Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Commentary On "What Should A Normative Theory Of Argument Look Like?", David Zarefsky

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Conspiracy And Bias: Argumentative Features And Persuasiveness Of Conspiracy Theories, Steve Oswald

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper deals with the argumentative biases Conspiracy Theories (henceforth CTs) typically suffer from and pursues two goals: (i) the identification of recurring argumentative and rhetorical features of conspiracy theories, which translates into an attempt to elaborate their argumentative profile (see Hansen 2013); (ii) the elaboration of a cognitively-grounded account of CTs in terms of their persuasiveness.

To fulfil goal (i), I examine online instances of different cases of CTs (the Moon hoax, 9/11 as an inside job, chemical trails). Building on the general rhetorical features of CTs identified by Byford (2011: 88-93), I elaborate a first argumentative profile surveying …

What Should A Normative Theory Of Argumentation Look Like?, Lilian Bermejo-Luque

OSSA Conference Archive

Within the epistemological approach to Argumentation Theory, there are two opposing views on what a theory of argumentation should look like. On the one hand, there are those interested in providing epistemological criteria for good argumentation. For these theorists, the main question is "should we accept this claim on the basis of those reasons?". On the other hand, there are those interested in “characterizing” what is good argumentation. For them, the main question is: "does this piece of argumentation count as good argumentation, taking into account the conception of good argumentation that underlies the practice of arguing?". Both accounts assimilate …

Comments On Derek Allen’S “Ethical Argumentation, Objectivity, And Bias”, Neil Mehta

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Deliberation, Practical Reasoning And Problem-Solving, Douglas Walton, Alice Toniolo

OSSA Conference Archive

We present a series of realistic examples of deliberation and discuss how they can form the basis for building a typology of deliberation dialogues. The observations from our examples are used to suggest that argumentation researchers and philosophers have been thinking about deliberation in overly simplistic ways. We argue that to include all the kinds of argumentation that make up realistic deliberations, it is necessary to distinguish between different kinds of deliberations. We propose a model including a problem-solving type of deliberation based on practical reasoning, characterised by revisions of the initial issue made necessary by the agents’ increased knowledge …

Commentary On: John Fields’S “Objectivity, Autonomy, And The Use Of Arguments From Authority”, Maurice A. Finocchiaro

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

On Appeals To (Visual) Models, Ian Dove

OSSA Conference Archive

In some visual cases, especially those in which one reasons from a visual model to a conclusion, it is tempting to think that some new normative base, perhaps a visual logic is in order. I show that, at least in the case of what I’ll call appeal to visual models, the same criteria are required in visual and verbal cases.

Commentary On “The Method Of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, And Bias”, Andrei Moldovan

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity, Bias, And Virtue In Argumentation, Daniel H. Cohen, Katharina Stevens

OSSA Conference Archive

How is it possible that biases are cognitive vices, objectivity is an exemplary intellectual virtue, and yet objectivity is itself a bias? In this paper, we argue that objectivity is indeed a kind of bias but is still an argumentative virtue. In common with many biases – and many virtues – its effects are neither uniformly negative nor uniformly positive. Consequences alone are not enough to determine which character traits are argumentative virtues. Context matters.

The opening section addresses the problem of identifying argumentative virtues and provides a preliminary response to recent questions from Goddu and Godden regarding the foundations …

Commentary On Dammit-- Dominant Adversarial Model: Minded Instead Of Terminated (A Commentary On “Dammed If You Do, Dammed If You Don’T” By Sharon Bailin And Mark Battersby), Sheldon Wein

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Emotional Legal Arguments And A Broken Leg, Rubens Damasceno-Morais

OSSA Conference Archive

We intend to examine ways that emotions may be intertwined within argumentative legal discourses. From the transcript of a brief trial in a Court of Appeal in Brazil we have the opportunity to observe how the emotional and rational reasoning live together in a deliberation among magistrates. “The leg broken case” allow us to examine how judges define the value of compensation to be paid in cases of moral damage. We show that not only technical arguments are the compounds of one decision; subjectivity is also important in that legal context. We would yet confirm what jurists and …

Reply To Commentary On "Ethical Argumentation, Objectivity, And Bias", Derek Allen

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Demonstrating Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Gmo Scientist Kevin Folta, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

Scientists can find it difficult to be seen as objective within the chaos of a civic controversy. This paper gives a normative pragmatic account of the strategy one GMO scientist used to demonstrate his trustworthiness. Kevin Folta made his talk expensive by undertaking to answer all questions, and carried out this responsibility by acting as if every comment addressed to him—even the most hostile—was in fact a question in good faith. This presumption of audience good faith gave in turn his audience good reason to presume his good faith, and a situation of reciprocal distrust was transformed into one with …

Comparing Two Models Of Evidence, Tone Kvernbekk

OSSA Conference Archive

The context for this paper is evidence-based practice (EBP). EBP is about production of desirable change. The evidence should come from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To make sense of RCT evidence it must be placed in an argument structure. I compare two different models, Toulmin and Cartwright, and investigate whether the two models can be merged into one. I shall argue that such merging is not feasible.

Economic Reasoning And Fallacy Of Composition: Pursuing A Woods-Walton Thesis, Maurice A. Finocchiaro

OSSA Conference Archive

Woods and Walton deserve credit for including (in all editions of their textbook Argument) a discussion of “economic reasoning” and its susceptibility to the “fallacy of composition.” Unfortunately, they did not sufficiently pursue the topic, and argumentation scholars have apparently ignored their pioneering effort. Yet, obviously, economic argumentation is extremely important, and economists constantly harp on this fallacy. This paper calls attention to this problem, elaborating my own approach, which is empirical, historical, and meta-argumentational.

