Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking.David Hitchcock - 2017 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    This book brings together in one place David Hitchcock’s most significant published articles on reasoning and argument. In seven new chapters he updates his thinking in the light of subsequent scholarship. Collectively, the papers articulate a distinctive position in the philosophy of argumentation. Among other things, the author:• develops an account of “material consequence” that permits evaluation of inferences without problematic postulation of unstated premises.• updates his recursive definition of argument that accommodates chaining and embedding of arguments and allows any (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • Conductive Arguments: Why is This Still a Thing?Kevin Possin - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (4):563-593.
    Conductive arguments, as a separate category of reasoning, has experienced a revival. In 2010, the University of Windsor’s Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric dedicated a two-day symposium to the topic and later published the proceedings. In this article, I argue against the existence of conductive arguments as a usefully distinct type of argument. Some of what are deemed conductive arguments are simply inductive arguments and some are best construed as subsets of the constituents of what is commonly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2017 - Argumentation 32 (4):569-587.
    Whether abduction is treated as an argument or as an inference, the mainstream view presupposes a tight connection between abduction and inference to the best explanation. This paper critically evaluates this link and supports a narrower view on abduction. Our main thesis is that merely the hypothesis-generative aspect, but not the evaluative aspect, is properly abductive in the sense introduced by C. S. Peirce. We show why equating abduction with IBE unnecessarily complicates argument evaluation by levelling the status of abduction (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Communication and Argument: Elements of Applied Semantics.Arne Naess & Alastair Hannay - 1968 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (2):121-122.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics.Arne Naess - 1967 - Synthese 17 (1):344-345.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Govier's Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.Derek Allen - 1990 - Informal Logic 12 (1).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Assessing Arguments: What Range of Standards.Trudy Govier - 1980 - Informal Logic 3 (1).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Argument structure: representation and theory.James B. Freeman - 2011 - New York: Springer.
    An approach to argument macrostructure -- The dialectical nature of argument -- Toulmin's problematic notion of warrant -- The linked-convergent distinction, a first approximation -- Argument structure and disciplinary perspective : the linked-convergent versus multiple-co-ordinatively compound distinctions -- The linked-convergent distinction, refining the criterion -- Argument structure and enthymemes -- From analysis to evaluation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • Challenge and response.Carl Wellman - 1971 - Carbondale,: Southern Illinois University Press.
    Mr. Wellman’s highly original contribution to the relatively new field of justification in ethics consists of characterizing the different ways in which ethical statements can be challenged and showing how each sort of challenge can be met by an appropriate response, enabling reasonable men to appropriately discuss or reflect on ethical issues. In developing his unique, systematic, methodology of ethics, Mr. Wellman has, first, rigorously reviewed and refuted the main arguments for the view of the nature of all reasoning as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   74 citations  
  • Current Issues in Conductive Argument Weight.Thomas Fischer - 2012 - In Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. pp. 127-142.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Weighing Considerations in Conductive Pro and Con Arguments.Thomas Fischer - 2011 - In John Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), Conductive Argument: A New Type of Defeasible Reasoning. College Publications. pp. 86-103.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • A Defense of Conduction: A Reply to Adler.J. Anthony Blair - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (2):109-128.
    In Jonathan Adler argued that conductive arguments, as they are commonly characterized, are impossible—that no such argument can exist. This striking contention threatens to undermine a topic of argumentation theory originated by Trudy Govier based on Carl Wellman and revisited by the papers in “Conductive argument, An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning”. I here argue that Adler’s dismissal of conductive arguments relies on a misreading of the term ‘non-conclusive’ used in the characterization of this type of reasoning and argument, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Are Conductive Arguments Possible?Jonathan Adler - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):245-257.
    Conductive Arguments are held to be defeasible, non-conclusive, and neither inductive nor deductive (Blair and Johnson in Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. College, London, 2011). Of the different kinds of Conductive Arguments, I am concerned only with those for which it is claimed that countervailing considerations detract from the support for the conclusion, complimentary to the positive reasons increasing that support. Here’s an example from Wellman (Challenge and response: justification in ethics. Southern Illinois University Press, Chicago, 1971): (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • (1 other version)Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person.John L. Pollock - 1995 - MIT Press.
    "A sequel to Pollock's How to Build a Person, this volume builds upon that theoretical groundwork for the implementation of rationality through artificial ...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   212 citations  
  • The moral point of view.Kurt Baier - 1958 - Ithaca,: Cornell University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   132 citations  
  • Dependent and Independent Reasons.Robert J. Yanal - 1991 - Informal Logic 13 (3).
    How are dependent (or linked) premises to be distinguished from independent (or convergent) premises? Deductive validity, sometimes proposed as a necessary condition for depende'nce, cannot be, for the premises of both inductive and deductive but invalid arguments can be dependent. The question is really this: When do multiple premises for a certain conclusion fonn one argument for that conclusion and when do they form multiple arguments? Answer: Premises are dependent when the evidence they offer for their conclusion is more than (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • A practical study of argument.Trudy Govier - 1991 - Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
    The book also comes with an exhaustive array of study aids that enable the reader to monitor and enhance the learning process.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   270 citations  
  • From axiom to dialogue: a philosophical study of logics and argumentation.E. M. Barth - 1982 - New York: W. de Gruyter. Edited by E. C. W. Krabbe.
    No detailed description available for "From Axiom to Dialogue".
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   119 citations  
  • Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 2005 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation presents the basic tools for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of common arguments for beginners. The book teaches by using examples of arguments in dialogues, both in the text itself and in the exercises. Examples of controversial legal, political, and ethical arguments are analyzed. Illustrating the most common kinds of arguments, the book also explains how to evaluate each kind by critical questioning. Douglas Walton shows how arguments can be reasonable under the right dialogue conditions by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   116 citations  
  • Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation.Frans H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst & A. Francisca Sn Henkemans - 2015 - Routledge.
    This book concentrates on argumentation as it emerges in ordinary discourse, whether the discourse is institutionalized or strictly informal. Crucial concepts from the theory of argumentation are systematically discussed and explained with the help of examples from real-life discourse and texts. The basic principles are explained that are instrumental in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. Methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, analyzing and evaluating argumentation and presenting arguments in oral and written discourse. In addition, the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2016 - Routledge.
    This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   159 citations  
  • New perspectives in dialogical logic.Shahid Rahman - 2001 - Synthese 125.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Walton on Argument Structure.G. C. Goddu - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):5-26.
    In previous work I argued against (i) the likelihood of finding a theoretically sound foundation for the linked/convergent distinction and (ii) the utility of the distinction even if a sound theoretical basis could be found. Here I subject Douglas Walton’s comprehensive discussion of the linked/convergent distinction found in Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory to careful scrutiny and argue that at best Walton’s theory remains incomplete and that attempts to fill out the details will run afoul of at least one of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Hybrid Arguments.Mark Vorobej - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
    Sometimes logical support for a conclusion is provided exclusively by premises which are independently relevant to that conclusion. At other times, support is provided exclusively by independently irrelevant premises. On still other occasions, relevant and irrelevant premises may collectively offer a distinctive pattern of support. This paper provides a rigorous account of some of these differences in terms of a tripartite classification of convergent, linked and hybrid arguments. These various arguments are defined, diagrammed, and some of their logical properties are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • The TRUE Test of Linkage.Mark Vorobej - 1994 - Informal Logic 16 (3):147-157.
