15 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Douglas Walton [13]Douglas N. Walton [2]
See also
Douglas Walton
University of Windsor
  1. Reasoning From Paradigms and Negative Evidence.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas N. Walton - 2011 - Pragmatics and Cognition 19 (1):92-116.
    Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2. 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 the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  3. Argument From Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, dialectical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  4. Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2007 - Anthropology and Philosophy 8 (1/2):101-120.
    Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples of everyday conversational argumentation where determination of relevance and irrelevance can be assisted by means of adopting a new dialectical approach. According to the new dialectical theory, dialogue types are normative frameworks with specific goals and rules that can be applied to conversational argumentation. In this paper is shown how such dialectical models of reasonable argumentation can be applied to a determination of whether an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  5. Argument Diagramming in Logic, Artificial Intelligence, and Law.Chris Reed, Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence, and Law 22 (1):87-109.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. What We Hide in Words: Value-Based Reasoning and Emotive Language.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Journal of Pragmatics 42:1997-2013.
    There are emotively powerful words that can modify our judgment, arouse our emotions and influence our decisions. This paper shows how the use of emotive meaning in argumentation can be explained by showing how their logical dimension, which can be analysed using argumentation schemes, combines with heuristic processes triggered by emotions. Arguing with emotive words is shown to use value-based practical reasoning grounded on hierarchies of values and maxims of experience for evaluative classification.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2008 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):525-549.
    In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  8. The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language .Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1:1-37.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  9. Defeasible Classifications and Inferences From Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (1):34-61.
    We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a problem. We examine a variety of arguments of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  10.  87
    Wrenching From Context: The Manipulation of Commitments.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):283-317.
    This article analyses the fallacy of wrenching from context, using the dialectical notions of commitment and implicature as tools. The data, a set of key examples, is used to sharpen the conceptual borderlines around the related fallacies of straw man, accent, misquotation, and neglect of qualifications. According to the analysis, the main characteristics of wrenching from context are the manipulation of the meaning of the other’s statement through devices such as the use of misquotations, selective quotations, and quoting out of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  11. 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 a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12. Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (205):39-56.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  13. Argumentative Reasoning Patterns.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2006 - In Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno (eds.), Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI-European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. University of Trento. pp. 48-51.
    The aim of the paper is to present a typology of argument schemes. In first place, we found it helpful to define what an argument scheme is. Since many argument schemes found in contemporary theories stem from the ancient tradition, we took in consideration classical and medieval dialectical studies and their relation with argumentation theory. This overview on the main works on topics and schemes provides a summary of the main principles of classification. In the second section, Walton’s theory is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14. 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, they are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  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 third (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation