Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Argumentation (2)
- Argumentation schemes (1)
- Argumentation schemes (1)
- Artificial intelligence (1)
- Classification (1)
-
- Compressed slippery slope arguments (1)
- Conductive argument (1)
- Critical questioning (1)
- Definition (1)
- Directed graphs (1)
- Ethical argumentation (1)
- Eugenics (1)
- Formal argumentation systems (1)
- Formal models of dialogue (1)
- Framing (1)
- Genetics (1)
- Informal logic (1)
- Informal fallacies (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Manipulation (1)
- Persuasion (1)
- Pragmatics (1)
- Premise acceptability (1)
- RSA triangle (1)
- Real arguments (1)
- Relevance (1)
- Sufficiency. (1)
- Textual analysis (1)
- Types of reasoning (1)
- Vagueness (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Importance And Trickiness Of Definitional Strategies In Legal And Political Argumentation, Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno
The Importance And Trickiness Of Definitional Strategies In Legal And Political Argumentation, Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno
CRRAR Publications
This paper uses argumentation tools to show by means of analyzing nine cases from law and politics how argument strategies using persuasive definitions and quasi-definitions are powerful rhetorical tools of persuasion. By bringing to light the argumentation structure found in these examples, it is shown that definitions and redefinitions can have serious legal and political implications. Persuasive definitions and quasi-definitions are modeled as two distinct strategies for altering the relationship between classification and evaluation of a state of affairs. Persuasive definitions are aimed at modifying the relationship between the definiendum and its referent. In quasi-definitions some characteristics of an entity …
Profiles Of Dialogue: A Method Of Argument Fault Diagnosis And Repair, Douglas Walton
Profiles Of Dialogue: A Method Of Argument Fault Diagnosis And Repair, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
This paper builds the profiles of dialogue tool into a fault diagnosis method that can be applied to problematic examples of argumentation such as those involving informal fallacies. The profiles method works by comparing a descriptive graph with a normative graph. The descriptive graph represents how a dialogue sequence actually went in the example chosen for analysis. The normative graph represents an analysis of how the sequence should ideally proceed, according to the protocols (rules) for this type of dialogue. The descriptive graph is mapped into the normative graph, so that a comparison can be made to diagnose the fault …
The Art Of Finding Arguments, Douglas Walton
The Art Of Finding Arguments, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
Kienpointner (1997) showed how the ancient status theory and the Aristotelian theory of topics are partsof an art of argument invention that selects premises to be used in a chain of argumentation from a database of premises accepted by the audience a speaker is trying to persuade. He showed how pursuit of this art of finding arguments, although discredited in the Enlightenment, has recently has been taken up again by argumentation theorists. In this paper it is shown that with the recent advent of computational argumentation systems in artificial intelligence, a technology is now available to help an arguer to …
Classifying The Patterns Of Natural Arguments, Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton
Classifying The Patterns Of Natural Arguments, Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
The representation and classification of the structure of natural arguments has been one of the most important aspects of Aristotelian and medieval dialectical and rhetorical theories. This traditional approach is represented nowadays in models of argumentation schemes. The purpose of this article is to show how arguments are characterized by a complex combination of two levels of abstraction, namely, semantic relations and types of reasoning, and to provide an effective and comprehensive classification system for this matrix of semantic and quasilogical connections. To this purpose, we propose a dichotomous criterion of classification, transcending both levels of abstraction and representing not …
The Basic Slippery Slope Argument, Douglas Walton
The Basic Slippery Slope Argument, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
Although studies have yielded a detailed taxonomy of types of slippery slope arguments, they have failed to identify a basic argumentation scheme that applies to all. Therefore, there is no way of telling whether a given argument is a slippery slope argument or not. This paper solves the problem by providing a basic argumentation scheme. The scheme is shown to fit a clear and easily comprehensible example of a slippery slope argument that strongly appears to be reasonable, something that has also been lacking.
Formalizing Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon
Formalizing Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon
CRRAR Publications
In this paper we investigate the extent to which formal argumentation models can handle ten basic characteristics of informal logic identified in the informal logic literature. By showing how almost all of these characteristics can be successfully modelled formally, we claim that good progress can be made toward the project of formalizing informal logic. Of the formal argumentation models available, we chose the Carneades Argumentation System (CAS), a formal, computational model of argument that uses argument graphs as its basis, structures of a kind very familiar to practitioners of informal logic through their use of argument diagrams.