    There are many radically different ways of understanding the distinction between linked and convergent arguments. This paper provides a generic model which enables one to articulate in a rigorous manner the important differences as well as the underlying similarities that exist between competing proposals. In addition, the paper offers a TRUE (Type Reduction Upon Elimination) test for distinguishing linked from convergent arguments which best captures the informal intuition that linked arguments are especially vulnerable to local criticisms pertaining to premise acceptability.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   172 citations  
  • Commentary on Yanal.G. C. Goddu - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Against the "Ordinary Summing" Test for Convergence.G. C. Goddu - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (3):215-236.
    One popular test for distinguishing linked and convergent argument structures is Robert Yanal's Ordinary Summing Test. Douglas Walton, in his comprehensive survey of possible candidates for the linked/convergent distinction, advocates a particular version of Yanal's test. In a recent article, Alexander Tyaglo proposes to generalize and verifY Yanal's algorithm for convergent arguments, the basis for Yanal's Ordinary Summing Test. In this paper I will argue that Yanal's ordinary summing equation does not demarcate convergence and so his Ordinary Summing Test fails. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation. [REVIEW]A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (4):447-473.
    In this paper, a survey is presented of the main approaches to the structure of argumentation. The paper starts with a historical overview of the distinctions between various types of argument structure. Next, the main definitions given in the various approaches are discussed as well as the methods that are proposed to deal with doubtful cases.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Complex Argumentation in a Critical Discussion.A. F. Snoeck Henkemans - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):405-419.
    In this paper, it is explained that a dialogical approach to complex argumentation can be fruitful for solving two important problems concerning the analysis of the argumentation structure. First, such an approach makes it possible to clarify the distinction between coordinative and multiple argumentation structures, and to identify clues in the presentation for each of these structures. Second, a dialogical approach can provide a basis for dealing more adequately with refutations of counterarguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • 9. Procedural Principles of the Erlangen School: On the interrelation between the principles of method, of dialogue, and of reason.Kuno Lorenz - 2009 - In Logic, Language, and Method on Polarities in Human Experience: Philosophical Papers. De Gruyter. pp. 207-218.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation and the Force of Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):268-295.
    Argumentation involves offering and/or exchanging reasons – either reasons for adopting various attitudes towards specific propositional contents or else reasons for acting in various ways. This paper develops the idea that the force of reasons is through and through a normative force because what good reasons accomplish is precisely to give one a certain sort of entitlement to do what they are reasons for. The paper attempts to shed light on what it is to have a reason, how the sort (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Analogical Argument Schemes and Complex Argument Structure.Andre Juthe - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (3):378-445.
    This paper addresses several issues in argumentation theory. The over-arching goal is to discuss how a theory of analogical argument schemes fits the pragma-dialectical theory of argument schemes and argument structures, and how one should properly reconstruct both single and complex argumentation by analogy. I also propose a unified model that explains how formal valid deductive argumentation relates to argument schemes in general and to analogical argument schemes in particular. The model suggests “scheme-specific-validity” i.e. that there are contrasting species of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Logic, Language, and Method on Polarities in Human Experience: Philosophical Papers.Kuno Lorenz - 2009 - De Gruyter.
    Preface -- Part I: Philosophical logic and philosophy of language -- Rules versus theorems : a new approach for mediation -- Between intuitionistic and two-valued logic -- On the relation between the partition of a whole into parts and the attribution of properties to an object -- Basic objectives of dialogic logic in historical perspective -- Pragmatic and semiotic prerequisites for predication : a dialogue model -- Pragmatics and semiotics : the peircean version of ontology and epistemology -- Intentionality and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Johnson's Manifest Rationality A Pragmatic Theory of Argument.Trudy Govier - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (3).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Communication and argument.Arne Naess - 1966 - [Totowa, N.J.]: Bedminster Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  • (1 other version)New directions in the logic of dialogue.Douglas N. Walton - 1984 - Synthese 58 (2):259 - 274.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective.James B. Freeman - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (4):397-423.
    Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Conductive arguments and the ‘inference to the best explanation’.Dean Goorden & Thomas Fischer - unknown
    I will demonstrate that conductive arguments are found in the inference to the best explana-tion as it is used in science. Conductive arguments, I argue, operate on two levels: the first is in the con-struction of hypotheses; the second is through the competition of hypotheses. By constructing arguments based on observations of facts, all possible factors are taken into account and a judgment is made based on our weighing of considerations: conductive argumentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • More on counter-considerations.Trudy Govier & Derek Allen - unknown
    In pro and con arguments, an arguer acknowledges that there are points against the conclu-sion reached. Such points have been called ‘counter-considerations.’ Their significance is explored here in the light of recent comments by Rongdong Jin, Hans Hansen and others. A conception of connector words such as “although”, “nevertheless,” and “but” is developed, as is a new model recognizing the need for an ‘on balance’ judgment in these arguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • More on Deductive and Inductive Arguments.Trudy Govier - 1979 - Informal Logic 2 (3).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Conductive Argument as a Mode of Strategic Maneuvering.Yun Xie - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (1):2-22.
    This paper is to argue that conductive arguments could be understood from a rhetorical perspective. It contends that conductive arguments can be regarded as a particular mode of strategic maneuvering, rather than a new type of argument. Moreover, it demonstrates that the use of conductive arguments can be adequately analyzed and evaluated by adopting the theoretical tools developed in the extended Pragma-Dialectics.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A New Light on Non-deductive Argumentation Schemes.Harald Wohlrapp - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (3):341-350.
    T. Govier's description of ‘conductive argument’ and 'A priori analogy' is taken as a start to investigate non-deductive argumentation. It is here argued, that the nature of those types can be better understood when taking up a dynamic view (in addition to the usual structural view). The concepts of ‘frame’ and ‘position’ are constructed in order to establish such a twofold approach.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics. [REVIEW]Marcus Singer - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (2):254-259.
    Mr. Wellman’s highly original contribution to the relatively new field of justification in ethics consists of characterizing the different ways in which ethical statements can be challenged and showing how each sort of challenge can be met by an appropriate response, enabling reasonable men to appropriately discuss or reflect on ethical issues. In developing his unique, systematic, methodology of ethics, Mr. Wellman has, first, rigorously reviewed and refuted the main arguments for the view of the nature of all reasoning as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   51 citations  
  • (1 other version)New directions in the logic of dialogue.Douglas N. Walton - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):259 - 274.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
    William Baird collection in Social Sciences is the gift of the Estate of William Cameron Baird.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   76 citations  
  • Linked arguments and the validity requirement.Mark Vorobej - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (2):291-304.
    In this paper I demonstrate that most textbook accounts of the linked/convergent distinction fail to conform to the widespread intuition that all valid arguments ought to be classified as linked arguments. I also show that standard textbook accounts of linkage and convergence cannot provide a satisfactory treatment of fallacies of irrelevance and, due to their general insensitivity to the epistemic context in which arguments are offered, must be supplemented by subjective accounts of linkage and convergence which appeal exclusively to authorial (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Arguments that take Counterconsiderations into Account.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):240-275.
    This paper examines arguments that take counter- considerations into account, and it does so from a dialogical point of view. According to my account, a counterconsideration is part of a critical reaction from a real or imagined opponent, and an arguer may take it into account in his argument in at least six fully responsive ways. Conductive arguments will be characterized as one of these types. In this manner, the paper aims to show how conducive, and related kinds of argument (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Myth of Conductive Arguments.Kevin Possin - 2012 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 27 (3):29-33.
    The topic of conductive arguments, as a separate category of reasoning, is experiencing a revival. In 2010, the University of Windsor’s Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric dedicated a two-day symposium to the topic and recently published the proceedings. In this article, I argue against the existence of conductive arguments as a distinct type and argue against a popular analysis of the structure of conductive arguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Argument Schemes and the Evaluation of Presumptive Reasoning.Robert C. Pinto - 1999 - ProtoSociology 13:61-69.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations