Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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  
  • How Dialogic Settings Influence Evidence Use in Adolescent Students.Fabrizio Macagno & Elizabeth Mayweg-Paus - 2016 - Zeitschrift Für Padagogische Psychologie 30:121-132.
    This study examines how evidence is used differently in argumentative discourse compared to individual arguments. Applying a 1×2 crossover study design, 37 secondary school students were asked either to discuss a social issue with their partner before individually writing an essay outlining their opinion or, vice versa, first to discuss and then to write. As background information, they were provided with pieces of evidence with different levels of quality. Dialogs and essays were analyzed regarding (a) the type of evidence and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 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  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence.Michael A. Gilbert - 1994 - Informal Logic 16 (2).
    This essay begins with a critique of the Critical-Logical model dominant in contemporary argumentation theory. The concerns raised stem primarily from considerations brought by several feminist thinkers including Carol Gilligan, Karen Warren, Deborah Tannen and, most especially, Andrea Nye. It is argued that, in light of these considerations, and concerns of essentialism or non-essentialism notwithstanding, that the Critical-Logical model is liable to dis-enfranchise a significant part of the population with regard to modes and styles of reasoning. The solution is found (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • : Developing reason.Deanna Kuhn, Jared B. Katz & David Dean Jr - 2004 - Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):197 – 219.
    We argue in favour of the general proposition that the nature of reasoning is best understood within a context of its origins and development. A major dimension of what develops in the years from childhood to adulthood, we propose, is increasing meta-level monitoring and management of cognition. Two domains are examined in presenting support for these claims—multivariable causal reasoning and argumentive reasoning.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Reviving the Philosophical Dialogue with Large Language Models.Robert Smithson & Adam Zweber - 2024 - Teaching Philosophy 47 (2):143-171.
    Many philosophers have argued that large language models (LLMs) subvert the traditional undergraduate philosophy paper. For the enthusiastic, LLMs merely subvert the traditional idea that students ought to write philosophy papers “entirely on their own.” For the more pessimistic, LLMs merely facilitate plagiarism. We believe that these controversies neglect a more basic crisis. We argue that, because one can, with minimal philosophical effort, use LLMs to produce outputs that at least “look like” good papers, many students will complete paper assignments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Presuppositional Fallacies.Fabrizio Macagno - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (2):109-140.
    Presuppositions are at the same time a crucial and almost neglected dimension of arguments and fallacies. Arguments involve different types of presuppositions, which can be used for manipulative purposes in distinct ways. However, what are presuppositions? What is their dialectical function? Why and how can they be dangerous? This paper intends to address these questions by developing the pragmatic approaches to presupposition from a dialectical perspective. The use of presuppositions will be analyzed in terms of presumptive conclusions concerning the interlocutor’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Practical (un)cancellability.Fabrizio Macagno - 2023 - Journal of Pragmatics 215:84-95.
    Cancellability is an essential feature of implicatures. However, its reliability has been challenged by several cases and examples in which conversational implicatures seem to be hard or even impossible to cancel. Should it then be concluded that not all implicatures are cancellable, and therefore Grice's cancellability test should be weakened or abandoned? The present paper addresses this problem by drawing a distinction between theoretical and practical cancellability, where the latter concept captures the (un)reasonableness of explicit or contextual cancellation. By analyzing (...)
    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  
  • Strengthening dialogic argument: What teachers can learn from authentic examples of student dialogue.Michelle Sowey - 2018 - Journal of Philosophy in Schools 5 (2):54-78.
    This paper is inspired by Philip Cam’s book Twenty Thinking Tools. Cam recommends classroom dialogue as the primary means for students to achieve conscious, strategic, and eventually habitual command of the intellectual moves needed for building and evaluating arguments. Classroom dialogue has indeed been found to be effective for developing students’ higher-order thinking skills, but only when students are engaged in dialogic argument. This paper addresses the dual concerns that dialogue is not widespread in classrooms, and that even where it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse?Deanna Kuhn & Anahid Modrek - 2018 - Thinking and Reasoning 24 (1):97-116.
    Why does discourse so often seem shallow, with people arguing past one another more than with one another? Might contributing causes be individual and logical rather than only dialogical? We consider here whether there exist errors in reasoning that could be particularly damaging in their effects on argumentive discourse. In particular, we examine implications for discourse of two such errors – explanation as a replacement for evidence and neglecting the likelihood of multiple causes contributing to an outcome. In Studies 1 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Critical thinking and education for democracy.Mark Weinstein - 1991 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 23 (2):9–29.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Enriching Thinking Through Discourse.Deanna Kuhn, Sybille Bruun & Caroline Geithner - 2024 - Cognitive Science 48 (3):e13420.
    Great effort is invested in identifying ways to change people's minds on an issue. A first priority should perhaps be enriching their thinking about the issue. With a goal of enriching their thinking, we studied the views of community adults on the DACA issue—young adults who entered the United States illegally as children. A dialogic method was employed, offering dual benefits in providing participants the opportunity to further develop their own ideas and to consider differing ideas. Yet, participants engaged in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “Argue With Me”: A Method for Developing Argument Skills.Kalypso Iordanou & Chrysi Rapanta - 2021 - Frontiers in Psychology 12.
    Philosophers, psychologists, and educators all acknowledge the need to support individuals to develop argument skills. Less clear is how to do so. Here, we examine a particular program, the “Argue with Me” dialogue-based pedagogical approach, having this objective. Reviewing approximately 30 studies that have used the “Argue with Me” method with students of different backgrounds and educational levels—primary, middle, high school, and university—across five different countries, we examine its strengths and limitations in terms of what develops and how this development (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (3):309-332.
    The classification of a state of affairs under a legal category can be considered as a kind of con- densed decision that can be made explicit, analyzed, and assessed us- ing argumentation schemes. In this paper, the controversial conflict of opinions concerning the nature of “marriage” in Obergefell v. Hodges is analyzed pointing out the dialecti- cal strategies used for addressing the interpretive doubts. The dispute about the same-sex couples’ right to marry hides a much deeper disa- greement not only (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Question of Truth.David Botting - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (4):413-434.
    The problem with the pragma-dialectical view, it has been argued, is that it takes argumentation as aiming at consensus rather than truth or justified belief. The pragma-dialecticians often imply that an argumentative process aiming at consensus in a way constrained by the “Ten Commandments” will in the long run converge on epistemically favourable standpoints. I will argue that they are right provided (i) pragma-dialectics is construed, as they say, as a theory of criticism; (ii) pragma-dialectics and the other theories of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming arguments in mock jurors' verdict justifications.Michael Weinstock - 2011 - Thinking and Reasoning 17 (3):282 - 314.
    According to the ?story model? a juror constructs an implicit mental model of a story telling what happened as the basis for the verdict choice. But the explicit justification of a verdict choice could take the form of a story (knowledge telling) or the form of a relational (knowledge-transforming) argument structure that brings together diverse, non-chronologically related pieces of evidence. The study investigates whether people tend towards knowledge telling or knowledge transforming, and whether use of these argument structure types are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Mental simulation and argument.David W. Green, Ronit Applebaum & Simon Tong - 2006 - Thinking and Reasoning 12 (1):31 – 61.
    We examine how opinion on a controversial real-world issue shifts as a function of reading relevant arguments and engaging in a specific mental simulation about a future, fictional state of affairs involving the target issue. Individuals thought either counterfactually about a future event (“if only X had not happened …”) or semifactually about it (“even if X had not happened …”). In Experiment 1, as expected, individuals became more in favour of a course of action (the electronic tagging of children) (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Fallacies and biases.Ermioni Seremeta, Monique Flecken & Corina Andone - 2024 - Pragmatics and Cognition 31 (1):244-285.
    When processing political arguments, people are strongly affected by their prior ideological beliefs. Political cognition often relies on two types of ideological biases. Firstly, confirmation bias leads addressees of political communication to accept arguments that affirm their preferred ideological positions. Secondly, disconfirmation bias probes reasoners to reject arguments that provide attitudinally incongruent evidence. Here, we report the findings of an experiment aimed at investigating the role of biased reasoning on perceptions of argument soundness. We focused on the processing of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The ethics of arguing.Hugh Breakey - 2023 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 66 (4):589-613.
    Contemporary argumentation theory has developed an impressive array of norms, goals and virtues applicable to ideal argument. But what is the moral status of these prescriptions? Is an interlocutor who fails to live up to these norms guilty of a moral failing as well as an epistemic or cognitive error? If so, why? In answering these questions, I argue that deliberation’s epistemic and cognitive goods attach to important ethical goods, and that respect for others’ rationality, the ethics of joint action, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Is Rational Manipulation Permissible?Hugh Breakey - forthcoming - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-18.
    Rational manipulation is constituted by the following conditions: (i) A aims to persuade B of thesis X; (ii) A holds X to be true and rationally justifiable; (iii) A knows of the existence of evidence, argument or information Y. While Y is not itself misinformation (Y is factually correct), A suspects B might take Y as important evidence for not-X; (iv) A deliberately chooses not to mention Y to B, out of a concern that it could mislead B into believing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Managing the Complexity of Dialogues in Context: A Data-Driven Discovery Method for Dialectical Reply Structures.Olena Yaskorska-Shah - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (4):551-580.
    Current formal dialectical models postulate normative rules that enable discussants to conduct dialogical interactions without committing fallacies. Though the rules for conducting a dialogue are supposed to apply to interactions between actual arguers, they are without exception theoretically motivated. This creates a gap between model and reality, because dialogue participants typically leave important content-related elements implicit. Therefore, analysts cannot readily relate normative rules to actual debates in ways that will be empirically confirmable. This paper details a new, data-driven method for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Ethics of Argumentation.Vasco Correia - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):222-241.
    Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is systematically (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • 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 options (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   171 citations  
  • What Constitutes Skilled Argumentation and How Does it Develop?Marion Goldstein, Amanda Crowell & Deanna Kuhn - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):379-395.
    We report our efforts to assess the skill of contemplating and evaluating argumentation. An adaptive forced-choice instrument was developed and administered to 6th grade students, 7th grade students who had participated in a year-long intervention that successfully strengthened their argumentation production skills, and expert arguers. The instrument was sensitive enough to detect differences in skill level across these groups. Despite their gains in production skill, however, 7th graders showed only modest superiority over the untrained 6th graders and performance well below (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation.Robert B. Ricco & Anthony Nelson Sierra - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):37-61.
    The present study explored several dispositional factors associated with individual differences in lay adult’s interpretation of when an arguer is, or is not, committed to a statement. College students were presented with several two-person arguments in which the proponent of a thesis conceded a key point in the last turn. Participants were then asked to indicate the extent to which that concession implied a change in the proponent’s attitude toward any of the previous statements in the argument. Participants designated as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Negotiation as Practical Argumentation.Diego Castro - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (4):497-527.
    This paper defends negotiation as a way of rationally overcoming disagreements. Negotiation is a type of dialogue where the parties begin with a conflict and a need for cooperation, and their main goal is to make a deal as reported (Walton and Krabbe 1995, p 72). It has been discussed whether differences of opinion can be shifted from persuasion to negotiation dialogue. If two parties disagree, is it reasonable to overcome their disagreement by employing negotiation? Van Laar and Krabbe (2018a) (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Marshaling Normative Pragmatic Force to Secure Autonomy.Beth Innocenti - 2024 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 57 (3):290-305.
    ABSTRACT Speakers’ autonomy as arguers is impaired when they are not recognized as arguers, they can’t get their arguments heard, and their arguments are ignored, dismissed, or used against them. How do speakers cultivate conditions to secure their autonomy as arguers? This article submits that they marshal normative pragmatic force or the practical efficacy of normative materials. To support this claim, this article explains what speakers’ autonomy as arguers comprises. The article then describes three legitimate sources of force in arguing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasons.Larry Wright - 2019 - Topoi 38 (4):751-762.
    The temptation to look for the “purely normative essence” of argument stems from the understandable ambition to distinguish rational persuasion from mere persuasion. But in seeking a purely normative notion of argument it is easy to overlook—or actually deny—that rational persuasion is a kind of persuasion. The burden of this essay is to show that the concept of reason from which our interest in argument derives can only exist and have normative force as a kind of persuasion, that is, as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • “That’s Unhelpful, Harmful and Offensive!” Epistemic and Ethical Concerns with Meta-argument Allegations.Hugh Breakey - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (3):389-408.
    “Meta-argument allegations” consist of protestations that an interlocutor’s speech is wrongfully offensive or will trigger undesirable social consequences. Such protestations are meta-argument in the sense that they do not interrogate the soundness of an opponent’s argumentation, but instead focus on external features of that argument. They are allegations because they imply moral wrongdoing. There is a legitimate place for meta-argument allegations, and the moral and epistemic goods that can come from them will be front of mind for those levelling such (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • How did you change my view? A corpus-based study of concessions’ argumentative role.Elena Musi - 2018 - Discourse Studies 20 (2):270-288.
    In everyday communicative arenas, we engage in critical discussions to persuade others to change their views about issues of personal as well as public interest. Discourse analysts have deemed concessions as privileged strategies to manage disagreement and reach consensus. However, a coherent and comprehensive account of the argumentative functions played by different concessive relations is lacking: do concessions always bear an argumentative role? By which semantic and pragmatic properties? What type of argumentative moves do they instantiate? To answer these questions, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark