Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 30 of 165
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory As An Engaged Discipline, Michael A. Gilbert
Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory As An Engaged Discipline, Michael A. Gilbert
OSSA Conference Archive
Natural normativity describes the means whereby social and cultural controls are placed on argumentative behaviour. The three main components of this are Goals, Context, and Ethos, which combine to form a dynamic and situational framework. Natural normativity is explained in light of Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, and Rhetoric. Finally, the theory is applied to the Biro-Siegel challenge.
The Arguers, Dale Hample
The Arguers, Dale Hample
OSSA Conference Archive
I wish to argue in favor of a particular orientation, one expressed in Brockriede's remark that "arguments are not in statements but in people." While much has been gained from textual analyses, even more will accrue by additional attention to the arguers. I consider that textual materials are really only the artifacts of arguments. The actual arguing is done exclusively by people, either the argument producers or receivers, and never by words on a page. In fact, most of our textual interpretations are quietly founded on the assumption that the artifact is fully informative about what people think
Context-Dependence And The Defining Of Logical Fallacies, Theodora Achourioti
Context-Dependence And The Defining Of Logical Fallacies, Theodora Achourioti
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper illustrates the difficulties that context-dependence poses for defining the so-called logical fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. In particular, I question whether these fallacies can be identified with specific argument patterns. I argue that judging such patterns as fallacious is relative to a) the type of underlying reasoning, and b) the world-knowledge deemed relevant to the argumentation at hand. It is concluded that a more context-sensitive definition should be pursued.
Commentary On Achourioti, Menashe Schwed
Commentary On Achourioti, Menashe Schwed
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Distortion And Excluded Middles, Jonathan E. Adler
Distortion And Excluded Middles, Jonathan E. Adler
OSSA Conference Archive
Why is there so much distortion in ordinary, political, social, and ethical argument? Since we have a pervasive interest in reasoning well and corresponding abilities, the extent of distortion invites explanation. The leading candidates are the need to economize, widespread, fallacious heuristics or assumptions, and self-defensive biases. I argue that these are not sufficient. An additional force is the intellectual pressure generated by acceptance of norms of conversation and argument, which exclude ‘middles’ of, prominently, neither accept (believe) nor reject (disbelieve). I conjecture that the distortion we find is due to intellectual and normative pressures generated by our commitment to …
Commentary On Amjarso, Michael A. Gilbert
Commentary On Amjarso, Michael A. Gilbert
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Adler, Patrick Francken
Commentary On Bailin & Battersby, Thomas J. Hynes Jr
Commentary On Bailin & Battersby, Thomas J. Hynes Jr
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Van Belle, Raymie E. Mckerrow
Commentary On Van Belle, Raymie E. Mckerrow
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
No News Is Good News, Or The Appeal Of Controversy, Hilde Van Belle
No News Is Good News, Or The Appeal Of Controversy, Hilde Van Belle
OSSA Conference Archive
One of the strategies journalists use to attract their audience towards a news item is the suggestion of controversy. The terms by which issues are created influences the way discussions evolve. I will examine how such controversies can be part of an argumentative situation, and I will examine whether any evaluation standard can be developed in this matter. The style figure antithesis, as it is explored in Jeanne Fahnestock’s work, is a useful tool in considering invention, form and function of controversy and opposition.
Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Aspect Of Argumentation, Lilian Bermejo-Luque
Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Aspect Of Argumentation, Lilian Bermejo-Luque
OSSA Conference Archive
Following Rescher’s (1977) conception of dialectics, I argue for the view that the dialectical aspect of argumentation enables a “second order intersubjectivity”, to be understood in terms of the recursive nature of the activity of giving and asking for reasons. This feature underlies that most argumentative discourses represent the explicit part of a dynamic activity, “a mechanism of rational validation” (Rescher, 1977: xiii) which presupposes the possibility of attaining objectivity.
Rights, Reasoning, And Dissensus, Chris Campolo
Rights, Reasoning, And Dissensus, Chris Campolo
OSSA Conference Archive
The recent proliferation of rights claims within our moral and political debates poses a threat to our reasoning skills. Rights claims often represent bids to name common ground, and we risk harm to our reasoning skills when we attempt to address dissensus by searching for common ground.
Commentary On Blair, David Hitchcock
The “Logic” Of Informal Logic, J Anthony Blair
The “Logic” Of Informal Logic, J Anthony Blair
OSSA Conference Archive
Are there any logical norms for argument evaluation besides soundness and inductive strength? The paper will look at several concepts or models introduced over the years, including those of Wisdom, Toulmin, Wellman, Rescher, defeasible reasoning proponents and Walton to consider whether there is common ground among them that supplies an alternative to deductive validity and inductive strength.
Commentary On Cantu & Testa, Moira Kloster
Commentary On Cantu & Testa, Moira Kloster
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Common Ground And Argument By Indirection In Two Seventeenth-Century Sermons, Claudia M. Carlos
Common Ground And Argument By Indirection In Two Seventeenth-Century Sermons, Claudia M. Carlos
OSSA Conference Archive
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet's sermon to Louis XIV on the "Devoirs des rois" (1662) and John Donne's sermon to Queen Anne at Denmark House (1617) are both texts that offer indirect critiques of their royal audiences--critiques which, if stated more bluntly, might be politically dangerous to the respective speakers. What makes such oblique criticism "safe" and what ultimately makes it understood? The answer lies in the rhetor's ability to build common ground with the audience.
Commentary On Carlos, M A. Van Rees
Dissent In The Midst Of Emotional Territory, Linda Carozza
Dissent In The Midst Of Emotional Territory, Linda Carozza
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper expands Gilbert’s emotional mode of argumentation (1997). First, general concerns with arguments that stray from the traditional approach are addressed. Then a classification system for different types of emotional arguments is developed. Some of the criteria that help determine emotional arguments include dialogue types, arguers involved, as well as the use of emotion.
Commentary On Ceron, Hilde Van Belle
Undoing Common Ground: Argumentation In Self-Help Books, Martha S. Cheng
Undoing Common Ground: Argumentation In Self-Help Books, Martha S. Cheng
OSSA Conference Archive
Doxa have been central in theories of rhetorical persuasiveness since ancient times. Modern self-help books systematically undermine doxa in order to persuade readers to alter their behavior and their view of themselves. This paper investigates the method by which two best-selling self-help authors undo doxa. It finds that they use one type of doxa, generalized patterns of reasoning (topoi koinoi) to subvert another type of doxa, specific cultural or personal beliefs.
Prolepsis: Dealing With Multiple Viewpoints In Argument, Patrick Clauss
Prolepsis: Dealing With Multiple Viewpoints In Argument, Patrick Clauss
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper examines the argumentation strategy prolepsis: anticipating and subsequently responding to an argument before it has been made. Although prolepsis is common to a variety of arguments, it seems insufficiently studied or understood—or, worse, misunderstood as simply a “feint.” Drawing on scholarship in rhetorical theory and cognitive and social psychology, I offer a new understanding of prolepsis, recognizing the technique’s potential in argumentative discourse—especially in the search for “common ground.”
Virtue Epistemology And Argumentation Theory, Daniel H. Cohen
Virtue Epistemology And Argumentation Theory, Daniel H. Cohen
OSSA Conference Archive
Virtue epistemology (VE) was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about by argumentation.
Commentary On Clauss, A Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
Commentary On Clauss, A Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Participants’ Reasoning In Controversy Coverage, Peter A. Cramer
Participants’ Reasoning In Controversy Coverage, Peter A. Cramer
OSSA Conference Archive
In their analyses of controversy, many researchers begin with the assumption that it is a juvenile or failed dialectical exchange. In conceptualizing controversy this way, they get caught in an is-ought dilemma, often shaping controversy into a two-sided affair involving an open issue with arguments marshalled but then simultaneously pointing out its shortcomings against these same criteria. As Dascal has pointed out, thinking of controversy as a juvenile dialectical exchange seems to be a therapeutic gesture that may present it as a better-behaved object of study than experience would support. In this paper, I approach controversy first and foremost as …
Commentary On Cohen, Jonathan E. Adler
On Too Common Ground: Collective Circularity, The Sextus Mill Paradox, And A Problem Of Infinite Regress, Margaret A. Cuonzo
On Too Common Ground: Collective Circularity, The Sextus Mill Paradox, And A Problem Of Infinite Regress, Margaret A. Cuonzo
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Cramer, Raymie E. Mckerrow
Commentary On Cramer, Raymie E. Mckerrow
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Bi-Logic And Multi-Modal Argumentation: Understanding Emotional Arguments, Claudio Duran
Bi-Logic And Multi-Modal Argumentation: Understanding Emotional Arguments, Claudio Duran
OSSA Conference Archive
According to Bi-logic theory, there are two logics operating in the mind. One is traditional logic, and the other one is called “symmetrical”, because it does not respect asymmetrical relations. Bi-logic assumes that mental processes involve combinations of both logics in different proportions. From that perspective, Michael Gilbert’s theory of Multi-Modal argumentation is discussed focusing upon emotional arguments. It is claimed that these arguments are bi-logical, that is, they contain a combination of traditional and symmetrical logics.
Commentary On Cuonzo, Fabio Paglieri
Dialectical Profiles And Indicators Of Argumentative Moves, Frans H. Van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, A Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
Dialectical Profiles And Indicators Of Argumentative Moves, Frans H. Van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, A Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper the authors give a brief overview of the theoretical background of their research project “Linguistic indicators of argumentative moves.” Starting from the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion, they design dialectical profiles for capturing the moves that may or must be made at a particular stage or sub-stage of such a discussion. They explain how these dialectical profiles can be methodically exploited for systematically identifying the verbal expressions that can be indicative of any of these moves in argumentative practice.