Switch to: References

Citations of:

Coalescent argumentation

Argumentation 9 (5):837-852 (1995)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Argumentation, Metaphor, and Analogy: It's Like Something Else.Chris A. Kramer - 2024 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 33 (2):160-183.
    A "good" arguer is like an architect with a penchant for civil and civic engineering. Such an arguer can design and present their reasons artfully about a variety of topics, as good architects do with a plenitude of structures and in various environments. Failures in this are rarely hidden for long, as poor constructions reveal themselves, often spectacularly, so collaboration among civical engineers can be seen as a virtue. Our logical virtues should be analogous. When our arguments fail due to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Detecting the Factors Affecting Classroom Dialogue Quality.Chrysi Rapanta, Merce Garcia-Milà, Andrea Miralda Banda & Fabrizio Macagno - 2023 - Linguistics and Education 77:101223.
    Despite the emphasis on dialogue and argumentation in educational settings, still not much is known about how best we can support learners in their interthinking, reasoning, and metadialogic understanding. The goal of this classroom intervention study is to explore the degree of students’ dialogicity and its possible increase during a learning programme implementing dialogic and argument-based teaching goals and principles. In particular, we focus on how students from 5 to 15 years old engage with each other's ideas, and whether/how this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguing with Children: Exploring Problems of Charity and Strawmanning.Swagatanjali Bauri - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):415-438.
    This paper will highlight how the existing approaches to the Strawman Fallacy and the Principle of Charity are unable to fully accommodate the problems of interpreting children’s arguments. A lack of charity is as problematic as an excess of charity when arguing with children, and can contribute to misinterpretation of arguments. An application of moderate charity avoids the pitfalls of misrepresenting children. However, interpreting children’s arguments with the appropriate amount of charity is a challenging task. The argumentative context is relevant (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation and the problem of agreement.John Casey & Scott F. Aikin - 2022 - Synthese 200 (2):1-23.
    A broad assumption in argumentation theory is that argumentation primarily regards resolving, confronting, or managing disagreement. This assumption is so fundamental that even when there does not appear to be any real disagreement, the disagreement is suggested to be present at some other level. Some have questioned this assumption (most prominently, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, and Doury), but most are reluctant to give up on the key idea that persuasion, the core of argumentation theory, can only regard disagreements. We argue here (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair.John Anthony Blair - 2011 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    J. Anthony Blair is a prominent international figure in argumentation studies. He is among the originators of informal logic, an author of textbooks on the informal logic approach to argument analysis and evaluation and on critical thinking, and a founder and editor of the journal Informal Logic. Blair is widely recognized among the leaders in the field for contributing formative ideas to the argumentation literature of the last few decades. This selection of key works provides insights into the history of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Adversariality and Ideal Argumentation: A Second-Best Perspective.Marc-Kevin Daoust - 2021 - Topoi 40 (5):887-898.
    What is the relevance of ideals for determining virtuous argumentative practices? According to Bailin and Battersby (2016), the telos of argumentation is to improve our cognitive systems, and adversariality plays no role in ideally virtuous argumentation. Stevens and Cohen (2019) grant that ideal argumentation is collaborative, but stress that imperfect agents like us should not aim at approximating the ideal of argumentation. Accordingly, it can be virtuous, for imperfect arguers like us, to act as adversaries. Many questions are left unanswered (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Adversariality in Argumentation: Shortcomings of Minimal Adversariality and A Possible Reconstruction.Iñaki Xavier Larrauri Pertierra - 2021 - Argumentation 36 (1):17-34.
    Minimal adversariality consists in the opposition of contradictory conclusions in argumentation, and its usual metaphorical expression as a game between combating arguers has seen it be criticized from a number of perspectives: the language used, whether cooperation best attains the argumentative telos of epistemic betterment, and the ideal nature of the metaphor itself. This paper explores primarily the idealization of deductive argumentation, which is problematic due to its attenuated applicability to a dialectic involving premises and justificatory biases that are left (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Pressupostos da Lógica Informal: do argumento à inferência.Rosiandra de Fatima Toledo - 2017 - Dissertation, Uem, Brazil
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialogue Types, Argumentation Schemes, and Mathematical Practice: Douglas Walton and Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein - 2021 - Journal of Applied Logics 8 (1):159-182.
    Douglas Walton’s multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types (§1) and argumentation schemes (§2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Who’s Afraid of Adversariality? Conflict and Cooperation in Argumentation.Catarina Dutilh Novaes - 2020 - Topoi 40 (5):873-886.
