Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
The Persuasive Force Of The Ad Baculum, John P. Casey
The Persuasive Force Of The Ad Baculum, John P. Casey
OSSA Conference Archive
Standard accounts of the ad baculum locate its fallaciousness either in irrelevance or dialogue shift. Such accounts, however, fail to explain its persuasiveness. This paper offers a new account where the real target of an ad baculum is an audience downstream from the initial ad baculum exchange. This means that the ad baculum consists in misrepresenting the quality of evidence by means of the forced adoption of a particular standpoint.
Studying Rhetorical Audiences, Jens E. Kjeldsen
Studying Rhetorical Audiences, Jens E. Kjeldsen
OSSA Conference Archive
In rhetoric and argumentation research studies of empirical audiences are rare. Most studies are speaker- or text focussed. However, new media and new forms of communication make it harder to distinguish between speaker and audience. The active involvement of users and audiences is more important than ever before. Therefore, this paper argues that rhetorical research should reconsider the understanding, conceptualization and examination of the rhetorical audience. From mostly understanding audiences as theoretical constructions that are examined textually and speculatively, we should give more attention to empirical explorations of actual audiences and users.
Emotional Arguments: What Would Neuroscientists And Psychologists Say?, Linda Carozza
Emotional Arguments: What Would Neuroscientists And Psychologists Say?, Linda Carozza
OSSA Conference Archive
Why is there resistance in acknowledging emotional arguments? I explore the ambiguity entrenched in the emotional mode of argument, which may contribute to the lack of widespread agreement about its existence. In particular, belief systems and personality styles are addressed, as they are integral to the emotional mode of argumentation. This multidisciplinary approach neither advocates or dismisses the emotional mode; it adds another layer of understanding to the literature that is important to consider.
Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista
Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, I identify two sets of practical values of argumentation from a standpoint that places a premium on maximal participatory democracy. The first set includes pedagogical values for both teachers and learners. The second set of values are transformative and include: facilitating openness as both tolerance and opportunity; facilitating understanding of one’s own positions, other’s positions, and the conceptual frameworks underlying them; and, finally, fostering motivation by encouraging action.
Arguing Or Reasoning? Argumentation In Rhetorical Context, Manfred Kraus
Arguing Or Reasoning? Argumentation In Rhetorical Context, Manfred Kraus
OSSA Conference Archive
If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, since rhetoric is not a dialogically structured activity. If special norms apply to the ‘solo’ performances of rhetoric, the orator’s activity may be more appropriately described as reasoning than as arguing. By analyzing in what respect rhetorical texts can be interpreted as dialogue-based and subject to criteria of Informal Logic, the virtues of rhetorical argumentation in contrast to logic and dialectic emerge.
How To Formalize Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon
How To Formalize Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper presents a formalization of informal logic using the Carneades Argumentation System, a formal, computational model of argument that consists of a formal model of argument graphs and audiences. Conflicts between pro and con arguments are resolved using proof standards, such as preponderance of the evidence. Carneades also formalizes argumentation schemes. Schemes can be used to check whether a given argument instantiates the types of argument deemed normatively appropriate for the type of dialogue.
Cognitive Communities And Argument Communities, Manfred Kraus, David Zarefsky
Cognitive Communities And Argument Communities, Manfred Kraus, David Zarefsky
OSSA Conference Archive
Since Toulmin’s discovery of the field-dependency of arguments, and Perelman’s emphasis on audiences, argumentation theorists have developed the notion of “spheres of arguments” or “argument communities”. Since argument communities are communities of discourse guided by the participants’ cog-nitive experiences, they are also cognitive communities. “Cognitive breaks” between different argument communities will produce misunderstanding and futile argument. The paper will investigate “cognitive breaks” and describe in which ways they may obstruct reasonable argumentation between communities.
Perelman, Informal Logic And The Historicity Of Reason, Christopher Tindale
Perelman, Informal Logic And The Historicity Of Reason, Christopher Tindale
Philosophy Publications
In a posthumous paper, Perelman discusses his decision to bring his theory of argumentation together with rhetoric rather than calling it an informal logic. This is due in part because of the centrality he gives to audience, and in part because of the negative attitude that informal logicians have to rhetoric. In this paper, I explore both of these concerns by way of considering what benefits Perelman’s work can have for informal logic, and what insights the work of informal logicians might bring to the project of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca.
Fallacies In Transition: An Assessment Of The Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Christopher Tindale
Fallacies In Transition: An Assessment Of The Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Christopher Tindale
Philosophy Publications
The paper critically investigates the pragma-dialectics of van Eemeren and Grootendorst, particularly the treatment of fallacies. While the pragma-dialectieians claim that dialectics combines the logical and rhetorical approaches to argumentation, it is argued here that the perspective relies heavily on rhetorical features that have been suppressed in the account and that overlooking these features leads to significant problems in the pragma-dialectical perspective. In light of these problems, the author advocates turning attention to a rhetorical account which subsumes the logical and dialectical.