Alejandro G. Vigo (eds.), Dialog und Verstehen. Klassische und moderne Perspektiven. Berlin: Lit. pp. 229–244.
    Autologos. A dialogue on fundamental logic. - In this dialogue of three dialogue partners, an attempt is made to prove the logical prerequisites of any meaningful dialogue by using transcendental arguments. Among these inescapable logical premises are a semantics as strong as that of modal logic S5, and an epistemic anti-realism.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. added 2018-06-25
    Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.Trudy Gover - 2018 - Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    We are pleased to publish this WSIA edition of Trudy’s Govier’s seminal volume, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Originally published in 1987 by Foris Publications, this was a pioneering work that played a major role in establishing argumentation theory as a discipline. Today, it is as relevant to the field as when it first appeared, with discussions of questions and issues that remain central to the study of argument. It has defined the main approaches to many of those issues (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. added 2018-02-17
    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 (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12. added 2017-12-23
    The Logical and Pragmatic Structure of Arguments From Analogy.Fabrizio Macagno - 2017 - Logique Et Analyse 240:465-490.
    The reasoning process of analogy is characterized by a strict interdependence between a process of abstraction of a common feature and the transfer of an attribute of the Analogue to the Primary Subject. The first reasoning step is regarded as an abstraction of a generic characteristic that is relevant for the attribution of the predicate. The abstracted feature can be considered from a logic-semantic perspective as a functional genus, in the sense that it is contextually essential for the attribution of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. added 2017-11-07
    Does the Consequence Argument Beg the Question?John Martin Fischer & Garrett Pendergraft - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (3):575-595.
    The Consequence Argument has elicited various responses, ranging from acceptance as obviously right to rejection as obviously problematic in one way or another. Here we wish to focus on one specific response, according to which the Consequence Argument begs the question. This is a serious accusation that has not yet been adequately rebutted, and we aim to remedy that in what follows. We begin by giving a formulation of the Consequence Argument. We also offer some tentative proposals about the nature (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14. added 2017-09-05
    A Uniform Account of Regress Problems.David Löwenstein - 2017 - Acta Analytica 32 (3).
    This paper presents a uniform general account of regress problems in the form of a pentalemma—i.e., a set of five mutually inconsistent claims. Specific regress problems can be analyzed as instances of such a general schema, and this Regress Pentalemma Schema can be employed to generate deductively valid arguments from the truth of a subset of four claims to the falsity of the fifth. Thus, a uniform account of the nature of regress problems allows for an improved understanding of specific (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. added 2017-02-15
    Thinking Big, Thinking Small: Smilansky's Paradoxes.Gerald Lang - 2009 - Iyyun 58:277-291.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16. added 2017-02-09
    Some Thoughts on Thinking and Teaching Styles.Alan Schwerin - 1996 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 16 (1):48-54.
    Descartes provides us with an invaluable framework for thinking critically. And his views on personhood can serve both as a guide for critical thinking and as a means to sharpen some of the concepts central to these programs. My paper is an attempt to illustrate the effectiveness of the seventeenth century Cartesian conception of thinking for scholars today who stress critical thinking in the classroom.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. added 2017-01-29
    Subjunctive Tu Quoque Arguments. Commentary on Anderson, Aikin & Casey.Christoph Lumer - 2011 - Argumentation. Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).
    Tu quoque arguments regard inconsistencies in some speaker‘s performance. Most tu quoque arguments depend on actual inconsistencies. However, there are forms of tu quoque arguments that key, instead, on the conflicts a speaker would have, were some crucial contingent fact different. These, we call subjunctive tu quoque arguments. Finally, there are cases wherein the counterfactual inconsistencies of a speaker are relevant to the issue.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. added 2017-01-21
    A Probabilistic Analysis of Argument Cogency.David Godden & Frank Zenker - 2018 - Synthese 195 (4):1715-1740.
    This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  19. added 2017-01-21
    Pushing the Bounds of Rationality: Argumentation and Extended Cognition.David Godden - 2016 - In Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli & Silvia Felletti (eds.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion. London: College Publications. pp. 67-83.