The Stance Of Personal Public Apology, Martha S. Cheng

OSSA Conference Archive

Personal apology can be understood as self-defense—a response to an actual, implied, or anticipated accusation against one’s character. Within argumentation studies, scholars have investigated how public apologies are constructed to repair a speaker’s image and/or repair the speaker’s relationship with others through specific strategies. This paper broadens the study of apology by employing the sociolinguistic concept of stance, understood as the ways in which a speaker orients herself in relation to sociocultural values, other persons, actions, events, and, especially in the case of apology, another version of herself. In addition to explicit claims, stance can also be interpreted through …

Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Jean H.M. Wagemans

OSSA Conference Archive

The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.

Don’T Worry, Be Gappy! On The Unproblematic Gappiness Of Alleged Fallacies, Fabio Paglieri

OSSA Conference Archive

The history of fallacy theory is long, distinguished and, admittedly, checkered. I offer a bird eye view on it, with the aim of contrasting the standard conception of fallacies as attractive and universal errors that are hard to eradicate (section 1) with the contemporary preoccupation with “non-fallacious fallacies”, that is, arguments that fit the bill of one of the traditional fallacies but are actually respectable enough to be used in appropriate contexts (section 2). Godden and Zenker have recently argued that reinterpreting alleged fallacies as non-fallacious arguments requires supplementing the textual material with something else, e.g. probability distributions, pragmatic considerations, …

On Being Objective: Hard Data, Soft Data And Baseball., Michael A. Gilbert

OSSA Conference Archive

“Objective” is a term that has a long and sometimes tumultuous history and a wide range of meanings. The sense in which I am interested here is the one that refers to ways of thinking, and especially the explicit criticism of an argument or judgment as not being “objective,” as exemplified in the following.

• You’re not being objective.
• You have to look at it objectively.
• Objectively, the best choice is…
• Being objective, I’d have to say…

Implicit in these statements is an ideology that denigrates emotion and other communicative aspects in favour of an idealized sense of fact, data and …

Pluralism As A Bias Mitigation Strategy, Paul L. Simard Smith

OSSA Conference Archive

An agnostic pluralist approaches inquiry with the assumption that it is possible for more than one account of the phenomenon in question to be correct. A monist approaches inquiry with the assumption that only one account of the phenomenon in question is correct. The purpose of my paper is to support the claim that agnostic pluralists are less susceptible to a sort of bias that I call dialectical bias than monists.

Evaluating Narrative Arguments, Khameiel Al Tamimi

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper addresses the question of how to evaluate narrative arguments. I will be discussing how to evaluate narrative arguments as process as opposed to arguments as product, as with dominant accounts of argument appraisal such as informal logic. The first part of this paper will show that dominant accounts of argument evaluation are not fit for narrative arguments because they focus on the product of argument. The second part of the paper will develop an account of argument evaluation for arguments as process, that is the virtuous audience, which will combine the rhetorical understanding of audience with virtue argumentation

Commentary On Patrick Bondy, “Bias In Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments”, Andrew Aberdein

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Ami Mamolo On Argumentation And Infinity, Daniel H. Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

There is more to mathematics than proofs; there are also arguments, which means that mathematicians are human arguers complete with their biases. Among those biases is a preference for beauty, It is a bias insofar as it is a deaprture from objectivity, but it is benign, accounting for the popularity of Cantor's "Paradise" of non-denumerable infinities as a travel destination for mathematicians and the relatively little interest in Robinson's infinitesimals.

Commentary On “On Appeals To (Visual) Models”: Appeals To Visual Models – An Epistemological Reconstruction Of An Argument Type, Christoph Lumer

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

On The Objectivity Of Norms Of Argumentation, Michael Hoppmann

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper addresses the relationship between norms of reasoning and norms of politeness: To what extend can one be polite and reasonable at the same time? For this purpose, a normative system of reasoning (i.e. the model of the pragma-dialectical critical discussion) is contrasted with a normative system of politeness (Leech’s Politeness Maxims). If and when they are in conflict: How can the communicator solve this tension?

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.

Enhancing Rationality: Heuristics, Biases, And The Critical Thinking Project, Mark Battersby

OSSA Conference Archive

Enhancing people’s reasoning abilities or rationality is a long and central tradition in philosophy and is the dominant concern of the critical movement. The research by cognitive psychologists has contributed considerably to our understanding of human irrationality and can enhance critical thinking instruction. The critical thinking/informal logic movement has not devoted sufficient attention to the decision making aspect of rationality. Unfortunately the norms used in the heuristics and bias literature to identify biases in decision making derive from the theory of rational choice used in neo-classical economic theory. These norms identify rational decision making with the efficient pursuit of individual …

Latin American Philosophers: Some Recent Challenges To Their Intellectual Character, Susana Nuccetelli

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Employing And Exploiting The Presumptions Of Communication In Argumentation: An Application Of Normative Pragmatics, Scott Jacobs

OSSA Conference Archive

Argumentation occurs through and as communicative activity. Communication (and therefore argumentation) is organized by pragmatic principles of expression and interpretation. Grice’s (1975) theory of conversational implicature provides a model for how people use rational principles to manage the ways in which they reason to representations of arguments, and not just reason from those representations. These principles are systematic biases that make possible reasonable decision-making and intersubjective understandings in the first place; but they also make possible all manner of errors and abuses. Much of what is problematic in argumentation involves the ways in which the pragmatic principles of communication are …

Commentary On: “Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy Of Appeal To Sex”, Maureen Linker

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.