Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue

Conny Rhode

Argumentation 31 (3):535-554 (2017)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Adversariality in Argumentation: Shortcomings of Minimal Adversariality and A Possible Reconstruction.Iñaki Xavier Larrauri Pertierra - 2021 - Argumentation 36 (1):17-34.details 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
Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance.Petar Bodlović - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (4):579-604.details By explaining the argument from ignorance in terms of the presumption of innocence, many textbooks in argumentation theory suggest that some arguments from ignorance might share essential features with some types of presumptive reasoning. The stronger version of this view, suggesting that arguments from ignorance and presumptive reasoning are almost indistinguishable, is occasionally proposed by Douglas Walton. This paper explores the nature and limits of the stronger proposal and argues that initial presumptions and arguments from ignorance are not closely connected. (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
(1 other version)Rigor or rhetoric: philosopher and public in dialogue.Deven Burks - 2018 - Perspectives 8 (1):4-13.details Leiter (2016) charges public philosophy with being “neoliberal”. To understand that charge better, I define, in §1, three versions of public philosophy which might be concerned and two pictures of its practice targeted by Leiter. I also compare two deliberative sites wherein those pictures may play out. In §2, I sketch how Leiter’s two paradoxes for “neoliberal” public philosophy lead to a revised public philosophy. §3 questions the paradoxes’ empirical grounding and scope. Lastly, in §4, I assume Leiter’s picture and (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
(1 other version)Rigor or rhetoric: Public philosopher and public in dialogue.Deven Burks - forthcoming - Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy.details Brian Leiter throws down two gauntlets to philosophers engaged in dialogue with the broader public. If, with the first, public philosophers recognize that they cannot offer substantive answers but only sophisticated method, they nevertheless fail to realize that said method does not resonate with the very public whom they purport to help. For, with the second, that method does not engage the emotivist and tribalist cast of contemporary public discourse: emotivist because a person’s moral and political beliefs are a function (...) Download Export citation Bookmark

1