    Since at least the 1980s, the role of adversariality in argumentation has been extensively discussed within different domains. Prima facie, there seem to be two extreme positions on this issue: argumentation should never be adversarial, as we should always aim for cooperative argumentative engagement; argumentation should be and in fact is always adversarial, given that adversariality is an intrinsic property of argumentation. I here defend the view that specific instances of argumentation are adversarial or cooperative to different degrees. What determines (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Argumentation, Adversariality, and Social Norms.Audrey Yap - 2020 - Metaphilosophy 51 (5):747-765.
    Janice Moulton's “The Adversary Method: A Philosophical Paradigm” articulated several criticisms of the popular idea of philosophy as adversarial debate. Moulton criticizes it on epistemic grounds, arguing that philosophy's overreliance on adversarial debate is to the detriment of its goals. Some, notably Trudy Govier, have argued in favor of at least a minimal adversariality, governed by norms of respectful argumentation. This paper suggests that Govier's faith in these norms is misplaced, because it neglects the social circumstances of the arguers. While (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Communication Beyond Words.Magdalena Kacprzak Katarzyna Budzynska - 2010 - Studia Semiotyczne—English Supplement 27:153-187.
    It is no accident that we begin this article with a quotation from Marek Tokarz. His article entitled Komunikacja poza gramatyką [eng. Communication beyond grammar], which was published in the commemorative book in honor of professor Jerzy Pelc W świecie znaków: księga pamiątkowa ku czci profesora Jerzego Pelca, was one of the chief inspirations for this paper. In his article, Tokarz studied the possibility of achieving communication without syntax. In what follows, we intend to go one step further and analyze (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Epistemic Coverage and Argument Closure.Catherine E. Hundleby - 2020 - Topoi 40 (5):1051-1062.
    Sanford Goldberg’s account of epistemic coverage constitutes a special case of Douglas Walton’s view that epistemic closure arises from dialectical argument. Walton’s pragmatic version of epistemic closure depends on dialectical norms for closing an argument, and epistemic coverage operates at the limits of argument closure because it minimizes dialectical exchange. Such closure works together with a shared hypothetical consideration to justify dismissal of surprising claims.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument.Federico Puppo (ed.) - 2019 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    The informal logic movement began as an attempt to develop – and teach – an alternative logic which can account for the real life arguing that surrounds us in our daily lives – in newspapers and the popular media, political and social commentary, advertising, and interpersonal exchange. The movement was rooted in research and discussion in Canada and especially at the University of Windsor, and has become a branch of argumentation theory which intersects with related traditions and approaches (notably formal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Case-to-Case Arguments.Katharina Stevens - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):431-455.
    Arguers sometimes cite a decision made in an earlier situation as a reason for making the equivalent decision in a later situation. I argue that there are two kinds of “case-to-case arguments”. First, there are arguments by precedent, which cite the mere existence of the past decision as a reason to decide in the same way again now, independent of the past decision’s merits. Second, there are case-to-case arguments from parralel reasoning which presuppose that the past decision was justified and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Cultivating Civic Competencies Through Immersive Inquiry: A Digital-age Approach to Fourth Grader’s Disciplinary Thinking and Argumentation.Haeun Park, Kevin Fulton, Adriana I. Martinez Calvit, Ziye Wen, Yue Sheng, Saetbyul Kim, Tzu-Jung Lin, Michael Glassman & Eric M. Anderman - forthcoming - Journal of Social Studies Research.
    This mixed-methods study examined Grade 4 students’ growth in two types of civic competencies—argumentation skills and disciplinary thinking, and how civic competencies interweave and co-develop over an academic year in the context of an interdisciplinary social studies curriculum called Digital Civic Learning (DCL). A total of 106 fourth-grade students (38.7% girls) and 6 social studies teachers participated in the study. Quantitative evidence indicates that students in the DCL curriculum significantly improved in their argumentation skills (argument-counterargument integration, claim-evidence integration) and disciplinary (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evaluating Narrative Arguments.Al Tamimi Khameiel - unknown
    This paper addresses the question of how to evaluate narrative arguments. I will be discussing how to evaluate narrative arguments as process as opposed to arguments as product, as with dominant accounts of argument appraisal such as informal logic. The first part of this paper will show that dominant accounts of argument evaluation are not fit for narrative arguments because they focus on the product of argument. The second part of the paper will develop an account of argument evaluation for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Ludological Perspective on Argument.A. Yong-Set Michael - unknown
    This introductory paper explores a new perspective on argumentation that draws upon the resources of ludology – the critical and academic of study of games qua games. In the Philosophical Investigations, one of the later Wittgenstein’s more mysterious suggestions is that if one understands how games work, then one would be able to understand how natural language works. Similarly, it will be argued that if we look to how games function as games, we will be able to understand how the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-revisionism.David Godden - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):395-431.
    Visual arguments can seem to require unique, autonomous evaluative norms, since their content seems irreducible to, and incommensurable with, that of verbal arguments. Yet, assertions of the ineffability of the visual, or of visual-verbal incommensurability, seem to preclude counting putatively irreducible visual content as functioning argumentatively. By distinguishing two notions of content, informational and argumentative, I contend that arguments differing in informational content can have equivalent argumentative content, allowing the same argumentative norms to be rightly applied in their evaluation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • A Role for Reasoning in a Dialogic Approach to Critical Thinking.Deanna Kuhn - 2018 - Topoi 37 (1):121-128.
    We note the development of the widely employed but loosely defined construct of critical thinking from its earliest instantiations as a measure of individual ability to its current status, marked by efforts to better connect the construct to the socially-situated thinking demands of real life. Inquiry and argument are identified as key dimensions in a process-based account of critical thinking. Argument is identified as a social practice, rather than a strictly individual competency. Yet, new empirical evidence is presented documenting a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A socio-pragmatic investigation of the persuasive strategies in "al-ittijāh al-muʿākis" (‘The Opposite Direction’) on Al-Jazeera TV.Sadam Issa - 2015 - Pragmatics and Society 6 (4):517-537.
    This study is a socio-pragmatic analysis of persuasive strategies used by the participants in “al-ittijāh al-muʿākis”, “The Opposite Direction”, on the Al-­Jazeera TV channel. An ethnographic approach was adopted in the research; the analysis focused on the use of politeness strategies and face-saving and face-­threatening interactions in order to find out their persuasive factors. I observe that religious citations, prophetic sayings, proverbs, and metaphor are used predominantly by the participants in communicating various political issues. I argue that the persuasiveness of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse.Mathilde Janier & Chris Reed - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):45-82.
    Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
    This volume presents a selection of papers reflecting key theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Its six sections are devoted to specific themes, including the analysis and evaluation of argumentation, argument schemes and the contextual embedding of argumentation. The section on general perspectives on argumentation discusses the trends of empiricalization, contextualization and formalization, offers descriptions of the analytical and evaluative tools of informal logic, and highlights selected principles that argumentation theorists do and do not agree upon. In turn, the section on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Virtue and Arguers.José Ángel Gascón - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):441-450.
    Is a virtue approach in argumentation possible without committing the ad hominem fallacy? My answer is affirmative, provided that the object study of our theory is well delimited. My proposal is that a theory of argumentative virtue should not focus on argument appraisal, as has been assumed, but on those traits that make an individual achieve excellence in argumentative practices. An agent-based approach in argumentation should be developed, not in order to find better grounds for argument appraisal, but to gain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation.Jens E. Kjeldsen - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (2):115-132.
    IntroductionIf we were to identify the beginning of the study of visual argumentation, we would have to choose 1996 as the starting point. This was the year that Leo Groarke published “Logic, art and argument” in Informal logic, and it was the year that he and David Birdsell co-edited a special double issue of Argumentation and Advocacy on visual argumentation . Among other papers, the issue included Anthony Blair’s “The possibility and actuality of visual arguments”. It was also the year (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Emotional Arguments: Ancient And Contemporary Views.Leo Groarke - unknown
    The prodigious development of argumentation theory over the last three decades has raised many issues that challenge some of the long held assumptions that characterize the traditional study of argument. One of these issues is the role of emotion in argument and argument analysis. While rhetoric has, with its emphasis on persuasion, always recognized that emotions play some role determining which arguments we accept and reject, a long tradition sees appeals to emotion as fallacies that violate the standards of rationality (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Refining Hitchcock’s Definition of ‘Argument’.G. C. Goddu - unknown
    David Hitchcock, in his recent “Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument”, defends a recursive definition of ‘argument.’ I present and discuss several problems that arise for his definition. I argue that refining Hitchcock’s definition in order to resolve these problems reveals a crucial, but minimally explicated, relation that was, at best, playing an obscured role in the original definition or, at worst, completely absent from the original definition.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The Invisible Argument: Recognizing race through visceral reasoning.Kristine Warrenburg - unknown
    This project works to define a visceral mode of reasoning in relation to Gilbert’s system of argumentation and evaluates whether or not the body is always implicated in discourse. Kennedy’s announcement of King’s assassination will illustrate how a transgression of subjectivity was met by a momentary suspension of racialized terms of the day. The racialized body allows examination into the excess of the argument or that which lies beyond the words.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Arguing or reasoning? Argumentation in rhetorical context.Manfred Kraus - unknown
    If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, since rhetoric is not a dialogically structured activity. If special norms apply to the ‘solo’ performances of rhetoric, the orator’s activity may be more appropriately described as reasoning than as arguing. By analyzing in what respect rhetorical texts can be interpreted as dialogue-based and subject to criteria of Informal Logic, the virtues of rhetorical argumentation in contrast to logic and dialectic emerge.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Commentary on Friemann.Gerald Nosich - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguing With God.Daniel H. Cohen - 2001
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Arguments that Backfire.Daniel H. Cohen - 2005 - In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (eds.), The Uses of Argument. OSSA. pp. 58-65.
