Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Wang Chong's Thoughts On Argumentation, Jiaming Li, Jidong Li

OSSA Conference Archive

As an outstanding thinker in the Eastern Han Dynasty of China, Wang Chong wrote many books during his lifetime, but all of them were lost except Lunheng. The purport of Lunheng is to reveal and criticize all kinds of "Xuwang（an ancient Chinese word, with the similar meaning of falsehood, fallacy, etc.）" in the society at that time. In our opinion, the ideological support behind Lunheng is Wang Chong's thoughts on argumentation.

Diversity Of Judgments: Reason And Emotions In Forensic Practice, Serena Tomasi

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper questions the role of emotions in judicial persuasion: first, I will provide a brief overview of affective states, focusing on the structure of s.c. epistemic feelings; then, I will present some experiments which are going to be developed in a current research-project in a local court in Italy, to understand the interpersonal effects of epistemic feelings on judicial persuasion; finally, I will draw conclusive reflections on the relationship between forensic rhetoric and emotion.

Commentary: Critique Of “Evidence Based Medicine And Contemporary Vaccine Hesitancy”, Brian Macpherson

OSSA Conference Archive

In this short critique of Tarun Kattumana's paper on vaccine hesitancy, I argue that the key cause of vaccine hesitancy in the lay public is not the so-called dry, detached population-level approach to research of evidenced based medicine, but rather complacency due to vaccine success in reducing disease incidence. In turn, this complacency sets the stage for receptivity to misinformation regarding vaccine efficacy and safety from a network of individuals that people hold in high esteem but who may have no legitimate authority in epidemiology.

Commentary On Leo Groarke, "The End Of Argumentment", John Anthony Blair

OSSA Conference Archive

What Groarke has introduced in his paper is not a "prolong problem", but a whole hatful of them. Solving some seems to call for more clever dispute-resolution mechanisms. Others call for limiting arguing to a restricted role and developing a counselling model for problem solving. Yet others seem intractable. In other words, they all call for more research, which is precisely what Groarke is calling for.

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 End Of Argument, Leo Groarke

OSSA Conference Archive

We tend to see argument as a way to resolve (and in this way end) the disagreements that give rise to it. But there are many real-life situations in which acts of arguing do not resolve disagreement, but instead produce an indefinite (and sometimes unending) series of arguments for and against whatever positions they support. I explore this “prolong” problem and the deep issues it raises for theories of argument.

Evidence Based Medicine And Contemporary Vaccine Hesitancy, Tarun Kattumana

OSSA Conference Archive

Despite the undeniable success of vaccines, we are currently witnessing a crisis of confidence in vaccination programmes. This has contributed to a decline in global vaccination coverage and the return of vaccine-preventable diseases. This paper examines why this state of affairs has emerged by focusing on bio-medical evidence which confirms the success and safety of vaccines yet does not persuade those are hesitant to vaccinate.

Reply To Brian Macpherson’S Commentary On My Paper “Evidence Based Medicine And Contemporary Vaccine Hesitancy”, Tarun Kattumana

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Jason Schultchen’S “Deep Disagreements And Some Resolution Strategies That Simply Won’T Do”, David Hitchcock

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On: Michael Gilbert’S “Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis”, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

If the goal to inquire into, understand, and respond to what it for someone to be “anti-vax,” the concept of fallacy seems the wrong tool to pick up.

Commentary On Sharon Bailin And Mark Battersby’S “Is There A Role For Adversariality In Teaching Critical Thinking?”, Catherine Hundleby

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Is There A Role For Adversariality In Teaching Critical Thinking?, Sharon Bailin, Mark Battersby

OSSA Conference Archive

Although there has been considerable recent debate on the topic of adversariality in argumentation, this debate has rarely found its way into work on critical thinking theory and instruction. This paper focuses on the implications of the adversariality debate for teaching critical thinking. Is there a role for adversarial argumentation in critical thinking instruction? Is there a way to incorporate the benefits of adversarial argumentation while mitigating the problems?

Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis, Michael A. Gilbert

OSSA Conference Archive

I want to suggest that we can attain a deeper understanding of fallacies if we 1) examine them in situ, and 2) apply a multi-modal analysis to them. That is to say that there is a need to examine the logical, emotional, visceral and kisceral aspects of fallacies in order to understand why an arguer uses a fallacy (Gilbert 1997). Toward this end I will examine the embrace of fallacies and the circumstances in which they are used. The first is the use of the ad vericundiam and post hoc ergo propter hoc in the context of vaccine hesitancy. The …

Deep Disagreements And Some Resolution Strategies That Simply Won't Do, Jason E. Schultchen

OSSA Conference Archive

A deep disagreement is the result of clashing systems of underlying principles. Debate surrounding the possibility of the resolution of deep disagreements is ongoing. I elucidate the notion of deep disagreements by assuming their resolution is not precluded. I consider five disagreement resolution strategies offered by Steven Hales. Though I conclude that these strategies are not viable for resolving a deep disagreement, my examination allows me to identify certain key marks of an adequate solution.

