Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Carroll’s Regress Times Three.Gilbert Plumer - 2023 - Acta Analytica 38 (4):551-571.
    I show that in our theoretical representations of argument, vicious infinite regresses of self-reference may arise with respect to each of the three usual, informal criteria of argument cogency: the premises are to be relevant, sufficient, and acceptable. They arise needlessly, by confusing a cogency criterion with argument content. The three types of regress all are structurally similar to Lewis Carroll’s famous regress, which involves quantitative extravagance with no explanatory power. Most attention is devoted to the sufficiency criterion, including its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Argument by Analogy in Ancient China.Yun Xie - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (3):323-347.
    Argument by analogy has long been regarded as the characteristic way of arguing in ancient Chinese culture. Classic Chinese philosophers not only prefer to use analogy to argue for their own views, but also take efforts to theorize it in a systematic way. This paper aims to provide a careful study on the relevant ideas in ancient China in order to reconstruct the ancient Chinese theory of argument by analogy, and then to reveal some of its distinctive features through a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach.Maurice Finocchiaro & David M. Godden - unknown
    This paper examines the views of Fogelin, Woods, Johnstone, etc., concerning deep disa-greements, force-five standoffs, philosophical controversies, etc. My approach is to reconstruct their views and critiques of them as meta-arguments, and to elaborate the meta-argumentative aspects of radical disa-greements. It turns out that deep disagreements are resolvable to a greater degree than usually thought, but only by using special principles and practices, such as meta-argumentation, ad hominem argumentation, Ramsey’s principle, etc.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Verdi is the puccini of music.John Woods & Brent Hudak - 1992 - Synthese 92 (2):189 - 220.
    An account of analogical characterization is developed in which the following things are claimed.(1) Analogical predications are irreflexive, asymmetrical, atransitive and non-inversive. (2) Analogies A and B share role-similarity descriptions sufficiently abstract to overcome the differences between A and B. Analogies pivot on the point of limited similarity and substantial, even radical, difference. (3) The semantical theory for sentences making analogical attributions requires a distinction between (sentential) meaning as truth conditions and (sentential) meaning as a functional compound of the meanings (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environments.Christopher W. Tindale - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):177-188.
    This paper discusses the fundamental sense in which the components of an argument should be relevant to the intended audience. In particular, the evidence advanced should be relevant to the facts and assumptions that are manifest in the cognitive environment of the audience. A version of Sperber and Wilson's concept of the cognitive environment is applied to argumentative concerns, and from this certain features of audience-relevance are explored: that the relevance of a premise can vary with the audience; that irrelevant (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 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  
  • Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-disciplinary Guide.Marcello Guarini, Amy Butchart, Paul Simard Smith & Andrei Moldovan - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (2):84-197.
    Work on analogy has been done from a number of disciplinary perspectives throughout the history of Western thought. This work is a multidisciplinary guide to theorizing about analogy. It contains 1,406 references, primarily to journal articles and monographs, and primarily to English language material. classical through to contemporary sources are included. The work is classified into eight different sections (with a number of subsections). A brief introduction to each section is provided. Keywords and key expressions of importance to research on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The Domain Constraint on Analogy and Analogical Argument.William R. Brown - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (1).
    Domain constraint, the requirement that analogues be selected from "the same category," inheres in the popular saying "you can't compare apples and oranges" and the textbook principle "the greater the number of shared properties, the stronger the argument from analogy." I identify roles of domains in biological, linguistic, and legal analogy, supporting the account of law with a computer word search of judicial decisions. I argue that the category treatments within these disciplines cannot be exported to general informal logic, where (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • An Informal Logic Bibliography.Hans V. Hansen - 1990 - Informal Logic 12 (3).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuation dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Refutation by Parallel Argument.André Juthe - 2008 - Argumentation 23 (2):133–169.
    This paper discusses the method when an argument is refuted by a parallel argument since the flaw of the parallel argument is clearly displayed. The method is explicated, examined and compared with two other general methods.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • A Defense of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments (AILACT Essay Competition Winner).Marcello Guarini - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (2):153-168.
    Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative. non-deductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account defended herein and the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • A Defense Of Non-deductive Reconstructions Of Analogical Arguments.Marcello Guarini - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (2):153-168.
    Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative. non-deductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account defended herein and the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  • Reasoning by grounded analogy.John Grey & David Godden - 2021 - Synthese 199 (3-4):5419-5453.
    Analogical reasoning projects a property taken to hold of something or things (the source) to something else (the target) on the basis of just those similarities premised in the analogy. Standard similarity-based accounts of analogical reasoning face the question: Under what conditions does a collection of similarities sufficiently warrant analogical projection? One answer is: When a thing’s having the premised similarities somehow determines its having the projected property. Standardly, this answer has been interpreted as claiming that a formally defined determination (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Non-cooperation in dialogue logic.Dov Gabbay & John Woods - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):161 - 186.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. [REVIEW]Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):253-268.
    Krabbe (2003, in F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644) defined a metadialogue as a dialogue about one or more dialogues, and a ground-level dialogue as a dialogue that is not a metadialogue. Similarly, I define a meta-argument as an argument about one or more arguments, and a ground-level argument as one which is not a meta-argument. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • A Particularist Approach to Arguments by Analogy.José Alhambra - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (4):553-575.
    In this article I defend what I call a ‘particularist approach to arguments by analogy.’ Particularism is opposed to generalism, which is the thesis that arguments by analogy require a universal principle that covers cases compared and guarantees the conclusion. Particularism rejects this claim and holds that arguments by analogy operate on particular cases. I elaborate on two ideas that support this position. On the one hand, I contend that an analogy can be seen as a parallelism of argumentative relationships, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2012 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory brings together twenty exploratory studies on important subjects of research in contemporary argumentation theory. The essays are based on papers that were presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation in Amsterdam in June 2010. They give an impression of the nature and the variety of the kind of research that has recently been carried out in the study of argumentation. The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Meta-Argumentation in Hume’s Critique of the Design Argument.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - unknown
    Although Hume’s critique of the design argument is a powerful non-inductive meta-argument, the main line of critical reasoning is not analogical but rather a complex meta-argument. It consists of two parts, one interpretive, the other evaluative. The critical meta-argument advances twelve criticisms: that the design argument is weak because two of its three premises are justified by inadequate subarguments; because its main inference embodies four flaws; and because the conclusion is in itself problematic for four reasons. Such complexity is quite (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Famous Meta-Arguments: Part I, Mill and the Tripartite Nature of Argumentation.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. OSSA.
    In the context of a study of meta-arguments in general, and famous meta-arguments in particular, I reconstruct chapter 1 of Mill’s Subjection of Women as the meta-argument: women’s liberation should be argued on its merits because the universality of subjection derives from the law of force and hence provides no presumption favoring its correctness. The raises the problem of the relationship among illative, dialectical, and meta-argumentative tiers.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Commentary on Guarini.John Woods - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • On the Limits of the Woods-Hudak Reconstruction of Analogical Argument.Marcello Guarini - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark