Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- N/A (99)
- Argumentation (64)
- Argument (32)
- Rhetoric (28)
- Critical thinking (25)
-
- Objectivity (20)
- Bias (19)
- Persuasion (14)
- Fallacy (13)
- Deep disagreement (12)
- Logic (12)
- Deliberation (11)
- Evidence (11)
- Pragma-dialectics (11)
- Fallacies (10)
- Inference (10)
- Reasoning (10)
- Virtue (10)
- Walton (10)
- Dialogue (9)
- Relevance (9)
- Argument evaluation (8)
- Conductive argument (8)
- Practical reasoning (8)
- Testimony (8)
- Trust (8)
- Argumentation schemes (7)
- Argumentation theory (7)
- Audience (7)
- Dialectic (7)
- Publication Year
Articles 31 - 60 of 1459
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Warranting Evidence In Diverse Evidentiary Settings, Mark Weinstein
Warranting Evidence In Diverse Evidentiary Settings, Mark Weinstein
OSSA Conference Archive
Informal logic, is faced with the problematic of persuasive arguments in contexts where evidence is rich, diverse and preferentially selected on the basis of pre-established attitudes. This requires that the standard view of challenge by presenting inconsistent evidence be rethought. In this paper, I will argue that the solution is to focus less on evidence that contradicts claims and to confront the network of warrants that support the selecting and evaluating of evidentiary moves.
Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott
Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott
OSSA Conference Archive
In “Three Perspectives on Argument,” Wenzel argued that scholars should orient their research around the well-known triad of rhetorical, dialectical, and logical perspectives on argument. Despite the success of Wenzel’s triad in orienting pluralistic research, he nonetheless maintained that an “eventual synthesis” of the three perspectives was both possible and desirable. In this paper I reconsider Wenzel’s idea by asking what might be preventing such a synthesis today. I argue that one obstacle to this is a common philosophical assumption about rhetoric that opposes assertion to persuasion, truth to effectiveness. Following Barbara Cassin, I challenge this assumption and consider how …
Defeasible A Priori Warrants: Evidence, Diversity Of Opinion, And Strength, James B. Freeman
Defeasible A Priori Warrants: Evidence, Diversity Of Opinion, And Strength, James B. Freeman
OSSA Conference Archive
Self-evident warrants are self-backed and thus knowable a priori. Warrants licencing inferring a moral conclusion from a morally relevant premise are paradigm examples. Such warrants are defeasible, for example where there is a conflict of duties. Evidence for them involves moral intuition. Moral realism argues for the objectivity of such intuition and of defeasible a priori warrants. Warrant strength depends on how many rebuttals may be brought against a warrant and their plausibility.
Commentary On Mckeon On Argument, Inference, And Persuasion, Daniel H. Cohen
Commentary On Mckeon On Argument, Inference, And Persuasion, Daniel H. Cohen
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Evidence, Persuasion, Diversity – And Children, Michael D. Baumtrog
Commentary On Evidence, Persuasion, Diversity – And Children, Michael D. Baumtrog
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
A Response To Sheldon Wein’S “Persuading Annoying Turtles: Blocking Conspiracies From Taking Our Rationality”, John Woods
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Persuading Annoying Turtles: Blocking Conspiracies From Taking Our Rationality, Sheldon Wein
Persuading Annoying Turtles: Blocking Conspiracies From Taking Our Rationality, Sheldon Wein
OSSA Conference Archive
Recent work on Lewis Carroll’s “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles” sheds light not just on cases where one fails to be persuaded when one should be but also on cases where people are persuaded when they should not be. The recognition of impossibility that Carroll’s paper illuminates can help to show what goes wrong with some of those addicted to conspiracy theories.
Argument, Inference, And Persuasion, Matthew W. Mckeon
Argument, Inference, And Persuasion, Matthew W. Mckeon
OSSA Conference Archive
I move beyond Pinto’s (2001) discussion of arguments as invitations to inference by highlighting how arguments can guide the performance of inferences that they do not express. This motivates a distinction between two types of persuasive force arguments can have in terms of two different connections between arguments and inferences. I use this distinction to explain how an epistemically bad argument can rationally persuade addressees of its conclusion.
