Results for 'Argumentation'

363 found
Order:
  1. What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education.Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
    The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  2. Considering the Roles of Values in Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2013 - Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).
    Building upon the role values take in Walton’s theory of practical reasoning, this paper will frame the question of how values should be evaluated into the broader question of what reasonable practical argumentation is. The thesis argued for is that if a positive evaluation of practical reasoning argumentation requires that the argument avoid a morally negative conclusion, then the role of values should be given a central, rather than supportive, position in practical argument evaluation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3.  27
    Probabilistic Arguments in the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2011 - In Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rozenberg; Sic Sat. pp. 1141-1154.
    The aim of the paper is to develop general criteria of argumentative validity and adequacy for probabilistic arguments on the basis of the epistemological approach to argumentation. In this approach, as in most other approaches to argumentation, proabilistic arguments have been neglected somewhat. Nonetheless, criteria for several special types of probabilistic arguments have been developed, in particular by Richard Feldman and Christoph Lumer. In the first part (sects. 2-5) the epistemological basis of probabilistic arguments is discussed. With regard (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Intellectual Humility and Argumentation.Andrew Aberdein - forthcoming - In Mark Alfano, Michael Lynch & Alessandra Tanesini (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Humility. Routledge.
    In this chapter I argue that intellectual humility is related to argumentation in several distinct but mutually supporting ways. I begin by drawing connections between humility and two topics of long-standing importance to the evaluation of informal arguments: the ad verecundiam fallacy and the principle of charity. I then explore the more explicit role that humility plays in recent work on critical thinking dispositions, deliberative virtues, and virtue theories of argumentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Verbal Sparring and Apologetic Points: Politeness in Gendered Argumentation Contexts.Sylvia Burrow - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):235-262.
    This essay argues that ideals of cooperation or adversariality in argumentation are not equally attainable for women. Women in argumentation contexts face oppressive limitations undermining argument success because their authority is undermined by gendered norms of politeness. Women endorsing or, alternatively, transgressing feminine norms of politeness typically defend their authority in argumentation contexts. And yet, defending authority renders it less legitimate. My argument focuses on women in philosophy but bears the implication that other masculine dis- course contexts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  6. Feminist Perspectives on Argumentation.Catherine E. Hundleby - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Feminists note an association of arguing with aggression and masculinity and question the necessity of this connection. Arguing also seems to some to identify a central method of philosophical reasoning, and gendered assumptions and standards would pose problems for the discipline. Can feminine modes of reasoning provide an alternative or supplement? Can overarching epistemological standards account for the benefits of different approaches to arguing? These are some of the prospects for argumentation inside and outside of philosophy that feminists consider. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  95
    Pyrrhonian Argumentation: Therapy, Dialectic, and Inquiry.Diego E. Machuca - 2019 - Apeiron 52 (2):199-221.
    The Pyrrhonist’s argumentative practice is characterized by at least four features. First, he makes a therapeutic use of arguments: he employs arguments that differ in their persuasiveness in order to cure his dogmatic patients of the distinct degrees of conceit and rashness that afflict them. Secondly, his arguments are for the most part dialectical: when offering an argument to oppose it to another argument advanced by a given dogmatist, he accepts in propria persona neither the truth of its premises and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes .Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2005 - Studies in Communication Sciences 5 (2):1-22.
    We argue that common knowledge, of the kind used in reasoning in law and computing is best analyzed using a dialogue model of argumentation (Walton & Krabbe 1995). In this model, implicit premises resting on common knowledge are analyzed as endoxa or widely accepted opinions and generalizations (Tardini 2005). We argue that, in this sense, common knowledge is not really knowledge of the kind represent by belief and/or knowledge of the epistemic kind studied in current epistemology. This paper takes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9. Argumentation, R. Pavilionis's Meaning Continuum and The Kitchen Debate.Elena Lisanyuk - 2015 - Problemos 88:95.