    One of the central tasks of a theory of argumentation is to supply a theory of appraisal: a set of standards and norms according to which argumentation, and the reasoning involved in it, is properly evaluated. In their most general form, these can be understood as rational norms, where the core idea of rationality is that we rightly respond to reasons by according the credence we attach to our doxastic and conversational commitments with the probative strength of the reasons we (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. added 2017-01-20
    The Postmodern Grounds of Argumentation. Evidence (Energeia) as Concept of Artificial Proof.F. A. Haase - manuscript
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. added 2017-01-20
    Implementation of Argumentation as Process in Theoretical Linguistics.F. A. Haase - manuscript
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. added 2017-01-19
    The Rhetorical Theory of Argument is Self-Defeating.Scott F. Aikin - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3 (1).
    The rhetorical theory of argument, if held as a conclusion of an argument, is self-defeating. The rhetorical theory can be refined, but these refinements either make the theory subject to a second self- defeat problem or tacitly an epistemic theory of argument.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. added 2017-01-18
    Is There a Case for Ad Hominem Arguments?Gary James Jason - 1984 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62 (2):182 – 185.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24. added 2017-01-17
    Visual Modes of Ethotic Argumentation: An Exploratory Inquiry.Ioana Grancea - 2016 - Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 3 (4):375-389.
    Ethotic arguments are defined as sequences of claims-and-reasons regarding speaker character, based on which the plausibility of speaker assertions can be questioned. This is an exploratory study concerning the role of visuals in ethotic arguing. In this paper, I bring together contributions from visual argumentation theory and from studies regarding various modes of construing an ethotic argument, in an attempt to offer an adequate account of the argumentative action of images in ethotic sequences of discourse. In the last section, I (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. added 2017-01-17
    Argumentation, R. Pavilionis's Meaning Continuum and The Kitchen Debate.Elena Lisanyuk - 2015 - Problemos 88:95.
    In this paper, I propose a logical-cognitive approach to argumentation and advocate an idea that argumentation presupposes that intelligent agents engaged in it are cognitively diverse. My approach to argumentation allows drawing distinctions between justification, conviction and persuasion as its different kinds. In justification agents seek to verify weak or strong coherency of an agent’s position in a dialogue. In conviction they argue to modify their partner’s position by means of demonstrating weak or strong cogency of their positions before a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. added 2017-01-17
    Critical Thinking for Adults.William M. Goodman - 1992 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 10 (2):9-11.
    Much research into why and how critical thinking can be taught is directed towards traditional educational contexts and students. But how can those who are already in the workforce--or who would like to be--obtain needed preparation, as adults, for gaining crucial skills in critical thinking, innovation, and problem solving? Mastery in such skills cannot be learned just by mechanical training techniques, delivered online or otherwise, and many adult-oriented materials for enhancing creativity and problem-solving seem best suited for already-prepared minds. The (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. added 2017-01-16
    Why Be an Intellectually Humble Philosopher?Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Axiomathes 26 (2):205-218.
    In this paper, I sketch an answer to the question “Why be an intellectually humble philosopher?” I argue that, as far as philosophical argumentation is concerned, the historical record of Western Philosophy provides a straightforward answer to this question. That is, the historical record of philosophical argumentation, which is a track record that is marked by an abundance of alternative theories and serious problems for those theories, can teach us important lessons about the limits of philosophical argumentation. These lessons, in (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  28. added 2017-01-03
    Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):469-484.
    Although in some contexts the notions of an ordinary argument’s presumption, assumption, and presupposition appear to merge into the one concept of an implicit premise, there are important differences between these three notions. It is argued that assumption and presupposition, but not presumption, are basic logical notions. A presupposition of an argument is best understood as pertaining to a propositional element (a premise or the conclusion) e of the argument, such that the presupposition is a necessary condition for the truth (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  29. added 2016-12-08
    Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness.Imran Aijaz, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):259-282.
    How is the burden of proof to be distributed among individuals who are involved in resolving a particular issue? Under what conditions should the burden of proof be distributed unevenly? We distinguish attitudinal from dialectical burdens and argue that these questions should be answered differently, depending on which is in play. One has an attitudinal burden with respect to some proposition when one is required to possess sufficient evidence for it. One has a dialectical burden with respect to some proposition (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  30. added 2016-12-08
    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 (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  31. added 2016-12-02
    Can Cogency Vanish?Gilbert Plumer - 2016 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 8 (1):89-109.
