20 found
Order:
See also
Fabrizio Macagno
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
  1. Reasoning From Paradigms and Negative Evidence.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas N. Walton - 2011 - Pragmatics and Cognitionpragmatics 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   2 citations  
  2. The Logical and Pragmatic Structure of Arguments From Analogy.Fabrizio Macagno - 2017 - Logique Et Analyse 240:465-490.
    The reasoning process of analogy is characterized by a strict interdependence between a process of abstraction of a common feature and the transfer of an attribute of the Analogue to the Primary Subject. The first reasoning step is regarded as an abstraction of a generic characteristic that is relevant for the attribution of the predicate. The abstracted feature can be considered from a logic-semantic perspective as a functional genus, in the sense that it is contextually essential for the attribution of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  16
    Assessing Relevance.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Lingua 210:42-64.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. 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   11 citations  
  5. 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   3 citations  
  6. 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  
  7. 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 in students’ argumentative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  8. 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   4 citations  
  9. The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language .Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1:1-37.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10. 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   1 citation  
  11. The Presumptions of Meaning. Hamblin and Equivocation.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):367-393.
    When we use a word, we face a crucial epistemic gap: we ground our move on the fact that our interlocutor knows the meaning of the word we used, and therefore he can interpret our dialogical intention. However, how is it possible to know the other’s mind? Hamblin explained this dialogical problem advancing the idea of dialectical meaning: on his view, the use of a word is based on a set of presumptions. Building on this approach, the use of a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  12. Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):233-265.
    This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  13. 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  
  14.  47
    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   4 citations  
  15. Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (205):39-56.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16. 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   2 citations  
  17. 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 the conclusion. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. 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   1 citation  
  19.  90
    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   1 citation  
  20.  56
    Implicatures and Hierarchies of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Frank Zenker (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (University of Windsor, ON 18-21 May 2011). OSSA. pp. 1-17.
    Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark