Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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  
  • (1 other version)The Account of Warrants in Bermejo-Luque’s Giving Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2011 - Theoria 26 (3):311-320.
    This paper highlights the difference between Lilian Bermejo-Luque’s account of warrants with the quite different accounts of warrants offered by Toulmin, Hitchcock, and myself, and lays out some of the reasons why I think a “Toulminesque” account of warrants captures crucial aspects of arguing more adequately than her account does.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics.José Ángel Gascón - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):705-724.
    Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers’ character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are not opposite approaches to argumentation. I argue that, with the help of some non-fundamental changes in pragma-dialectics and some restrictions in virtue argumentation theory, it is possible to regard these theories as complementary approaches to the argumentative practice.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Fallacies and the preconditions of argumentation.Chris Campolo - unknown
    If we think of fallacies as violations of the preconditions governing the products, processes, and procedures of argumentation, we see that fallacies do not merely weaken arguments, but rather undermine the possibility of argument itself. This approac h recommends itself on several counts. First, it accounts for diversity in fallacy analysis. Second, it makes possible investigations into new kinds of fallacies. Third, it provides new applications for ongoing developments in fallacy theory.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Accepted by whom? On the Empirical Roots of Aristotle's Dialectic.Fabio Paglieri - 2014 - Revue Internationale de Philosophie 270 (4):393-402.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Introduction: Philosophical Discussions with Pragma-Dialectics.Constanza Ihnen, Jan Albert van Laar & Marcin Lewiński - forthcoming - Topoi:1-12.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Pragma-dialectics and the problem of agreement.Scott F. Aikin & John Casey - 2024 - Topoi 43 (4):1259-1268.
    Pragma-Dialectics (PD) is an approach to argumentation that can be described as disagreement-centric. On PD, disagreement is the condition which defines argument, it is the practical problem to be solved by it, and disagreement’s management is the ultimate source of argument’s normativity. On PD, arguing in the context of agreement is taken to be “incorrect” and arguments where agreement already reigns are “pointless.” Even the PD account of fallacies is disagreement-centered: a fallacy is something that impedes resolution of a dispute. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark