Results for 'Legal Argumentation Theory'

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory.Fabrizio Macagno & Rosalice Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (1):141-176.
    The analysis of multimodal argumentation in advertising is a crucial and problematic area of research. While its importance is growing in a time characterized by images and pictorial messages, the methods used for interpreting and reconstructing the structure of arguments expressed through verbal and visual means capture only isolated dimensions of this complex phenomenon. This paper intends to propose and illustrate a methodology for the reconstruction and analysis of “double-mode” arguments in advertisements, combining the instruments developed in social semiotics, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Argument and the "Moral Impact" Theory of Law.Alani Golanski - 2019 - Washington University Jurisprudence Review 11:293-343.
    The innovative Moral Impact Theory (“MIT”) of law claims that the moral impacts of legal institutional actions, rather than the linguistic content of “rules” or judicial or legislative pronouncements, determine law’s content. MIT’s corollary is that legal interpretation consists in the inquiry into what is morally required as a consequence of the lawmaking actions. This paper challenges MIT by critiquing its attendant view of the nature of legal interpretation and argument. Points including the following: (1) it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Argument Diagramming in Logic, Artificial Intelligence, and Law.Chris Reed, Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence, and Law 22 (1):87-109.
    In this paper, we present a survey of the development of the technique of argument diagramming covering not only the fields in which it originated - informal logic, argumentation theory, evidence law and legal reasoning – but also more recent work in applying and developing it in computer science and artificial intelligence. Beginning with a simple example of an everyday argument, we present an analysis of it visualised as an argument diagram constructed using a software tool. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4. Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2017 - Amsterdam: Springer.
    This book shows how research in linguistic pragmatics, philosophy of language, and rhetoric can be connected through argumentation to analyze a recognizably common strategy used in political and everyday conversation, namely the distortion of another’s words in an argumentative exchange. Straw man argumentation refers to the modification of a position by misquoting, misreporting or wrenching the original speaker’s statements from their context in order to attack them more easily or more effectively. Through 63 examples taken from different contexts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  5. Legal Institutionalism: Capitalism and the Constitutive Role of Law.Simon Deakin, David Gindis, Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Kainan Huang & Katharina Pistor - 2017 - Journal of Comparative Economics 45 (1):188-20.
    Social scientists have paid insufficient attention to the role of law in constituting the economic institutions of capitalism. Part of this neglect emanates from inadequate conceptions of the nature of law itself. Spontaneous conceptions of law and property rights that downplay the role of the state are criticized here, because they typically assume relatively small numbers of agents and underplay the complexity and uncertainty in developed capitalist systems. In developed capitalist economies, law is sustained through interaction between private agents, courts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  6. Lon Fuller's Legal Structuralism.William Conklin - 2012 - In Bjarne Melkevik (ed.), Standing Tall Hommages a Csaba Varga. Budapest: Pazmany Press. pp. 97-121.
    Anglo-American general jurisprudence remains preoccupied with the relationship of legality to morality. This has especially been so in the re-reading of Lon Fuller’s theory of an implied morality in any law. More often than not, Fuller has been said to distinguish between the identity of a discrete rule and something called ‘morality’. In this reading of Fuller, however, insufficient attention to what is signified by ‘morality’. Such an implied morality has been understood in terms of deontological duties, the Good (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  30
    The disunity of legal reality.Daniel Wodak & David Plunkett - 2022 - Legal Theory 28 (3):235-267.
    Take “legal reality” to be the part of reality that actual legal thought and talk is dis- tinctively about, such as legal institutions, legal obligations, and legal norms. Our goal is to explore whether legal reality is disunified. To illustrate the issue, consider the possibility that an important metaphysical thesis such as positivism is true of one part of legal reality (legal institutions), but not another (legal norms). We offer two arguments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  48
    Late scholastic probable arguments and their contrast with rhetorical and demonstrative arguments.James Franklin - 2022 - Philosophical Inquiries 10 (2).
    Aristotle divided arguments that persuade into the rhetorical (which happen to persuade), the dialectical (which are strong so ought to persuade to some degree) and the demonstrative (which must persuade if rightly understood). Dialectical arguments were long neglected, partly because Aristotle did not write a book about them. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth century late scholastic authors such as Medina, Cano and Soto developed a sound theory of probable arguments, those that have logical and not merely psychological force (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Kelsen, Hart, and Legal Normativity.Brian Bix - 2018 - Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law / Revija Za Ustavno Teorijo in Filozofijo Prava 34:25-42.
    This article focuses on issues relating to legal normativity, emphasizing the way these matters have been elaborated in the works of Kelsen and Hart and later commentators on their theories. First, in Section 2, the author offers a view regarding the nature of law and legal normativity focusing on Kelsen's work (at least one reasonable reading of it). The argument is that the Basic Norm is presupposed when a citizen chooses to read the actions of legal officials (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  10. Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning.Fabrizio Macagno & Alessandro Capone - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (4):399-422.
    The problem of establishing the best interpretation of a speech act is of fundamental importance in argumentation and communication in general. A party in a dialogue can interpret another’s or his own speech acts in the most convenient ways to achieve his dialogical goals. In defamation law this phenomenon becomes particularly important, as the dialogical effects of a communicative move may result in legal consequences. The purpose of this paper is to combine the instruments provided by argumentation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  11. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  12.  65
    Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation.Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno & Giovanni Sartor - 2021 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Statutory interpretation involves the reconstruction of the meaning of a legal statement when it cannot be considered as accepted or granted. This phenomenon needs to be considered not only from the legal and linguistic perspective, but also from the argumentative one - which focuses on the strategies for defending a controversial or doubtful viewpoint. This book draws upon linguistics, legal theory, computing, and dialectics to present an argumentation-based approach to statutory interpretation. By translating and summarizing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  13. Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2018 - Law and Philosophy 37 (1):69-115.
    The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  14. Transparency in internet regulation and governance: Arguments and counter-arguments with some methodological reflections.Gianluca Andresani & Natalina Stamile - 2018 - Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos 117:443-476.
    The debate on the argumentative turn in Public Policy and Administration (PPA), as reflective of the influence of politico-legal theory on the discipline, is reviewed with a thorough and indepth engagement with the Argumentation Theory (AT) literature. The focus in this article is in fact of a methodological nature since we argue that critical scholars - who have contributed to the general and specialized (i.e. political discourse analysis and critical contextualism) literature of AT as well as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. A Critique of Critical Legal Studies' Claim of Legal Indeterminacy.Ian Carlo Dapalla Benitez - 2015 - Lambert Academic Publishing.
    This paper challenges the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) claims of legal indeterminacy. It shall use a legal formalist logic and language as its main assertion, further maintaining that the CLS claims is only grounded in ambiguity and confusion. CLS is a legal theory that challenges and overturns accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. They maintained that law in the historical and contemporary society has an alleged impartiality, and it is used (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. When win-argument pedagogy is a loss for the composition classroom.Grosskopf Wendy Lee - 2015 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 5 (1):243-266.
    Despite the effort educators put into developing in students the critical writing and thinking skills needed to compose effective arguments, undergraduate college students are often accused of churning out essays lacking in creative and critical thought, arguments too obviously formulated and with sides too sharply drawn. Theories abound as to why these deficiencies are rampant. Some blame students’ immature cognitive and emotional development for these lacks. Others put the blame of lackadaisical output on the assigning of shopworn writing subjects, assigned (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Hegel on legal and moral responsibility.Mark Alznauer - 2008 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 51 (4):365 – 389.
    When Hegel first addresses moral responsibility in the Philosophy of Right, he presupposes that agents are only responsible for what they intended to do, but appears to offer little, if any, justification for this assumption. In this essay, I claim that the first part of the Philosophy of Right, “Abstract Right”, contains an implicit argument that legal or external responsibility (blame for what we have done) is conceptually dependent on moral responsibility proper (blame for what we have intended). This (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18.  92
    Instinctualism: A Theory of Law from Within.James Rowe - manuscript
    Legal philosophy dates to the Ancient Greek Philosophers, and it continues to be a vigorously debated subject due to the fact that there does not exist a legal philosophy that is beyond reapproach that encapsulates law’s origins or purpose. This paper will introduce a new legal philosophy, which I have termed instinctualism. -/- Instinctualism is the idea that law originates from human instinct. Human beings are born with certain natural capacities that they learn to utilize as they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  30
    instinctualism: a theory of law from within.James Rowe - manuscript
    Legal philosophy dates to the Ancient Greek Philosophers, and it continues to be a vigorously debated subject due to the fact that there does not exist a legal philosophy that is beyond reapproach that encapsulates law’s origins or purpose. This paper will introduce a new legal philosophy, which I have termed instinctualism. -/- Instinctualism is the idea that law originates from human instinct. Human beings are born with certain natural capacities that they learn to utilize as they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. H.L.A. Hart’s Lost Essay: Discretion and the Legal Process School.Geoffrey C. Shaw - 2013 - Harvard Law Review 127 (2):666-727.
    This Essay analyzes an essay by H. L. A. Hart about discretion that has never before been published, and has often been considered lost. Hart, one of the most significant legal philosophers of the twentieth century, wrote the essay at Harvard Law School in November 1956, shortly after he arrived as a visiting professor. In the essay, Hart argued that discretion is a special mode of reasoned, constrained decisionmaking that occupies a middle ground between arbitrary choice and determinate rule (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. Secundum Quid and the Pragmatics of Arguments. The Challenges of the Dialectical Tradition.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):317-343.
    The phrase _secundum quid et simpliciter_ is the Latin expression translating and labelling the sophism described by Aristotle as connected with the use of some particular expression “absolutely or in a certain respect and not in its proper sense.” This paper presents an overview of the analysis of this fallacy in the history of dialectics, reconstructing the different explanations provided in the Aristotelian texts, the Latin and medieval dialectical tradition, and the modern logical approaches. The _secundum quid_ emerges as a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. Intellectual Property is Common Property: Arguments for the Abolition of Private Intellectual Property Rights.Andreas Von Gunten - 2015 - buch & netz.
    Defenders of intellectual property rights argue that these rights are justified because creators and inventors deserve compensation for their labour, because their ideas and expressions are their personal property and because the total amount of creative work and innovation increases when inventors and creators have a prospect of generating high income through the exploitation of their monopoly rights. This view is not only widely accepted by the general public, but also enforced through a very effective international legal framework. And (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Responsibility and revision: a Levinasian argument for the abolition of capital punishment.Benjamin S. Yost - 2011 - Continental Philosophy Review 44 (1):41-64.
    Most readers believe that it is difficult, verging on the impossible, to extract concrete prescriptions from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Although this view is largely correct, Levinas’ philosophy can, with some assistance, generate specific duties on the part of legal actors. In this paper, I argue that the fundamental premises of Levinas’ theory of justice can be used to construct a prohibition against capital punishment. After analyzing Levinas’ concepts of justice, responsibility, and interruption, I turn toward his (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  96
    Argumentation Theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies.Fabrizio Macagno, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus & Deanna Kuhn - 2015 - Topoi 34 (2):523-537.
    This paper is aimed at combining the advances in argumentation theory with the models used in the field of education to address the issue of improving students’ argumentative behavior by interacting with an expert. The concept of deeper or more sophisticated argumentative strategy is theoretically defined and used to advance two new coding schemes, based on the advances in the argumentation studies and aimed at capturing the dialectical, or structural, behavior, and the argumentative content of each dialogue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  25.  85
    Modelling competing legal arguments using Bayesian model comparison and averaging.Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, David Lagnado & Richard David Gill - 2019 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 27 (4):403-430.
    Bayesian models of legal arguments generally aim to produce a single integrated model, combining each of the legal arguments under consideration. This combined approach implicitly assumes that variables and their relationships can be represented without any contradiction or misalignment, and in a way that makes sense with respect to the competing argument narratives. This paper describes a novel approach to compare and ‘average’ Bayesian models of legal arguments that have been built independently and with no attempt to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27. Presumptions in Legal Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300.
    In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  28.  42
    Autonomous Weapon Systems in Just War Theory perspective. Maciej - 2022 - Dissertation,
    Please contact me at [email protected] if you are interested in reading a particular chapter or being sent the entire manuscript for private use. -/- The thesis offers a comprehensive argument in favor of a regulationist approach to autonomous weapon systems (AWS). AWS, defined as all military robots capable of selecting or engaging targets without direct human involvement, are an emerging and potentially deeply transformative military technology subject to very substantial ethical controversy. AWS have both their enthusiasts and their detractors, prominently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  33
    Forms and Norms of Indecision in Argumentation Theory.Daniela Schuster - 2021 - Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, 15th International Conference, DEON 2020/2021.
    One main goal of argumentation theory is to evaluate arguments and to determine whether they should be accepted or rejected. When there is no clear answer, a third option, being undecided, has to be taken into account. Indecision is often not considered explicitly, but rather taken to be a collection of all unclear or troubling cases. However, current philosophy makes a strong point for taking indecision itself to be a proper object of consideration. This paper aims at revealing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. The Pragma-Dialectics of Dispassionate Discourse: Early Nyāya Argumentation Theory.Malcolm Keating - 2022 - Religions 10 (12).
    Analytic philosophers have, since the pioneering work of B.K. Matilal, emphasized the contributions of Nyāya philosophers to what contemporary philosophy considers epistemology. More recently, scholarly work demonstrates the relevance of their ideas to argumentation theory, an interdisciplinary area of study drawing on epistemology as well as logic, rhetoric, and linguistics. This paper shows how early Nyāya theorizing about argumentation, from Vātsyāyana to Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, can fruitfully be juxtaposed with the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation pioneered by Frans (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Arguments and Stories in Legal Reasoning: The Case of Evidence Law.Gianluca Andresani - 2020 - Archiv Fuer Rechts Und Sozialphilosphie 106 (1):75-90.
    We argue that legal argumentation, as the subject matter as well as a special subfield of Argumentation Studies (AS), has to be examined by making skilled use of the full panoply of tools such as argumentation and story schemes which are at the forefront of current work in AS. In reviewing the literature, we make explicit our own methodological choices (particularly regarding the place of normative deliberation in practical reasoning) and then illustrate the implications of such (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. On the Unities of Law, Practical Reason, and Right: Foundations of the Unity of Reason beyond the Plurality of Knowledge and of Normative Orders.André Ferreira Leite de Paula - 2019 - In André Ferreira Leite de Paula & Andrés Santacoloma Santacoloma (eds.), Law and Morals - ARSP 158/2019. pp. 15-115.
    The problem addressed in this article is the relationship between law and morality. It is asked (1) to what extent law and morality are connected and separated and (2) since when has it been so. To the extent that law and morality are distinct normative orders, it is asked (3) whether they rule exactly the same behaviors or whether each order rules dierent kinds of behaviors. If they rule at least some of the same behaviors, it is asked (4) whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Moorean Arguments Against the Error Theory: A Defense.Eric Sampson - forthcoming - Oxford Studies in Metaethics.
    Moorean arguments are a popular and powerful way to engage highly revisionary philosophical views, such as nihilism about motion, time, truth, consciousness, causation, and various kinds of skepticism (e.g., external world, other minds, inductive, global). They take, as a premise, a highly plausible first-order claim (e.g., cars move, I ate breakfast before lunch, it’s true that some fish have gills) and conclude from it the falsity of the highly revisionary philosophical thesis. Moorean arguments can be used against nihilists in ethics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. A Theory that Beats the Theory? Lineages, the Growth of Signs, and Dynamic Legal Interpretation.Marcin Matczak - manuscript
    Legal philosophers distinguish between a static and a dynamic interpretation of law. The former assumes that the meaning of the words used in a legal text is set at the moment of its enactment and does not change with time. The latter allows the interpreters to update the meaning and apply a contemporary understanding to the text. The dispute between these competing theories has significant ramifications for social and political life. To take an example, depending on the approach, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36. A Theory of Philosophical Arguments.Christoph Lumer - 2020 - Evidence, Persuasion and Diversity. Proceedings of Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference, Vol. 12 (2020).
    In this article, a new, idealizing-hermeneutic methodological approach to developing a theory of philosophical arguments is presented and carried out. The basis for this is a theory of ideal philosophical theory types developed from the analysis of historical examples. According to this theory, the following ideal types of theory exist in philosophy: 1. descriptive-nomological, 2. idealizing-hermeneutic, 3. technical-constructive, 4. ontic-practical. These types of theories are characterized in particular by what their basic types of theses are. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  37.  71
    Reporting and Interpreting Intentions in Defamation Law.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - In Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer & Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Cham, Switzerland: pp. 593-619.
    The interpretation and the indirect reporting of a speaker’s communicative intentions lie at the crossroad between pragmatics, argumentation theory, and forensic linguistics. Since the leading case Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., in the United States the legal problem of determining the truth of a quotation is essentially equated with the correctness of its indirect reporting, i.e. the representation of the speaker’s intentions. For this reason, indirect reports are treated as interpretations of what the speaker intends to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  38. The Legal Self: Executive processes and legal theory.William Hirstein & Katrina Sifferd - 2011 - Consciousness and Cognition 20 (1):151-176.
    When laws or legal principles mention mental states such as intentions to form a contract, knowledge of risk, or purposely causing a death, what parts of the brain are they speaking about? We argue here that these principles are tacitly directed at our prefrontal executive processes. Our current best theories of consciousness portray it as a workspace in which executive processes operate, but what is important to the law is what is done with the workspace content rather than the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  39. Theory-Ladenness of Perception Arguments.Michael A. Bishop - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:287 - 299.
    The theory-ladenness of perception argument is not an argument at all. It is two clusters of arguments. The first cluster is empirical. These arguments typically begin with a discussion of one or more of the following psychological phenomena: (a) the conceptual penetrability of the visual system, (b) voluntary perceptual reversal of ambiguous figures, (c) adaptation to distorting lenses, or (d) expectation effects. From this evidence, proponents of theory-ladenness typically conclude that perception is in some sense "laden" with (...). The second cluster attempts to extract deep epistemological lessons from this putative fact. Some philosophers conclude that science is not (in any traditional sense) a rational activity, while others conclude that we must radically reconceptualize what scientific rationality involves. Once we understand the structure of these arguments, much conventional wisdom about the significance of the psychological data turns out to be false. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  40. An argument against causal decision theory.Jack Spencer - 2021 - Analysis 81 (1):52-61.
    This paper develops an argument against causal decision theory. I formulate a principle of preference, which I call the Guaranteed Principle. I argue that the preferences of rational agents satisfy the Guaranteed Principle, that the preferences of agents who embody causal decision theory do not, and hence that causal decision theory is false.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  41. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  42. 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, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  43. Meaning and argument. A theory of meaning centred on immediate argumental role.Cesare Cozzo - 1994 - Almqvist & Wiksell.
    This study presents and develops in detail (a new version of) the argumental conception of meaning. The two basic principles of the argumental conception of meaning are: i) To know (implicitly) the sense of a word is to know (implicitly) all the argumentation rules concerning that word; ii) To know the sense of a sentence is to know the syntactic structure of that sentence and to know the senses of the words occurring in it. The sense of a sentence (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  44. An Argument Against Fodorian Inner Sentence Theories of Belief and Desire.Adam Pautz - manuscript
    One of Jerry Fodor’s many seminal contributions to philosophy of mind was his inner sentence theory of belief and desire. To believe that p is to have a subpersonal inner sentence in one’s “belief-box” that means that p, and to desire that q is to have a subpersonal inner sentence in one’s “desire-box” that means that q. I will distinguish between two accounts of box-inclusion that exhaust the options: liberal and restrictive. I will show that both accounts have the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. The Theory of Aḥwāl and Arguments against the Law of Non-Contradiction.Behnam Zolghadr - 2020 - In Yearbook of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies. Berlin, Germany: pp. 31-52.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. Why legal theory is political philosophy.William A. Edmundson - 2013 - Legal Theory 19 (4):331-346.
    The concept of law is not a theorist's invention but one that people use every day. Thus one measure of the adequacy of a theory of law is its degree of fidelity to the concept as it is understood by those who use it. That means as far as possible. There are important truisms about the law that have an evaluative cast. The theorist has either to say what would make those evaluative truisms true or to defend her choice (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. Mishpat Ivri, Halakhah and Legal Philosophy: Agunah and the Theory of “Legal Sources".Bernard S. Jackson - 2001 - JSiJ.
    In this paper, I ask whether mishpat ivri (Jewish Law) is appropriately conceived as a “legal system”. I review Menachem Elon’s use of a “Sources” Theory of Law (based on Salmond) in his account of Mishpat Ivri; the status of religious law from the viewpoint of jurisprudence itself (Bentham, Austin and Kelsen); then the use of sources (and the approach to “dogmatic error”) by halakhic authorities in discussing the problems of the agunah (“chained wife”), which I suggest points (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  6
    An Argument for Temporal A-theories Based on the Calculus of Qualia 12 23 2022.Paul Merriam - manuscript
    We give an argument for temporal A-theories based on the calculus of qualia.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  63
    The Rhetorical Theory of Argument is Self-Defeating.Scott F. Aikin - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3 (1).
    The rhetorical theory of argument, if held as a conclusion of an argument, is self-defeating. The rhetorical theory can be refined, but these refinements either make the theory subject to a second self- defeat problem or tacitly an epistemic theory of argument.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons.Richard Rowland - 2012 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (1):1-24.
    In this paper I defend what I call the argument from epistemic reasons against the moral error theory. I argue that the moral error theory entails that there are no epistemic reasons for belief and that this is bad news for the moral error theory since, if there are no epistemic reasons for belief, no one knows anything. If no one knows anything, then no one knows that there is thought when they are thinking, and no one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000