    One result of successful argumentation – able arguers presenting cogent arguments to competent audiences – is a transfer of credibility from premises to conclusions. From a purely logical perspective, neither dubious premises nor fallacious inference should lower the credibility of the target conclusion. Nevertheless, some arguments do backfire this way. Dialectical and rhetorical considerations come into play. Three inter-related conclusions emerge from a catalogue of hapless arguers and backfiring arguments. First, there are advantages to paying attention to arguers and their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  • Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary.David Godden - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (2):235-238.
    This brief editorial considers a special issue of Argumentation edited by Jens Kjeldsen on visual, multimodal argumentation. It provides a commentary on important advances on interpretative problems such as the propositionality of argument, the reducibility of images to words, whether argument products are primarily cognitive artifacts, and the nature of a modality of argument. Concerning the project of argument appraisal, it considers whether visual arguments call for a revision of our normative, evaluative apparatus.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?Leo Groarke - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (2):133-155.
    During the last decade, one source of debate in argumentation theory has been the notion that there are different modes of arguing that need to be distinguished when analyzing and evaluating arguments. Visual argument is often cited as a paradigm example. This paper discusses the ways in which it and modes of arguing that invoke non-verbal sounds, smells, tactile sensations, music and other non-verbal entities may be defined and conceptualized. Though some attempts to construct a ‘multimodal’ theory of argument are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Argumentum ad Verecundiam: New Gender-based Criteria for Appeals to Authority.Michelle Ciurria & Khameiel Altamimi - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):437-452.
    In his influential work on critical argumentation, Douglas Walton explains how to judge whether an argumentum ad verecundiam is fallacious or legitimate. He provides six critical questions and a number of ancillary sub-questions to guide the identification of reasonable appeals to authority. While it is common for informal logicians to acknowledge the role of bias in sampling procedures and hypothesis confirmation , there is a conspicuous lack of discourse on the effect of identity prejudice on judgments of authority, even though (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Feminist Perspectives on Argumentation.Catherine E. Hundleby - 2021 - 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. -/- (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Trust, relevance, and arguments.Fabio Paglieri & Cristiano Castelfranchi - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):216-236.
    This paper outlines an integrated approach to trust and relevance with respect to arguments: in particular, it is suggested that trust in relevance has a central role in argumentation. We first distinguish two types of argumentative relevance: internal relevance, i.e. the extent to which a premise has a bearing on its purported conclusion, and external relevance, i.e. a measure of how much a whole argument is pertinent to the matter under discussion, in the broader dialogical context where it is proposed. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • What Philosophy of Mathematical Practice Can Teach Argumentation Theory About Diagrams and Pictures.Brendan Larvor - 2013 - In Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.), The Argument of Mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. pp. 239--253.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Non-deductive Logic in Mathematics: The Probability of Conjectures.James Franklin - 2013 - In Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.), The Argument of Mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. pp. 11--29.
    Mathematicians often speak of conjectures, yet unproved, as probable or well-confirmed by evidence. The Riemann Hypothesis, for example, is widely believed to be almost certainly true. There seems no initial reason to distinguish such probability from the same notion in empirical science. Yet it is hard to see how there could be probabilistic relations between the necessary truths of pure mathematics. The existence of such logical relations, short of certainty, is defended using the theory of logical probability (or objective Bayesianism (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Logic of Critique.Hengameh Irandoust - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (2):133-148.
    This paper attempts to define the concept of critique, explain its function␣and properties and distinguish it from the close concept of evaluation. It is argued that, beyond the argument, a critique is concerned with the position of the proponent relatively to the reality the argument is about. Moreover, a critique is itself an argument in which assumptions regarding the position of the proponent are justified for a given audience on the basis of the proponent’s argumentative background within a specific domain.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Feminist Epistemologies of Situated Knowledges: Implications for Rhetorical Argumentation.James C. Lang - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):309-334.
    In the process of challenging epistemological assumptions that preclude relationships between knowers and the objects of knowing, feminist epistemologists Lorraine Code and Donna Haraway also can be interpreted as troubling forms of argumentation predicated on positivist-derived logic. Against the latter, Christopher Tindale promotes a rhetorical model of argument that appears able to better engage epistemologies of situated knowledges. I detail key features of the latter from Code, especially, and compare and contrast them with relevant parts of Tindale’s discussion of context (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason.Phyllis Rooney - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):203-234.
    Philosophy’s adversarial argumentation style is often noted as a factor contributing to the low numbers of women in philosophy. I argue that there is a level of adversariality peculiar to philosophy that merits specific feminist examination, yet doesn’t assume controversial gender differences claims. The dominance of the argument-as-war metaphor is not warranted, since this metaphor misconstrues the epistemic role of good argument as a tool of rational persuasion. This metaphor is entangled with the persisting narrative of embattled reason, which, in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   65 citations  
  • Dissent in the Midst of Emotional Territory.Linda Carozza - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (2):197-210.
    This paper focuses on disagreement spaces fused with emotion. Following Gilbert’s emotional mode of argumentation (1997), further expansions of the mode are made here, specifically for the purposes of being able to classify different types of emotional arguments. First, general concerns with arguments that stray from the traditional approach are addressed. Then a classification system for different types of emotional arguments is developed. Some of the criteria that help determine emotional arguments include dialogue types, arguers involved, as well as the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Argument Has No Function.Jean Goodwin - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):69-90.
    Douglas Walton has been right in calling us to attend to the pragmatics of argument. He has, however, also insisted that arguments should be understood and assessed by considering the functions they perform; and from this, I dissent. Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice. As an alternative to a functional theory of argumentative pragmatics, I propose a design view, which draws attention to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   51 citations  
  • Informal Logic: An Overview.J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
    In this overview article, we first explain what we take informal logic to be, discussing misconceptions and distinguishing our conception of it from competing ones; second, we briefly catalogue recent informal logic research, under 14 headings; third, we suggest four broad areas of problems and questions for future research; fourth, we describe current scholarly resources for informal logic; fifth, we discuss three implications of informal logic for philosophy in particular, and take note ofpractical consequences of a more general sort.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Purpose, Argument Fields, and Theoretical Justification.Robert C. Rowland - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (2):235-250.
    Twenty-five years ago, field theory was among the most contested issues in argumentation studies. Today, the situation is very different. In fact, field theory has almost disappeared from disciplinary debates, a development which might suggest that the concept is not a useful aspect of argumentation theory. In contrast, I argue that while field studies are rarely useful, field theory provides an essential underpinning to any close analysis of an argumentative controversy. I then argue that the conflicting approaches to argument fields (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Exemplification and Argument.G. C. Goddu - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (3):235-254.
    Suppose you doubt that rationally persuasive arguments can have just premises that are obviously false. But now consider:(X) Grass is red. Some arguments have merely obviously false premises.'Grass is red' is the only premise and is obviously false, so (X) should convince you that there are arguments with merely obviously false premises. On the face of it, there is nothing irrational about being so convinced by (X). But then (X) is a rationally persuasive argument with merely obviously false premises.A cheap (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Critical Thinking in Moral Argumentation Contexts: A Virtue Ethical Approach.Michelle Ciurria - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):242-258.
    In traditional analytic philosophy, critical thinking is defined along Cartesian lines as rational and linear reasoning preclusive of intuitions, emotions and lived experience. According to Michael Gilbert, this view – which he calls the Natural Light Theory (NLT) – fails because it arbitrarily excludes standard feminist forms of argumentation and neglects the essentially social nature of argumentation. In this paper, I argue that while Gilbert’s criticism is correct for argumentation in general, NLT fails in a distinctive and particularly problematic manner (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Paradox of Charity.Marcin Lewiński - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (4):403-439.
    The principle of charity is used in philosophy of language and argumentation theory as an important principle of interpretation which credits speakers with “the best” plausible interpretation of their discourse. I contend that the argumentation account, while broadly advocated, misses the basic point of a dialectical conception which approaches argumentation as discussion between two parties who disagree over the issue discussed. Therefore, paradoxically, an analyst who is charitable to one discussion party easily becomes uncharitable to the other. To overcome this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations