Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Arts and Humanities Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy

1999

University of Windsor

Articles 1 - 30 of 122

Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities

Aristotle: An Ancient Mathematical Logician, George Boger May 1999

Aristotle: An Ancient Mathematical Logician, George Boger

OSSA Conference Archive

We can now recognize Aristotle's many accomplishments in logical theory, not the least of which is treating the deduction process itself as a subject matter and thus establishing the science of logic. Aristotle took logic to be that part of epistemolo gy used to establish knowledge of logical consequence. Prior Analytics is a metalogical treatise on his syllogistic system in which Aristotle modelled his deduction system to demonstrate certain logical relationships among its rules. Aristotle's n otion of substitution distinguishes logical syntax from semantics and enabled him to distinguish validity from deducibility sufficiently to note the completeness of ...


What Are We Do About Traditional Logic?, Jesse Bohl May 1999

What Are We Do About Traditional Logic?, Jesse Bohl

OSSA Conference Archive

A commonplace of modern logic is that traditional logic, because it accepted the supposedly mistaken inference from general to particular propositions, perceived as valid a good number of invalid inference patterns. Yet many people find the allegedly invalid inference patterns intuitively valid. Four arguments that might be used to justify modern logic's judgment fail to provide good reason to provide modern logic pride of place. Of the three responses to failure of the arguments for preferring mode rn to traditional logic considered, the most radical is recommended.


The Riddle As Argument: Zarathustra's Riddle And The Eternal Return, Richard S G Brown May 1999

The Riddle As Argument: Zarathustra's Riddle And The Eternal Return, Richard S G Brown

OSSA Conference Archive

While it seems to be evident that the vision of the eternal return of the same (in Thus Spoke Tharathustra) is the solution to the riddle mentioned in "On the vision and the riddle," exactly what constitutes the riddle is anything but clear. Li ke all good riddles the solution demands a paradigm shift. Nietzsche's riddle is solved by a radical rethinking of the concept of time, from a straight line to a circle. I give a detailed account of how Nietzsche's riddle is formulated in such a way tha t the eternal return of the same is ...


Fallacies And The Preconditions Of Argumentation, Chris Campolo May 1999

Fallacies And The Preconditions Of Argumentation, Chris Campolo

OSSA Conference Archive

If we think of fallacies as violations of the preconditions governing the products, processes, and procedures of argumentation, we see that fallacies do not merely weaken arguments, but rather undermine the possibility of argument itself. This approac h recommends itself on several counts. First, it accounts for diversity in fallacy analysis (investigations have to be formal, rhetorical and pragmatic). Second, it makes possible investigations into new kinds of fallacies (which might focus on context more than conduct). Third, it provides new applications for ongoing developments in fallacy theory (we might further clarify preconditions of argument as required by discourse ethics).


Reasons For Reason-Giving In Unplanned Discourse, Martha Sylvia Cheng May 1999

Reasons For Reason-Giving In Unplanned Discourse, Martha Sylvia Cheng

OSSA Conference Archive

Most studies of reason-giving have focussed on formal, planned situations rather than on how reason-giving functions in relatively unplanned discourse. This study looks at reason-giving by respondents to an anonymous telephone public-opinion survey, e xploring the relationship between fact, policy, and value claims and the types of reasons used to support those claims. The results resonate with two important areas in argumentation theory: argument fields and critical thinking. Further, I suggest that reason-giving can serve as a method for individuals to present themselves as human and thoughtfully reasonable.


Lessons From Ten Years Of Research On Argument, Richard Andrews May 1999

Lessons From Ten Years Of Research On Argument, Richard Andrews

OSSA Conference Archive

From PhD research on argumentation in the writing of 11 and 12 year olds in the late 1980s through to three research projects in the 1990s on argument in schools, colleges and universities, I have been pursuing questions as to how to improve students' argumentation. This paper looks at some of the key issues, including the place of argument in the curriculum, its role in the relation to citizenship and some of the ways for improving the quality of argument. In the discussion, questions on the nature of argument itself will be addressed.


Truth And Reconciliation: Comments On Coalescence, Sharon Bailin May 1999

Truth And Reconciliation: Comments On Coalescence, Sharon Bailin

OSSA Conference Archive

In Coalescent Argumentation, Michael Gilbert criticizes the "Critical-Logical Model" (C-L) which he claims focuses on truth and treats arguments a-contextually; he proposes an alternative theory of coalescent argumentation which focuses on cont ent and consensus. I shall examine the dispute between the C-L and the coalescent models using the coalescent approach, thereby attempting to find which points of contention are real disagreements and which are only peripheral or apparent. Finally, I sh all examine the extent to which this examination, undertaken using the coalescent model, differs from what would have been done using a C-L model.


A Theory Of Normative Reasoning Schemes, J Anthony Blair May 1999

A Theory Of Normative Reasoning Schemes, J Anthony Blair

OSSA Conference Archive

Even with Kientpointer's and Walton's valuable work, we do not yet have a complete theory of argument schemes. A complete theory of argument schemes should contain at least the following: its theoretical motivation, the denotation of "argument" or "ar gumentation" used in the theory, an analysis of the concept of an argument scheme, a theory of classification of argument schemes, a solution to the problem of identifying which scheme is correct, and an account of the grounds of the normativity or normat ive argument schemes. The paper will supply these elements, worked out as fully as space permits.


Rhetoric And Dialectic In The Twenty-First Century, Michael Leff May 1999

Rhetoric And Dialectic In The Twenty-First Century, Michael Leff

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


What Is Acknowledgement And Why Is It Important?, Trudy Govier May 1999

What Is Acknowledgement And Why Is It Important?, Trudy Govier

OSSA Conference Archive

In the context of redressing wrongs of the past, the importance of acknowledgement is often urged. It figures significantly, for instance, in the final report of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission and in the 1996 Canadian Royal Commiss ion Report on Aboriginal Peoples. In both documents a central theme is that acknowledging wrongs of the past is a key first step towards healing and reconciliation. Several recent statements about public apology also urge that moral apologies are signif icant because of the ways in which they acknowledge wrongdoing and responsibility. However, there seem to be few explanations of ...


Dialectics Of Criticism: Argumentation In Literary Reviews, Rob Grootendorst May 1999

Dialectics Of Criticism: Argumentation In Literary Reviews, Rob Grootendorst

OSSA Conference Archive

Criticism is a neglected subject in the study of argumentation. In my talk, I explore the possibility of a pragma-dialectical analysis in literary reviews as a specific type of criticism. I argue that literary reviews are argumentative texts in which the critic attempts to convince the readers that his or her judgment is right or, at east, acceptable. The resolution of this nonmixed dispute between the critic as a protagonist and the reader as an antagonist is, pragma-dialectically speaking, highly problematic. First, there is no consensus among critics or between critics and their readers with respect to the norms for ...


Prejudice, Prudence And Fairness, Jean-Pierre Schachter May 1999

Prejudice, Prudence And Fairness, Jean-Pierre Schachter

OSSA Conference Archive

There exists reasoning popularly characterized as "prejudiced" that may nevertheless be both sound and prudential, and this reasoning involves the application of exactly the same inductive correlational strategies applied without moral objection in non -human cases. While such reasoning may be rationally unobjectionable, it may yet be morally objectionable because its methods inherently entail a risk of unfairness to others. This raises the interesting philosophical possibility that arguments may be a ppraised and found wanting on other than rational grounds, that arguments may be subject to moral defects in addition to defects of rationality.


Building Monologue, Chris Reed May 1999

Building Monologue, Chris Reed

OSSA Conference Archive

To build an argument--and particularly an argument presented as a monologue--a writer must assemble and marshal a battery of supports for a claim. Some of those supports will be arranged in convergent structures, some as linked; some will be expressed , some will be left implicit; sometimes a support will need further support of its own--and sometimes, not. This paper explores the factors which lead a writer to make particular choices, the interactions between those factors, and the constraints on a w riter's freedom in exercising her power, drawing on recent findings in computational modelling of the generation process.


Augustus De Morgan On Fallacy: Pettyfoggers And Controversialists, Marie Secor May 1999

Augustus De Morgan On Fallacy: Pettyfoggers And Controversialists, Marie Secor

OSSA Conference Archive

Augustus DeMorgan wrote an influential nineteenth-century treatise on logic, Formal Logic: The Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable, whose treatment of fallacy contributes significantly to the conversation carried on from Bentham to Alf red Sidgwick. Representing fallacy as concerning only inferential processes, DeMorgan focuses on ambiguous matters where it is difficult to determine whether the error resides in the matter or the form. His unpacking of terminological slipperiness and t actical maneuvering pushes his discussion from the logical towards the rhetorical. This study of nineteenth-century fallacy theory identifies logic's rhetorical turn and pulls out a strand connecting the histories ...


Observer And Participant Perspectives In The Analysis Of Argumentation, Marco Ruhl May 1999

Observer And Participant Perspectives In The Analysis Of Argumentation, Marco Ruhl

OSSA Conference Archive

Given a sort of trade-off between normative and descriptive analyses of argumentation, theorists have chosen either the perspective of the evaluating observer or that of the participant-like "co-interpreter" of argumentation. However, the evaluational perspective neglects the dialogical, self-organizing nature of arguing, whereas the participant perspective fails to capture the normative goal-directedness of persuasion and conflict resolution. Since arguers are both participants in argumentation as w ell as well as observers of it, I will propose a method, based on normative pragmatics, of combining both perspectives.


The Analysis And Evaluation Of Counter-Arguments In Judicial Decisions, José Plug May 1999

The Analysis And Evaluation Of Counter-Arguments In Judicial Decisions, José Plug

OSSA Conference Archive

From a (pragma) dialectical point of view, the evaluation of argumentation includes consideration of how well it deals with counter-arguments. This corresponds with one of the requirements developed in Dutch jurisprudence: if the justification of a ju dicial decision does not reflect on essential counter-arguments, the decision may be quashed in appeal. I will first examine what textual clues identify counter-arguments and objections, and then discuss the criteria that are used in legal practice to ev aluate how well the justification responds to counter-arguments and objections. Finally, I compare these with proposals for dialectical criteria.


The Paradoxical Associated Conditional Of Enthymemes, Gilbert Plumer May 1999

The Paradoxical Associated Conditional Of Enthymemes, Gilbert Plumer

OSSA Conference Archive

Expressing a widely-held view, Hitchcock claims that "an enthymematic argument ... assumes at least the truth of the argument's associated conditional ... whose antecedent is the conjunction of the argument's explicit premises and whose consequent is t he argument's conclusion." But even definitionally, this view is problematic, since an argument's being enthymematic or incomplete with respect to its explicit premises means that the conclusion is not implied by these premises alone. The paper attempts to specify the ways in which the view is incorrect, as well as correct (e.g., the case of a modus ponens wherein the ...


A Problem In The One-Fallacy Theory, Lawrence H. Powers May 1999

A Problem In The One-Fallacy Theory, Lawrence H. Powers

OSSA Conference Archive

According to the one-fallacy theory, the only real fallacy is equivocation. In particular, the fallacy of incomplete evidence draws a conclusion inductively from parts of our evidence while ignoring other parts of it which undermine the conclusion. T his is an equivocation on the relative term 'probable': the conclusion is probable relative to a part of our evidence but not relative to the whole of it. Unfortunately, this view is not entirely consistent with my meta-theory of fallacies which allows t hat some failures of rationality are errors simply in inductive reasoning rather than being equivocations.