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 …

Commentary: Scientific Evidence - From A "Deferent" To A "Novice" Judge: Comments On Zoppellari's Paper, Marko Novak

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On: “Diversity In Argumentation Theory” (By Claudio Duran & Eva Hamamé), Dimitris Serafis

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Comments On Paula Olmos’ “The Value Of Judgmental Subjectivity”, Mark Weinstein

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

The Value Of Judgmental Subjectivity, Paula Olmos

OSSA Conference Archive

Kuhn (1977) considered that criteria for scientific theory choice function as values and not as rules what implies: i) the debatable character of their attribution, ii) the gradual nature of their compliance and iii) the necessity to weigh them up in a multidimensional values-based judgment. Kuhn also emphasized: 1) the agent-related nature of processes involving the “recognition of values as reasons” and 2) the non-algorithmic and open character of the “justificatory dynamics of science”.

The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari

OSSA Conference Archive

The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and science. Through the contributions of Wellman and Walton, we will see how the main method to question the expert’s testimony before a judge deferent to science is to question her personal integrity by using ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, using Alvin Goldman’s novice/expert problem, we will investigate if other manners of argumentative cross-examinations are possible.

Diversity In Argumentation Theory, Claudio Duran, Eva Hamamé

OSSA Conference Archive

There is still a high degree of expectation that argumentation should be understood from the perspective of the logical mode of reasoning with little attention to intuitions, emotions and physicality. Our proposal intends to develop a comprehensive understanding of argumentation from the perspective of Michael Gilbert’s Theory of Multi-Modal Argumentation. This approach allows the introduction of diversity in Argumentation Theory, investigating in depth the relations between logic, intuitions, emotions and physicality in cases of argumentation.

Should Logos Be Opposed To Ethos? Commentary On Adelino Cattani’S ‘Persuading And Convincing’, Marcin Koszowy

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Maurizio Manzin’S “‘Identity-Based’ And ‘Diversity-Based’ Evidence Between Linear And Fractal Rationality”, Frank Zenker

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

“Identity-Based” And “Diversity-Based” Evidence Between Linear And Fractal Rationality, Maurizio Manzin

OSSA Conference Archive

I identify two types of evidence: one based on “linear” rationality (LR) and the other based on “fractal” rationality (FR). For LR, evidence depends only on systematic coherence, and all other sources of knowledge (intuitive, perceptive, symbolic, poetic, moral, etc.) are marginalized. For FR, evidence requires an approach more adherent to the “irregularities” of life. LR philosophically entails a Neoplatonist and Cartesian account on identity, whereas FR entails Plato’s account on identity and diversity as coessential.

Diversity, Conflict Resolution, And (Dis)Agreement, Linda Carozza

OSSA Conference Archive

Is reaching an agreement a product of strong arguing-making and argument-having? Mediators are trained to be neutral facilitators with a range of diverse strategies for resolving disagreements. In spite of this, parties in conflict can derail a mediator’s trajectory in helping all involved by i) understand different positions and especially ii) develop resolutions. Borrowing from the literature of conflict resolution this paper questions the efficacy of critical-logical normative argumentation models.

Persuading And Convincing, Adelino Cattani

OSSA Conference Archive

I’ll propose a distinction based on historical, theoretical, and linguistic considerations between:

- two different ways of inducing a change of mind, that is persuading and convincing.

- two different ways of proving, that is rhetorical argumentation and logical-experimental demonstration.

There is a tendency to keep a distance from persuasion in favor of conviction. In everyday language, the difference between the two terms appears clear, and it is a distinction developed theoretically by many authors from Plato and Kant to Perelman. In particular:

1. Persuasion is centered chiefly on the speaker: it enhances one’s will and ability to modify …

Commentary On Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’S “Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited”, Paula Olmos

OSSA Conference Archive

Commentary on Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’s “Unpacking the narrative-argumentative conundrum: story credibility revisited”

Commentary: Wu’S “Indigenous Cosmovision And Rights Of Nature: A Legal Inquiry”, Andrea G. Sullivan-Clarke

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Michel Dufour’S “What Makes A Fallacy Serious?”, Hans Vilhelm Hansen

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Rights Of Nature And Indigenous Cosmovision: A Fundamental Inquiry, Jingjing Wu

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper, I ask whether we can weigh and balance indigenous cosmovision—the reasoning used as the main source of legitimacy in some rights of nature legislation—within a secular legal system. I examine three barriers that rights of nature and their corollary spiritual reasoning are likely to encounter if they are invoked in secular courts: (a) spiritual reasoning is non-defeasible (Part 3) and (b) irrational (Part 4), and (3) the current concept of human rights as a universal legal norm is based on a circular logic (Part 5). In order to overcome these barriers, I draw inspiration from Dworkin’s ‘rights …