Evidence, Persuasion, Diversity – And Children, Moira L. Kloster, Anastasia Anderson
Evidence, Persuasion, Diversity – And Children, Moira L. Kloster, Anastasia Anderson
OSSA Conference Archive
Does diversity include children? The Philosophy for Children movement shows children are capable of rational argument, including philosophical debate. Yet children who argue skillfully with their peers and adult facilitators may return to parents and teachers who doubt their reasoning just because of their age. What standards of evidence and methods of persuasion could permit children and adults to participate as equals in reasoned discussions beyond the classroom?
Evidence, Persuasion And Diversity, Derek Allen
Evidence, Persuasion And Diversity, Derek Allen
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary: Teaching Rational Decision Making: A Commentary On Mark Battersby’S “Practical Rationality: Critical Questions For Rational Decision Making”, Sheldon Wein
OSSA Conference Archive
A short commentary on Mark Battersby’s paper “Practical Rationality: Critical Questions for Rational Decision Making”
Commentary On Haavard Koppang’S “Broadening “In Situ” For Improving Argument Evaluation?”, Guillermo Sierra-Catalán
Commentary On Haavard Koppang’S “Broadening “In Situ” For Improving Argument Evaluation?”, Guillermo Sierra-Catalán
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Harry Weger And John Seiter’S “Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior In The 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates”, Christopher Tindale
Commentary On Harry Weger And John Seiter’S “Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior In The 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates”, Christopher Tindale
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Practical Rationality: Critical Questions For Rational Decision Making, Mark Battersby
Practical Rationality: Critical Questions For Rational Decision Making, Mark Battersby
OSSA Conference Archive
Critical thinking should be conceived as instruction in applied rationality providing guidance for deciding what to believe and do. The latter has not gotten the attention it deserves, but in expanding its ambit, critical thinking instruction must avoid using the dominant “rational choice” model inherited from economics. This paper argues for an alternative model of rational decision making that is appropriate for critical thinking courses.
Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior In The 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates, Harry Weger Jr., John S. Seiter
Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior In The 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates, Harry Weger Jr., John S. Seiter
OSSA Conference Archive
The purpose of our paper is to explore the gendered double-bind in political communication. Research by argumentation scholars and others point to a double standard in media portrayals of nonverbal behavior by male and female politicians. Our analysis will rely on primarily strategic maneuvering to examine closely the ways in which gender stereotypes were enacted by U.S. Presidential candidates during televised debates in 2016.
Broadening “In Situ” For Improving Argument Evaluation?, Haavard Koppang
Broadening “In Situ” For Improving Argument Evaluation?, Haavard Koppang
OSSA Conference Archive
The psychology of argumentation (PSA), has added new insight into argumentation theory and informal logic, fields that so far have been strongly influenced by the philosophy of argumentation (PHA). One assumption with regard to the PSA is that reasoning is argumentative and constructed to persuade. Thus, the successful outcome of reasoning is the ability to persuade for action to adapt to specific situations. Whereas biased beliefs – generated by mechanisms such as confirmation bias and motivated reasoning – might sway production and evaluation of arguments significantly. Arguers do not primarily activate reasoning for logical purposes; they do so rather to …
Commentary On: Tony Blair’S “The Persuasive Ineffectiveness Of Arguing And Arguments”, Michel Dufour
Commentary On: Tony Blair’S “The Persuasive Ineffectiveness Of Arguing And Arguments”, Michel Dufour
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary: Jackson, Sally. 2020. Arguing Over Evidence In Health Controversies, Michael A. Gilbert
Commentary: Jackson, Sally. 2020. Arguing Over Evidence In Health Controversies, Michael A. Gilbert
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary: How Do People Feel About Arguing – And How Should We Study It?, Jens E. Kjeldsen
Commentary: How Do People Feel About Arguing – And How Should We Study It?, Jens E. Kjeldsen
OSSA Conference Archive
Comment on Dale Hample and Diana Njweipi-Kongor’s OSSA 12 paper: “How Do People Feel About Arguing in Cameroon?”