Layered Protocols In Coalescent Argumentation, Allan Randall May 1999

Layered Protocols In Coalescent Argumentation, Allan Randall

OSSA Conference Archive

A goal-oriented analysis of argument is presented based on Taylor's layered protocols, a theory of communication based on Powers' hierarchical perceptual control theory. Goals and beliefs are hierarchical, related in a precise way to sensory inputs an d motor outputs. This model is combined with Gilbert's theory of coalescent argumentation. Participants sketch out their own and their partner's goal diagrams as an aid to resolving the argument. For this to work, the argument must be viewed, not in pu rely linguistic or logical terms, but in terms of the entire system of goals in which it is ...


The Liar Paradox As A Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument, Menashe Schwed May 1999

The Liar Paradox As A Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument, Menashe Schwed

OSSA Conference Archive

This presentation traces an historical root of the reductio ad absurdum mode of argumentation in Greek philosophy. I propose a new understanding of the liar paradox as an instance of this mode of argumentation. I show that the paradox was crea ted as part of a refutational argument in the controversy over the justification of realism and the realists concepts of truth and certainty. The paradox was part of the dialectical style of Greek scepticism, which was characterized, inter alia, by the u se of the reductio ad absurdum. The paradox turns out to be a metaphysical and epistemological argument.


Argument Quality And Cultural Difference, Harvey Siegel May 1999

Argument Quality And Cultural Difference, Harvey Siegel

OSSA Conference Archive

Argumentation theorists typically conceive argument goodness in terms of an argument's provision of reasons for its conclusion which are such that fair-minded appraisal suggests that it ought to be accepted by all who so appraise it. This conception o f argument quality makes no reference to either the persons appraising the argument, or the context of the appraisal. Much recent work rejects such an abstract, impersonal notion of argument goodness, with some theorists emphasizing the importance of cul tural difference in argument appraisal. While there is much merit in this perspective, the multiculturalist argument against impersonal, acontextualist conceptions of ...


Hermeneutics, Rhetoric And Informal Logic, Elizabeth Skakoon May 1999

Hermeneutics, Rhetoric And Informal Logic, Elizabeth Skakoon

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper, I re-examine the connection Hans-Georg Gadamer made between hermeneutics and the rhetorical tradition in light of recent developments in informal logic. Originally, Gadamer made this connection between hermeneutics and rhetoric because both use the theoretical tools of persuasion and acceptance in contrast to scientific objective methodology. Since this association, another possibility has arisen; informal logic. Using the writings of Ralph Johnson, I outline the difference between in formal logic and rhetoric, and suggest that after an analyses of these differences, informal logic appears to be closer to hermeneutics in its overall structure and telos than rhetoric.


Speaking Of South Park, Christina Slade May 1999

Speaking Of South Park, Christina Slade

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper deals with the new cult cartoon series, "South Park". While reviled as vulgar and likely to lead children astray, it is in fact a fertile field of ethical and logical argumentation. The paper analyses in detail the argumentation of one epi sode, entitled "An elephant makes love to a pig" and shows how it can be used to teach reasoning skills.


Power And Topic Shifts In Strategic Management Argumentation, John A A Sillince May 1999

Power And Topic Shifts In Strategic Management Argumentation, John A A Sillince

OSSA Conference Archive

The paper examines a transcript of a meeting at a large acute hospital. Conflict is avoided by means of topic shifting. Initially topics range over items about which agreement exists--the establishment of common ground. More urgent and more certain things get discussed first. Agreement and therefore finishing of a topic are signaled merely by moving on to the next topic. Conflict is avoided by use of dilemmas to identify potential agreements.


Theoretic Bondage: Coalescent Argumentation And Higher-Order Goals, Denise Tayler May 1999

Theoretic Bondage: Coalescent Argumentation And Higher-Order Goals, Denise Tayler

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper will critically evaluate Pragma-Dialectics and Michael Gilbert's coalescent view of argumentation from a feminist-emancipatory perspective. Pragma-Dialecticians hold to higher-order goals such as the equality of arguers, and assume that the ir ideal model will function well under these conditions. But by not directly addressing arguments in situations of power imbalance, the pragma-dialectical model overlooks the possibility that it reinforces inequality and restricts expression. Gilbert's work on alternative argumentation modes diffuses the oppressive tendencies of the Pragma-Dialectical model, and may further higher-order ideals.


But That Simply Isn't True; Rethinking Truth In Argumentation, Wouter H. Slob May 1999

But That Simply Isn't True; Rethinking Truth In Argumentation, Wouter H. Slob

OSSA Conference Archive

Since the dialectical turn in logic, truth has been replaced by acceptability. The latter notion, however, does not provide for a strong enough constraint. It is thought that only truth can overrule acceptability, and for that reason we need to reass ess the notion. Still, truth is a confusing philosophical concept, and we should be clear as to which understanding of the notion can do the job. I shall argue that a correspondence theory of truth in particular will not do. Rather we should adopt a de flationary account: all we need is a suitable understanding of the truth-predicate.


Bakhtin's Dialogism And Argumentation Perspectives, Viktor Tchouechov May 1999

Bakhtin's Dialogism And Argumentation Perspectives, Viktor Tchouechov

OSSA Conference Archive

Today, dialogism has become a commonplace in argumentation analysis. Bakhtin distinguishes two kinds of humanitarian methodology--monologism and dialogism. Monologism is connected with the nature of subject-object and object-object epistemological an d ontological relationships. Analysing monologism, Bakhtin had come to distinguish between two kinds of dialectics--monological dialectics and dialogical dialectics. Bakhtin thought that it was possible to form not only various kinds of dialectics but a lso dialogisms; for example, the synchronic or interactive dialogism of Dostoyevsky and the diachronic or dialectical dialogism of Bakhtin himself.


Are All The Pragma-Dialectical Rules Pragmatic?, Christopher M. Thomson May 1999

Are All The Pragma-Dialectical Rules Pragmatic?, Christopher M. Thomson

OSSA Conference Archive

From a pragma-dialectical perspective, argumentation rules do not receive their normative import from any "metaphysical necessity." They are, pragmatically speaking, binding only to the extent that reasonable participants regard them as useful for res olving disputes. This may be misleading with regard to the second pragma-dialectical rule relating to the burden of proof. If the obligation to defend a proffered standpoint is a constitutive rule of competent speech, then the obligation denoted by the burden of proof is more binding upon speakers than a pragmatic approach to the subject would have us believe.


Does Informal Logic Have Anything To Learn From Fuzzy Logic?, John Woods May 1999

Does Informal Logic Have Anything To Learn From Fuzzy Logic?, John Woods

OSSA Conference Archive

Probability theory is the arithmetic of the real line constrained by special aleatory axioms. Fuzzy logic is also a kind of probability theory, but of considerably more mathematical and axiomatic complexity than the standard account. Fuzzy logic purp orts to model the human capacity for reasoning with inexact concepts. It does this by exploring the assumption that when we argue in inexact terms and draw inferences in imprecise vocabularies, we actually make computations about the embedded imprecision s. I argue that this is in fact the last thing that we do, and indeed that we do the opposite.


What About The Context?, Igor Z. Zagar May 1999

What About The Context?, Igor Z. Zagar

OSSA Conference Archive

For quite some time now the French linguist Oswald Ducrot has been trying to develop a new theory of argumentation in the language-system (TAL), a theory that explores the argumentative potential of language as a system. In this paper I will try to sh ow how--from the standpoint of TAL--the role of co(n)text in linguistic analysis is often overestimated. The basic features of the co(n)text are already given by the utterance itself: co(n)text does not (re)interpret a given utterance, but the utterance in many respects, creates the co(n)text.