Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes

Douglas Walton & David M. Godden

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

(1 other version)Ad Hominem Arguments, Rhetoric, and Science Communication.Carlo Martini - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):151-166.details In this paper, I contend that evidence-focused strategies of science communication may be complemented by possibly more effective rhetorical arguments in current public debates on vaccines. I analyse the case of direct science communication - that is, communication of evidence - and show that it is difficult to effectively communicate evidential standards of science in the presence of well-equipped anti-science movements. Instead, I argue that effective rhetorical tools involve ad hominem strategies, that is, arguments involving claims of expertise. I provide (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
Modeling critical questions as additional premises.Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon & Scott F. Aikin - unknowndetails This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard. Download Export citation Bookmark 5 citations
On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.details This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 10 citations
A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-2007.Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):135-147.details A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-20. Download Export citation Bookmark
Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing about Doing.Christian Kock (ed.) - 2017 - Windsor: University of Windsor.details Christian Kock’s essays show the essential interconnectedness of practical reasoning, rhetoric and deliberative democracy. They constitute a unique contribution to argumentation theory that draws on – and criticizes – the work of philosophers, rhetoricians, political scientists and other argumentation theorists. It puts rhetoric in the service of modern democracies by drawing attention to the obligations of politicians to articulate arguments and objections that citizens can weigh against each other in their deliberations about possible courses of action. Download Export citation Bookmark 9 citations
On modelling non-probabilistic uncertainty in the likelihood ratio approach to evidential reasoning.Jeroen Keppens - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (3):239-290.details When the likelihood ratio approach is employed for evidential reasoning in law, it is often necessary to employ subjective probabilities, which are probabilities derived from the opinions and judgement of a human. At least three concerns arise from the use of subjective probabilities in legal applications. Firstly, human beliefs concerning probabilities can be vague, ambiguous and inaccurate. Secondly, the impact of this vagueness, ambiguity and inaccuracy on the outcome of a probabilistic analysis is not necessarily fully understood. Thirdly, the provenance (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 2 citations
Picturing a Thousand Unspoken Words.Harmony Peach - 2021 - Informal Logic 42 (4):57-79.details I explore how empathetic visual argument may be the mode best suited for eliciting appropriate force to the reasons given by arguers who face systematic identity prejudices. In the verbal mode, this force is often skewed through epistemic injustice (Fricker 2007), argumentative injustice (Bondy 2010), and discursive injustice (Kukla 2010). Highlighting their reliance on the Aristotelian sense of enthymeme, I show how visual arguments are highly context specific. Using Ian Dove’s Visual Scheming (2016) and the theory of the Retort collective (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Is Practical Reasoning Presumptive?Christian Kock - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):91-108.details Douglas Walton has done extensive and valuable work on the concepts of presumption and practical reasoning. However, Walton’s attempt to model practical reasoning as presumptive is misguided. The notions of “inference” and of the burden of proof shifting back and forth between proponent and respondent are misleading and lead to counterintuitive consequences. Because the issue in practical reasoning is a proposal, not a proposition, there are, in the standard case, several perfectly good reasons on both sides simultaneously, which implies that (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 11 citations
Objections, Rebuttals and Refutations.Douglas Walton - unknowndetails This paper considers how the terms ‘objection,’ ‘rebuttal,’ ‘attack,’ ‘refutation,’ ‘rebutting defeater’ and ‘undercutting defeater’ are used in writings on argumentation and artificial intelligence. The central focus is on the term ‘rebuttal.’ A provisional classification system is proposed that provides a normative structure within which the terms can be clarified, distinguished from each other, and more precisely defined. Download Export citation Bookmark 11 citations

1