    This paper considers whether universally—for all (known) rational beings—an argument scheme or pattern can go from being cogent (well-reasoned) to fallacious. This question has previously received little attention, despite the centrality of the concepts of cogency, scheme, and fallaciousness. I argue that cogency has vanished in this way for the following scheme, a common type of impersonal means-end reasoning: X is needed as a basic necessity or protection of human lives, therefore, X ought to be secured if possible. As it (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. added 2016-07-11
    Attacking Authority.Matthews Steve - 2011 - Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics 13 (2):59-70.
    The quality of our public discourse – think of the climate change debate for instance – is never very high. A day spent observing it reveals a litany of misrepresentation and error, argumentative fallacy, and a general lack of good will. In this paper I focus on a microcosmic aspect of these practices: the use of two types of argument – the argumentum ad hominem and appeal to authority – and a way in which they are related. Public debate is (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. added 2016-06-30
    Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Still Weak: A Reply to Seidel.Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):238-252.
    In this paper, I reply to Seidel’s objections against my argument from expert performance to the effect that arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. I clarify what Seidel takes to be unclear points in my argument and show that it withstands Seidel’s objections.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  34. added 2016-06-22
    Argumentatively Evil Storytelling.Gilbert Plumer - 2016 - In D. Mohammend & M. Lewinski (eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, Vol. 1. London, UK: College Publications. pp. 615-630.
    What can make storytelling “evil” in the sense that the storytelling leads to accepting a view for no good reason, thus allowing ill-reasoned action? I mean the storytelling can be argumentatively evil, not trivially that (e.g.) the overt speeches of characters can include bad arguments. The storytelling can be argumentatively evil in that it purveys false premises, or purveys reasoning that is formally or informally fallacious. My main thesis is that as a rule, the shorter the fictional narrative, the greater (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35. added 2016-06-09
    Feminist Perspectives on Argumentation.Catherine E. Hundleby - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Feminists note an association of arguing with aggression and masculinity and question the necessity of this connection. Arguing also seems to some to identify a central method of philosophical reasoning, and gendered assumptions and standards would pose problems for the discipline. Can feminine modes of reasoning provide an alternative or supplement? Can overarching epistemological standards account for the benefits of different approaches to arguing? These are some of the prospects for argumentation inside and outside of philosophy that feminists consider. -/- (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. added 2016-06-09
    Biases and Fallacies.Vasco Correia - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3 (1):107-126.
    This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in everyday life. Unlike heuristics and cognitive biases, motivational biases are typically caused by the influence of a desire or an emotion on the cognitive processes involved in judgmental and inferential reasoning. In line with the ‘motivational’ account of irrationality, I argue that these biases are the cause of a number of fallacies that ordinary arguers commit unintentionally, particularly when the commitment to a given (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. added 2016-05-31
    The Methodological Usefulness of Deep Disagreement.Steven W. Patterson - 2015 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 6 (2).
    In this paper I begin by examining Fogelin’s account of deep disagreement. My contention is that this account is so deeply flawed as to cast doubt on the possibility that such deep disagreements actually happen. Nevertheless, I contend that the notion of deep disagreement itself is a useful theoretical foil for thinking about argumentation. The second part of this paper makes this case by showing how thinking about deep disagreements from the perspective of rhetoric, Walton-style argumentation theory, computation, and normative (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. added 2016-02-29
    A Defense of Taking Some Novels As Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2015 - In B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation [CD-ROM]. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. pp. 1169-1177.
    This paper’s main thesis is that in virtue of being believable, a believable novel makes an indirect transcendental argument telling us something about the real world of human psychology, action, and society. Three related objections are addressed. First, the Stroud-type objection would be that from believability, the only conclusion that could be licensed concerns how we must think or conceive of the real world. Second, Currie holds that such notions are probably false: the empirical evidence “is all against this idea…that (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. added 2016-02-29
    On 'Deduction' and the Inductive/Deductive Distinction.Jeffrey Goodman & Daniel Flage - 2012 - Studies in Logic 5 (3).
