Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Commentary On Léa Farine, “Public Deliberation And Epistemic Parity In Direct Democracies”, Dale Hample
Commentary On Léa Farine, “Public Deliberation And Epistemic Parity In Direct Democracies”, Dale Hample
OSSA Conference Archive
Farine's paper connects to some other accounts of argument norms.
Public Deliberation And Epistemic Parity In Direct Democracies, Léa Farine
Public Deliberation And Epistemic Parity In Direct Democracies, Léa Farine
OSSA Conference Archive
In a context of public-policy making, I propose to consider a fundamental norm of epistemic parity as contributing to the justification, the acceptability and the legitimacy of decisions taken through deliberative processes. I also suggest that models of semi-direct democracy, whose constitutional foundations include the possibility of deliberations among all citizens sanctioned by popular votes, promote epistemic parity.
Confidence In Arguments In Dialogues For Practical Reasoning, Waleed Mebane
Confidence In Arguments In Dialogues For Practical Reasoning, Waleed Mebane
OSSA Conference Archive
For the context of practical reasoning, this paper suggests a method of assessing the level of confidence we should rationally have in arguments. It draws from dialectic which induces the elaboration of reasons for a position and on auditors’ prior knowledge. Accurate assessment depends on evidential standards, on selecting dialogue moves according to their practical and epistemic importance, and on selecting auditors according to their competence and diversity of relevant knowledge.
The Incommensurability Of Values Problem, Julder Gómez
The Incommensurability Of Values Problem, Julder Gómez
OSSA Conference Archive
How to make a reasonable decision in a pluralistic community when two of their highest values (CP and CN) are incommensurable, one of them (CP) is used as a premise in favor of a proposal (C), and the other one (CN) is used as a premise against the very same proposal? After considering previous answers to similar questions, I suggest establishing new hierarchies of values from the point of view of their conditions of possibility.
Commentary On Castro, “Negotiation As A Disagreement Management Tool”, Fabrizio Macagno
Commentary On Castro, “Negotiation As A Disagreement Management Tool”, Fabrizio Macagno
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Meta-Argumentation In Deliberative Discourse: Rhetoric 1360b05-1365b21, Paula Olmos
Meta-Argumentation In Deliberative Discourse: Rhetoric 1360b05-1365b21, Paula Olmos
OSSA Conference Archive
In Rhetoric 1360b05-1365b21, Aristotle naturally assumes the debatable, exceptionable and multidimensional character of the kind of allegations, adduced as reasons for the proposals (Kock 2006, 2012; Vega 2013) which act as conclusions of the practical arguments typical of political debate. This is a problem which has been currently addressed in terms of the prima facie incommensurability caused by the multi-dimensionality of value-based argumentation, an approach that seems to lead us to an evaluative and dialectical dead-end. But in the Aristotelian text, we find a different tactic. Aristotle analyses in very explicit and revealing terms how the “continuum between argument and …
Where Is The Reasonable? Objectivity And Bias Of Practical Argument, Marcin Lewinski
Where Is The Reasonable? Objectivity And Bias Of Practical Argument, Marcin Lewinski
OSSA Conference Archive
The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed.
Considering The Roles Of Values In Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation, Michael D. Baumtrog
Considering The Roles Of Values In Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation, Michael D. Baumtrog
OSSA Conference Archive
Building upon the role values take in Walton’s theory of practical reasoning, this paper will frame the question of how values should be evaluated into the broader question of what reasonable practical argumentation is. The thesis argued for is that if a positive evaluation of practical reasoning argumentation requires that the argument avoid a morally negative conclusion, then the role of values should be given a central, rather than supportive, position in practical argument evaluation.
Argumentative Virtues And Deep Disagreement, Chris Campolo
Argumentative Virtues And Deep Disagreement, Chris Campolo
OSSA Conference Archive
The theoretical possibility of deep disagreement gives rise to an important practical problem: a deep disagreement may in practice look and feel like a merely stubborn normal disagreement. In this paper I critique strategies for dealing with this practical problem. According to their proponents these strategies exhibit argumentative virtue, but I will show that they embody serious argumentative (and even moral) vices.
Virtue Reversed: Principal Argumentative Vices In Political Debate, Christian Kock
Virtue Reversed: Principal Argumentative Vices In Political Debate, Christian Kock
OSSA Conference Archive
Contributing to an understanding of the true virtues of argumentation, this paper sketches and exemplifies a theoretically reasoned but simple typology of argumentative vices or ‘malpractices’ that are rampant in political debate in modern democracies. The typology reflects, in negative, a set of argumentative norms, thus making a bid for something that civic instruction might profitably teach students at all levels about deliberative democracy.
The Editorial Meeting Discussion As An Argumentative Activity Type, Marta Zampa
The Editorial Meeting Discussion As An Argumentative Activity Type, Marta Zampa
OSSA Conference Archive
A still uninvestigated argumentative reasoning hides behind news texts, in the discussions surrounding the writing process. I try to fill this gap by reconstructing how newsroom decision-making functions from a combined argumentative and discourse analytical perspective. In order to do so, I analyze the editorial meeting discussion about a potential news item and its production as an argumentative activity type, using a French- and German-language corpus collected at the Swiss public broadcast service.