How Do People Feel About Arguing In Cameroon?, Dale Hample, Diana Njweipi-Kongor
How Do People Feel About Arguing In Cameroon?, Dale Hample, Diana Njweipi-Kongor
OSSA Conference Archive
The Republic of Cameroon has experienced armed uprisings beginning in 2016. In these dangerous times, we collected data bearing on how people felt about interpersonal arguing. Are they willing to argue? Is disagreement rare because it might be dangerous? Is arguing seen as a potentially constructive activity, or one carrying risks rarely experienced in quieter Western nations? This is the first data collection from the continent of Africa concerning issues of orientation to interpersonal arguing.
The Persuasive Ineffectiveness Of Arguing And Arguments, J. Anthony Blair
The Persuasive Ineffectiveness Of Arguing And Arguments, J. Anthony Blair
OSSA Conference Archive
Arguments intended to persuade have a chequered success record. Quite aside from failing to resolve deep disagreements, they are an inefficient means of persuasion in commerce and politics. The persistence of competing schools of thought in numerous fields of scientific and scholarly theorizing, despite argued advocacy, also raises questions about arguing’s persuasive effectiveness. Yet humans are irredeemably reason-expecting and reason-giving creatures. This paper offers some possible explanations of this paradoxical situation.
Reply To Commentary On “Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía
Reply To Commentary On “Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Zenker And Yu, James B. Freeman
Commentary On Zenker And Yu, James B. Freeman
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin
Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
In this cogent paper, Wang urges argumentation theorists to pay attention to the myriad things that are happening whenever someone makes an argument. To do this he updates and extends the classical rhetorical cannon of style. He documents the importance of argumentative style through a case study of deep disagreement, showing how one arguer’s choices served to reconstruct an otherwise abusive situation. I urge him to continue the project by providing an equally cogent account of explaining why an arguer’s stylistic choices lead to the desired audience’s response.
Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity, Jianfeng Wang
Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity, Jianfeng Wang
OSSA Conference Archive
Taking issue with the current scholarship over the notion of a “rhetorical borderland,” we approach it as a disputable space in cross-cultural argumentation where arguers run into encounters with a composite audience. By drawing upon a few different theoretical resources, we propose a three-dimensional agenda for a new understanding of “rhetorical borderland”: as a discursive construct in the mental horizon; as a conceptual notion with essential uncertainties; and as a disputable space in cross-cultural argumentation.
A New Typology For Arguments From Authority, Frank Zenker, Shiyang Yu
A New Typology For Arguments From Authority, Frank Zenker, Shiyang Yu
OSSA Conference Archive
The argument from expert opinion counts as a sub-type of the argument from authority, because argument tokens ground their claims in a source of authority. The literature on argument schemes already acknowledges epistemic and deontic authority arguments as grounding in knowledge and power, respectively. Some scholars also treat dignity as a third source of authority. This paper offers a yet more fine-grained typology of authority arguments. Insights gleaned from Aristotle, Cicero, Boethius, and Locke suggest that attractiveness and majority (but not dignity) serve as additional sources of authority. Crossing these four sources with the speech act types assertive and directive …
Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía
Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper is intended to answer the question of whether taste represents some kind of evidence in argumentation. To do this, the text is divided into four parts: first, the relationship between the technique of reconstruction and the definitions of argumentation is exposed. Second, different borderline cases that limit the use of this technique are discussed. Third, a dialogue where the argument appeals to taste is presented as another borderline case. Fourth, the role of taste as evidence (ground) for the analyzed argument is explored.
Commentary On: Jiaming Li & Jidong Li’S “Wang Chong’S Thoughts On Argumentation”, Min Ghui Xiong
Commentary On: Jiaming Li & Jidong Li’S “Wang Chong’S Thoughts On Argumentation”, Min Ghui Xiong
OSSA Conference Archive
although there are a lot of points worthy of discussion in Li and Li's article, one thing is certain, that is, they give an overview of Wang's argumentation theory, which falsifies Becker's assertion that there is no argumentation in ancient China. I hope that Li and Li will have more systematic and theoretical research results about Wang's argumentation theory soon.
Commentary On Tomasi’S Diversity Of Judgments: Reason And Emotions In Forensic Practice, Linda Carozza
Commentary On Tomasi’S Diversity Of Judgments: Reason And Emotions In Forensic Practice, Linda Carozza
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On John Woods’ “Evidence, Probativity And Knowledge: A Troubled Trio”, Fabio Paglieri
Commentary On John Woods’ “Evidence, Probativity And Knowledge: A Troubled Trio”, Fabio Paglieri
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.