    The definitions of ‘deduction’ found in virtually every introductory logic textbook would encourage us to believe that the inductive/deductive distinction is a distinction among kinds of arguments and that the extension of ‘deduction’ is a determinate class of arguments. In this paper, we argue that that this approach is mistaken. Specifically, we defend the claim that typical definitions of ‘deduction’ operative in attempts to get at the induction/deduction distinction are either too narrow or insufficiently precise. We conclude by presenting a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. added 2016-02-11
    A Inseparabilidade entre Lógica e a Ética.John Corcoran - 2013 - Philósophos - Revista de Filosofia 18 (1):245-259.
    A Inseparabilidade entre Lógica e a Ética. Philósophos. 18 (2013) 245–259. Portuguese translation by Décio Krause and Pedro Merlussi: The Inseparability of Logic and Ethics, Free Inquiry, Spring 1989, 37–40. This essay takes logic and ethics in broad senses: logic as the science of evidence; ethics as the science of justice. One of its main conclusions is that neither science can be fruitfully pursued without the virtues fostered by the other: logic is pointless without fairness and compassion; ethics is pointless (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. added 2016-01-30
    Fallacious Analogical Reasoning and the Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference (MFDI).Claudio Ternullo & Giuseppe Sergioli - 2014 - Isonomia (Epistemologica) 5:159-178.
    In this article, we address fallacious analogical reasoning and the Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference (MFDI), recently discussed by B. Lightbody and M. Berman (2010). We claim that the authors’ proposal to introduce a new fallacy is only partly justified. We also argue that, in some relevant cases, fallacious analogical reasoning involving metaphors is only affected by the use of quaternio terminorum.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. added 2016-01-28
    What Derivations Cannot Do.Graham Oppy - 2015 - Religious Studies 51 (3):323-333.
    I argue that the only proper role for traditional arguments for and against the existence of God in philosophy of religion is in demonstrating that given worldviews -- theism, naturalism -- are inconsistent.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  43. added 2016-01-24
    Argumentation Without Arguments Proper.Gábor Forrai - 2014 - In Gizella Horváth, Rozália Klára Bakos & Éva Bíró-Kaszás (eds.), Ten Years of Facebook, The Third Argumentor Conference. Partium Press, Debrecen University Press. pp. 219-238..
    The purpose of the paper is to draw attention to a kind of rational persuasion which has received little attention in argument studies even though its existence is acknowledged in other fields. I start with a brief analysis of the debates conducted in the comments on a philosophical blog. The posts are addressed to a non-academic audience, always end with a problem, and the reader is invited to offer a solution. In the comments we hardly ever find arguments in the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. added 2016-01-22
    A Method for Evaluation of Arguments From Analogy.Bo R. Meinertsen - 2016 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 7 (2):109-123.
    It is a common view that arguments from analogy can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, while this reflects an important insight, I propose instead a relatively simple method for their evaluation based on just (i) their general form and (ii) four core questions. One clear advantage of this proposal is that it does not depend on any substantial (and controversial) view of similarity, unlike influential current alternative methods, such as Walton’s. Following some initial clarification of the notion (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45. added 2016-01-05
    Commentary On: Marc Champagne’s “We, the Professional Sages: Analytic Philosophy’s Arrogation of Argument".Gilbert Plumer - 2009 - In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA Conference [CD-ROM]. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 1-4.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. added 2015-12-12
    On Novels as Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (4):488-507.
    If novels can be arguments, that fact should shape logic or argumentation studies as well as literary studies. Two senses the term ‘narrative argument’ might have are (a) a story that offers an argument, or (b) a distinctive argument form. I consider whether there is a principled way of extracting a novel’s argument in sense (a). Regarding the possibility of (b), Hunt’s view is evaluated that many fables and much fabulist literature inherently, and as wholes, have an analogical argument structure. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  47. added 2015-08-27
    Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):233-265.
    This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  48. added 2015-08-27
    Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on the conclusion. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. added 2015-08-27
    Dichotomies and Oppositions in Legal Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Ratio Juris 23 (2):229-257.
    In this paper we use a series of examples to show how oppositions and dichotomies are fundamental in legal argumentation, and vitally important to be aware of, because of their twofold nature. On the one hand, they are argument structures underlying various kinds of rational argumentation commonly used in law as a means of getting to the truth in a conflict of opinion under critical discussion by two opposing sides before a tryer of fact. On the other hand, they are (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  50. added 2015-08-27
    Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (205):39-56.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 105