    In this paper, I propose a logical-cognitive approach to argumentation and advocate an idea that argumentation presupposes that intelligent agents engaged in it are cognitively diverse. My approach to argumentation allows drawing distinctions between justification, conviction and persuasion as its different kinds. In justification agents seek to verify weak or strong coherency of an agent’s position in a dialogue. In conviction they argue to modify their partner’s position by means of demonstrating weak or strong cogency of their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. The Development of Dialectic and Argumentation Theory in Post-Classical Islamic Intellectual History.Mehmet Karabela - 2011 - Dissertation, McGill University
    This dissertation is an analysis of the development of dialectic and argumentation theory in post-classical Islamic intellectual history. The central concerns of the thesis are; treatises on the theoretical understanding of the concept of dialectic and argumentation theory, and how, in practice, the concept of dialectic, as expressed in the Greek classical tradition, was received and used by five communities in the Islamic intellectual camp. It shows how dialectic as an argumentative discourse diffused into five communities (theologicians, poets, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  85
    Eudaimonistic Argumentation.Andrew Aberdein - 2020 - In Bart Garssen & Frans van Eemeren (eds.), From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild: A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 97–106.
    Virtue theories have lately enjoyed a modest vogue in the study of argumentation, echoing the success of more far-reaching programmes in ethics and epistemology. Virtue theories of argumentation (VTA) comprise several conceptually distinct projects, including the provision of normative foundations for argument evaluation and a renewed focus on the character of good arguers. Perhaps the boldest of these is the pursuit of the fully satisfying argument, the argument that contributes to human flourishing. This project has an independently developed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. A Theory of Argumentation: Harald R. Wohlrapp: The Concept of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation, Translated by Tim Personn in Cooperation with Michael Weh. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, Lxii+443 Pp, $179.00 HB. [REVIEW]Moti Mizrahi - 2015 - Metascience 24 (3):503-506.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. A Picture Held Us Captive: The Later Wittgenstein and Visual Argumentation.Steven W. Patterson - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 2 (2):105-134.
    The issue of whether or not there are visual arguments has been an issue in informal logic and argumentation theory at least since 1996. In recent years, books, sections of prominent conferences and special journals issues have been devoted to it, thus significantly raising the profile of the debate. In this paper I will attempt to show how the views of the later Wittgenstein, particularly his views on images and the no- tion of “picturing”, can be brought to bear (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14. Pushing the Bounds of Rationality: Argumentation and Extended Cognition.David Godden - 2016 - In Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli & Silvia Felletti (eds.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion. London: College Publications. pp. 67-83.
    One of the central tasks of a theory of argumentation is to supply a theory of appraisal: a set of standards and norms according to which argumentation, and the reasoning involved in it, is properly evaluated. In their most general form, these can be understood as rational norms, where the core idea of rationality is that we rightly respond to reasons by according the credence we attach to our doxastic and conversational commitments with the probative strength of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  67
    Argumentation Without Arguments Proper.Gábor Forrai - 2014 - In Gizella Horváth, Rozália Klára Bakos & Éva Bíró-Kaszás (eds.), Ten Years of Facebook, The Third Argumentor Conference. Partium Press, Debrecen University Press. pp. 219-238..
    The purpose of the paper is to draw attention to a kind of rational persuasion which has received little attention in argument studies even though its existence is acknowledged in other fields. I start with a brief analysis of the debates conducted in the comments on a philosophical blog. The posts are addressed to a non-academic audience, always end with a problem, and the reader is invited to offer a solution. In the comments we hardly ever find arguments in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16.  43
    Arguing About Muslims : Reasonable Argumentation in Letters to the Editor.Atkin Albert & E. Richardson John - 2007 - Text and Talk 1 (27):1-25.
    This article analyses letters to the editor written on or about Muslims printed in a British broadsheet newspaper. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is applied as a model for explaining and understanding the arguments employed in the sampled letters. Our presentation of pragma-dialectical theory focuses on argumentative reasonableness. More specifically, we introduce the four dialectical stages through which any argument must pass and explain the ten rules of critical discussion that participants must follow throughout if they are to resolve (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  18. Rhetoric and Argumentation: How Clinical Practice Guidelines Think.Jonathan Fuller - 2013 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19 (3):433-441.
    Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are an important source of justification for clinical decisions in modern evidence-based practice. Yet, we have given little attention to how they argue their evidence. In particular, how do CPGs argue for treatment with long-term medications that are increasingly prescribed to older patients? Approach and rationale: I selected six disease-specific guidelines recommending treatment with five of the medication classes most commonly prescribed for seniors in Ontario, Canada. I considered the stated aims of these CPGs and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  19. The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation.Moira Howes & Catherine Hundleby - 2018 - Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 5 (2):229-254.
    While anger can derail argumentation, it can also help arguers and audiences to reason together in argumentation. Anger can provide information about premises, biases, goals, discussants, and depth of disagreement that people might otherwise fail to recognize or prematurely dismiss. Anger can also enhance the salience of certain premises and underscore the importance of related inferences. For these reasons, we claim that anger can serve as an epistemic resource in argumentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Functionalism, Normativity and the Concept of Argumentation.Steven W. Patterson - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (1):1-26.
    In her 2007 paper, “Argument Has No Function” Jean Goodwin takes exception with what she calls the “explicit function claims”, arguing that not only are function-based accounts of argumentation insufficiently motivated, but they fail to ground claims to normativity. In this paper I stake out the beginnings of a functionalist answer to Goodwin.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  21. Rhetorical Argumentation and the Nature of Audience: Toward an Understanding of Audience—Issues in Argumentation.Christopher W. Tindale - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):508-532.
    In any field, we might expect different features relevant to its understanding and development to receive attention at different times, depending on the stage of that field’s growth and the interests that occupy theorists and even the history of the theorists themselves. In the relatively young life of argumentation theory, at least as it has formed a body of issues with identified research questions, attention has almost naturally been focused on the central concern of the field—arguments. Focus is also (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  22. Visual Modes of Ethotic Argumentation: An Exploratory Inquiry.Ioana Grancea - 2016 - Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 3 (4):375-389.
    Ethotic arguments are defined as sequences of claims-and-reasons regarding speaker character, based on which the plausibility of speaker assertions can be questioned. This is an exploratory study concerning the role of visuals in ethotic arguing. In this paper, I bring together contributions from visual argumentation theory and from studies regarding various modes of construing an ethotic argument, in an attempt to offer an adequate account of the argumentative action of images in ethotic sequences of discourse. In the last section, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  55
    Introduction to Structured Argumentation.Philippe Besnard, Alejandro Garcia, Anthony Hunter, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, Guillermo Simari & Francesca Toni - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):1-4.
    In abstract argumentation, each argument is regarded as atomic. There is no internal structure to an argument. Also, there is no specification of what is an argument or an attack. They are assumed to be given. This abstract perspective provides many advantages for studying the nature of argumentation, but it does not cover all our needs for understanding argumentation or for building tools for supporting or undertaking argumentation. If we want a more detailed formalization of arguments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24. False Endoxa and Fallacious Argumentation.Colin Guthrie King - 2013 - Logical Analysis and the History of Philosophy 15:185–199.
    Aristotle determines eristic argument as argument which either operates upon the basis of acceptable premisses (endoxa) and merely give the impression of being deductive, or argument which truly is deductive but operates upon the basis of premisses which seem to be acceptable, but are not (or, again, argument which uses both of these mechanisms). I attempt to understand what Aristotle has in mind when he says that someone is deceived into accepting premisses which seem to be acceptable but which are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Intuitions and Arguments: Cognitive Foundations of Argumentation in Natural Theology.Helen De Cruz & Johan De Smedt - 2017 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (2):57-82.
    This paper examines the cognitive foundations of natural theology: the intuitions that provide the raw materials for religious arguments, and the social context in which they are defended or challenged. We show that the premises on which natural theological arguments are based rely on intuitions that emerge early in development, and that underlie our expectations for everyday situations, e.g., about how causation works, or how design is recognized. In spite of the universality of these intuitions, the cogency of natural theological (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. Dichotomies and Oppositions in Legal Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Ratio Juris 23 (2):229-257.
    In this paper we use a series of examples to show how oppositions and dichotomies are fundamental in legal argumentation, and vitally important to be aware of, because of their twofold nature. On the one hand, they are argument structures underlying various kinds of rational argumentation commonly used in law as a means of getting to the truth in a conflict of opinion under critical discussion by two opposing sides before a tryer of fact. On the other hand, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27.  41
    Improving Practical Reasoning and Argumentation.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2015 - Dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
    This thesis justifies the need for and develops a new integrated model of practical reasoning and argumentation. After framing the work in terms of what is reasonable rather than what is rational (chapter 1), I apply the model for practical argumentation analysis and evaluation provided by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to a paradigm case of unreasonable individual practical argumentation provided by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik (chapter 2). The application shows that by following the model, Breivik is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28. Moral Uncertainty in Bioethical Argumentation: A New Understanding of the Pro-Life View on Early Human Embryos.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (6):441-457.
    In this article, I present a new interpretation of the pro-life view on the status of early human embryos. In my understanding, this position is based not on presumptions about the ontological status of embryos and their developmental capabilities but on the specific criteria of rational decisions under uncertainty and on a cautious response to the ambiguous status of embryos. This view, which uses the decision theory model of moral reasoning, promises to reconcile the uncertainty about the ontological status of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  29.  54
    Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model.João Sàágua & Michael D. Baumtrog - 2018 - In António Marques & João Sàágua (eds.), Essays on Values and Practical Rationality. Peter Lang. pp. 193-250.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (205):39-56.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31.  21
    Defeasible Argumentation Over Relational Databases.Cristhian Ariel David Deagustini, Santiago Emanuel Fulladoza Dalibón, Sebastián Gottifredi, Marcelo Alejandro Falappa, Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari - 2017 - Argument and Computation 8 (1):35-59.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  69
    Persuasive Argumentation as a Cultural Practice.Paweł GAŁKOWSKI - 2014 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 4 (1):123-134.
    In this article author traces relation between argumentation and cultural practice. The first part focuses on definition of argumentation in informal logic tradition. In particular, it discusses argument in terms of verbal and social activity involving the use of everyday language. Author claims that there is no argumentation beyond language. The second part explains persuasive argumentation as a form of cultural practice. The persuasive arguments found in “social practice” can be understood as a social activity, analysable (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. The Problem of Unconceived Objections.Moti Mizrahi - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):425-436.
    In this paper, I argue that, just as the problem of unconceived alternatives provides a basis for a New Induction on the History of Science to the effect that a realist view of science is unwarranted, the problem of unconceived objections provides a basis for a New Induction on the History of Philosophy to the effect that a realist view of philosophy is unwarranted. I raise this problem not only for skepticism’s sake but also for the sake of making a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  34. Arguing With Asperger Syndrome.Albert Atkin, J. E. Richardson & C. Blackmore - 2007 - In Proceedings of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Amsterdam, Netherlands: pp. 1141-1146.
    The study examines the argumentative competencies of people with Asperger syndrome (AS) and compares this with those of normal – or what are called neurotypical (NT) – subjects. To investigate how people with AS recognise, evaluate and engage in argumentation, we have adapted and applied the empirical instrument developed by van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels to study the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical freedom rule (van Eemeren, Gars- sen & Meuffels 2003a; 2003b; 2005a; 2005b; van Eemeren & Meuffels, 2002). (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. Penser la peine dans la souveraineté et dans l'époque. Situation de l'argumentation abolitionniste dans Des Délits et des Peines de Cesare Beccaria.Kevin D. Ladd - 2012 - Revue Lumières 20:101-120.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. The Postmodern Grounds of Argumentation. Evidence (Energeia) as Concept of Artificial Proof.F. A. Haase - manuscript
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Implementation of Argumentation as Process in Theoretical Linguistics.F. A. Haase - manuscript
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  16
    Linguistic Argumentation and Logic: An Alternative Method Approach in Arabic Grammar.Solehah Yaacob - 2013 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 3 (2):405-428.
    Rozprawa podkreśla związek między językową argumentacją a logiką. Argumentacja językowa jest systemem językowym, który stosuje znaczenie wyrażeń ujętych w zdania do zarysowania pełnego znaczenia zdań, w nich bowiem konstytuują się zależności między wyrażeniami. Rzeczywiście, to powiązanie między wyrażeniami wzmacnia całościowe znaczenie począwszy od samych podstaw struktury zdania w logicznym powiązaniu idei. W nim znajduje się relacja między słowami a umysłem, zależna od logiki powiązanych ze sobą wypowiedzi. Aby podkreślić znaczenie przedstawionego wyżej sposobu myślenia, autorka zwraca się ku teorii wczesnej gramatyki (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  78
    Strength of Justification – The Rational Degree of Certainty Approach.Christoph Lumer - 2018 - In Steve Oswald (ed.), Argumentation and Inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017. London, GB: College Publications. pp. 315-333.
    In this paper, I present the fundamental ideas of a new theory of justification strength. This theory is based on the epistemological approach to argumentation. Even the thesis of a valid justification can be false for various reasons. The theory outlined here identifies such possible errors. Justification strength is equated with the degree to which such possible errors are excluded. The natural expression of this kind of justification strength is the (rational) degree of certainty of the belief in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. The Methodological Usefulness of Deep Disagreement.Steven W. Patterson - 2015 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 6 (2).
