Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Piggybacking In? A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Argumentation Schemes, Harmony Peach
Piggybacking In? A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Argumentation Schemes, Harmony Peach
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, Douglas Walton’s Argumentation Schemes and corresponding critical questions are taken through Thomas Huckin’s (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis in order to further demonstrate that a schematic-pragmatic approach to argument evaluation needs to account for bias in and of itself. Building on the work of Audrey Yap (2013, 2015) and Ciurria and Al Tamini (2014) which demonstrates how the schemes have not addressed, and may even intensify, various disadvantages people with systemic identity prejudices face, Huckin’s approach offers additional nuance as to how these concerns can be exacerbated by the schemes. As the schemes have been devised through observations …
On Appeals To (Visual) Models, Ian Dove
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.
Walton’S Argumentation Schemes, Christoph Lumer
Walton’S Argumentation Schemes, Christoph Lumer
OSSA Conference Archive
The contribution critically discusses Walton's (and Reed’s and Macagno’s) argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.
The Use Of Arguments A Fortiori In Decision Making, Sandra Clemencia Valencia Martinez
The Use Of Arguments A Fortiori In Decision Making, Sandra Clemencia Valencia Martinez
OSSA Conference Archive
Some decisions involve the use of a variety forms of arguments in order to balance different alternatives before getting a choice which is expected to be the better to solve the problem at issue. By doing this, there are some cases where people are able to or urge moving towards the choice that is most advantageous, probable or acceptable, and at other times towards a choice that is less negative or adverse than the others. Both alternatives depict different ways of searching for the stronger reason at stake. This means that the a fortiori argument is being used as a …
What We Hide In Words: Value-Based Reasoning And Emotive Language, Fabrizio Macagno
What We Hide In Words: Value-Based Reasoning And Emotive Language, Fabrizio Macagno
OSSA Conference Archive
There are emotively powerful words that can modify our judgment, arouse our emotions and influence our decisions. This paper shows how the use of emotive meaning in argumentation can be explained by showing how their logical dimension, which can be analysed using argumentation schemes, combines with heuristic processes triggered by emotions. Arguing with emotive words is shown to use value-based practical reasoning grounded on hierarchies of values and maxims of experience for evaluative classification.
Implicatures And Hierarchies Of Presumptions, Fabrizio Macagno, Frank Zenker
Implicatures And Hierarchies Of Presumptions, Fabrizio Macagno, Frank Zenker
OSSA Conference Archive
Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.
Modeling Critical Questions As Additional Premises, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon, Scott F. Aikin
Modeling Critical Questions As Additional Premises, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon, Scott F. Aikin
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard.