Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Assessing Evidence Relevance By Disallowing Assessment, John Licato, Michael Cooper

OSSA Conference Archive

Guidelines for assessing whether potential evidence is relevant to some argument tend to rely on criteria that are subject to well-known biasing effects. We describe a framework for argumentation that does not allow participants to directly decide whether evidence is potentially relevant to an argument---instead, evidence must prove its relevance through demonstration. This framework, called WG-A, is designed to translate into a dialogical game playable by minimally trained participants.

The Role Of Trust In Argumentation, Catarina Dutilh Novaes

OSSA Conference Archive

Abstract: Argumentation is important for sharing knowledge and information. Given that the receiver of an argument purportedly engages first and foremost with its content, one might expect trust to play a negligible epistemic role, as opposed to its crucial role in testimony. I argue on the contrary that trust plays a fundamental role in argumentative engagement. I present a realistic social epistemological account of argumentation inspired by social exchange theory. Here, argumentation is a form of epistemic exchange. I illustrate my argument with two real-life examples: vaccination hesitancy, and the undermining of the credibility of traditional sources of …

Bias In Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments, Patrick Bondy

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper is about bias and ad hominem arguments. It will begin by rehearsing some reasons for thinking that there are both legitimate and illegitimate ad hominems, as well as reasons for thinking that biases can be both justified and unjustified. It will explain that justified biases about people with certain social identities can give rise to both legitimate and illegitimate ad hominem attacks, while unjustified biases only give rise to illegitimate ad hominems.

The paper will then describe Audrey Yap’s view that even when an unjustified bias is made explicit and shown to be unjustified, it can still make …

Objectivity, Autonomy, And The Use Of Arguments From Authority, John Fields

OSSA Conference Archive

Objectivity, Autonomy, and the use of

Arguments from Authority

(PAPER)

Starting in the early modern era, the use of arguments from authority to support important factual claims began to be heavily criticized. Recent investigations into the nature of testimony, however, suggest that such criticisms are factually and normatively problematic. In this paper, the author argues for a model of testimonial authority that corrects this earlier, unrealistically individualistic picture of how person bear their burdens in the search for a common reality.

Reflections On The Authority Of Personal Experience, Trudy Govier

OSSA Conference Archive

The authority of first person claims may be understood from an epistemic perspective or as a matter of social practice. Building on accounts of Hume, Nagel, and several more recent authors, it is argued that this authority should be understood as limited. To extend it beyond notions of what it is like to experience something, we shift from what should be a narrow subjective edge to a territory of objective claims, thereby reasoning incorrectly. A relevant application is the supposed authority of victims.

Accounting For The Force Of The Appeal To Authority, Jean Goodwin, Raymie Mckerrow

OSSA Conference Archive

As appeals to expert authority shift from “fallacies” to “argument schemes,” argumentation theorists are called on to provide critical questions for assessing them. I argue that current treatments focus too heavily on assessing expertise, and not enough on judging trustworthiness. I propose instead a norma-tive pragmatic account of the rational force of the appeal to expert authority, one that emphasizes the ex-pert's actions in constructing his/her own legitimate trustworthiness.

Authority Arguments In Academic Contexts In Social Studies And Humanities, Begona Carrascal, Catherine E. Hundleby

OSSA Conference Archive

In academic contexts the appeal to authority is a quite common but seldom tested argument, either because we accept the authority without questioning it, or because we look for alternative experts or reasons to support a different point of view. But, by putting ourselves side by side an already accepted authority, we often rhetorically manoeuvre to displace the burden of the proof to avoid the fear to present our opinions and to allow face saving.

Credibility And Commitment In The Making Of Truly Astonishing First-Person Reports, John E. Fields, Gilbert Plumer

OSSA Conference Archive

Truly astonishing reports are an inveterate feature of the practice of making claims based on personal experience. In this paper, the author focuses on reports of apparent experiences of God in order to develop a proper understanding of the nature of such reports and to suggest a model of the strategies re-quired of those who wish to use them in arguments supporting truly astonishing existential claims.