    In this paper I begin by examining Fogelin’s account of deep disagreement. My contention is that this account is so deeply flawed as to cast doubt on the possibility that such deep disagreements actually happen. Nevertheless, I contend that the notion of deep disagreement itself is a useful theoretical foil for thinking about argumentation. The second part of this paper makes this case by showing how thinking about deep disagreements from the perspective of rhetoric, Walton-style argumentation theory, computation, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum .F. Macagno & D. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 28 (3):203-228.
    Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  42. Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43.  41
    Argument Schemes—an Epistemological Approach.Christoph Lumer - 2011 - Argumentation. Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-22, 2011.
    The paper develops a classificatory system of basic argument types on the basis of the epis-temological approach to argumentation. This approach has provided strict rules for several kinds of argu-ments. These kinds may be brought into a system of basic irreducible types, which rely on different parts of epistemology: deductive logic, probability theory, utility theory. The system reduces a huge mass of differ-ent argument schemes to basic types and gives them an epistemological foundation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  44. Algorithms and Arguments: The Foundational Role of the ATAI-Question.Paola Cantu' & Italo Testa - 2011 - In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192-203). Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
    Argumentation theory underwent a significant development in the Fifties and Sixties: its revival is usually connected to Perelman's criticism of formal logic and the development of informal logic. Interestingly enough it was during this period that Artificial Intelligence was developed, which defended the following thesis (from now on referred to as the AI-thesis): human reasoning can be emulated by machines. The paper suggests a reconstruction of the opposition between formal and informal logic as a move against a premise of (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  97
    We, the Professional Sages: Analytic Philosophy’s Arrogation of Argument.Marc Champagne - 2009 - Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    One claim reiterated with increasing boldness by the “analytic” tradition in philosophy is that what sets it apart from long-time rivals is a shared adherence to proper norms of argumentation. Gradated deviancy from this canon by English-speaking practitioners has therefore raised important questions about who can repair under the banner “professional philosopher.” We will portray as deeply worrisome the idea that argumentation should secure not just conclusions, but disciplinary membership as well.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  87
    Alternatives to Suspicion and Trust as Conditions for Challenge in Argumentative Dialogues.Douglas Walton & David Godden - 2006 - In P. Riley (ed.), Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation. National Communication Association. pp. 438-444.
    A problem for dialogue models of argumentation is to specify a set of conditions under which an opponent’s claims, offered in support of a standpoint under dispute, ought to be challenged. This project is related to the issue of providing a set of acceptability conditions for claims made in a dialogue. In this paper, we consider the conditions of suspicion and trust articulated by Jacobs (Alta, 2003), arguing that neither are acceptable as general conditions for challenge. We propose a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  47. Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.Trudy Gover - 2018 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    We are pleased to publish this WSIA edition of Trudy’s Govier’s seminal volume, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Originally published in 1987 by Foris Publications, this was a pioneering work that played a major role in establishing argumentation theory as a discipline. Today, it is as relevant to the field as when it first appeared, with discussions of questions and issues that remain central to the study of argument. It has defined the main approaches to many of those (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   75 citations  
  48.  47
    How to Play the “Playing God” Card.Moti Mizrahi - forthcoming - Science and Engineering Ethics:1-17.
    When the phrase “playing God” is used in debates concerning the use of new technologies, such as cloning or genetic engineering, it is usually interpreted as a warning not to interfere with God’s creation or nature. I think that this interpretation of “playing God” arguments as a call to non-interference with nature is too narrow. In this paper, I propose an alternative interpretation of “playing God” arguments. Taking an argumentation theory approach, I provide an argumentation scheme and accompanying (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  71
    Courageous Arguments and Deep Disagreements.Andrew Aberdein - forthcoming - Topoi:1-8.
    Deep disagreements are characteristically resistant to rational resolution. This paper explores the contribution a virtue theoretic approach to argumentation can make towards settling the practical matter of what to do when confronted with apparent deep disagreement, with particular attention to the virtue of courage.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Sterba’s Argument From Non-Question-Beggingness for the Rationality of Morality.Duncan MacIntosh - 2014 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):171-189.
    James Sterba describes the egoist as thinking only egoist reasons decide the rationality of choices of action, the altruist, only altruistic reasons, that each in effect begs the question of what reasons there are against the other, and that the only non-question-begging and therefore rationally defensible position in this controversy is the middle-ground position that high-ranking egoistic reasons should trump low ranking-altruistic considerations and vice versa, this position being co-extensive with morality. Therefore it is rationally obligatory choose morally. I object (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 363