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

Commentary On Goodwin, Mark Gellis May 1999

Commentary On Goodwin, Mark Gellis

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Persuasive Stories, Michael Kagan May 1999

Persuasive Stories, Michael Kagan

OSSA Conference Archive

Since some important and effective forms of persuasion are stories, a task for those interested in argumentation, informal logic and critical thinking, is to consider stories as arguments. In this essay, I discuss three: Plato's "Myth of the Cave," Ay n Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. I suggest some responses to persuasive stories, including criticizing the plausibility of the story as story, developing counter stories, and considering the stories premises as g rounds for its conclusion. By doing so, I tentatively take steps towards a theory of story argument validity.


Commentary On Skakoon, James Crosswhite May 1999

Commentary On Skakoon, James Crosswhite

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Logical Form And The Link Between Premise And Conclusion, Robert C. Pinto May 1999

Logical Form And The Link Between Premise And Conclusion, Robert C. Pinto

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper challenges the idea that purely formal or syntactic concepts can, in general, supply criteria for certifying that the premisses of arguments and inferences support their conclusions. It will maintain that neither deductively valid arguments nor inductively strong arguments can, in general, be identified by their logical form. The paper will attempt to clarify the role that patterns play in appraising arguments. Using argument schemas as an example, it will try to show that the identification of patterns can facilitate appraisal even when those patterns do not supply criter ia (sufficient or even necessary conditions) of support.


Commentary On Boger, John Woods May 1999

Commentary On Boger, John Woods

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Cicero's Authority, Jean Goodwin May 1999

Cicero's Authority, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper I propose to continue the analysis of the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) begun at the last OSSA conference. I proceed by examining the well-documented use of the appeal made by the ancient Roman advocate, Cicero. The fact that Cicero expressed his opinion was expectably sufficient to give his auditors--responsible citizens all--reason to do as he desired. But why? The resolution of this puzzle points to a strong sense in which arguments can be called rhetorical , for the rational force of Cicero's authority depends necessarily on what he says.


Commentary On Vorster & Botha, Farrell May 1999

Commentary On Vorster & Botha, Farrell

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Cohen & Rosenwald, Trudy Govier May 1999

Commentary On Cohen & Rosenwald, Trudy Govier

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Turner, Hudecki May 1999

Commentary On Turner, Hudecki

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Schwed, Lawrence Powers May 1999

Commentary On Schwed, Lawrence Powers

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Dialectical Tier Argumentation As Structured By Proposing And Advising, Fred J. Kauffeld May 1999

Dialectical Tier Argumentation As Structured By Proposing And Advising, Fred J. Kauffeld

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper discusses the parameters of an arguer's duties on the "dialectical tier of argument appraisal." Argumentative burdens incurred in making proposals will be compared with probative obligations which may be taken on in advising. The burdens t ypically incurred in these two kinds of illocutionary acts are strikingly different; accordingly, the arguer's obligation to response to objections would be circumscribed differently depending on which speech acts initiates the dialogue. This claim has i mplications for how we delimit a "good case" for deliberative propositions. It also casts light on "manifest rationality" and the role of rhetorical art ...


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.


Commentary On Johnson, Erik C W Krabe May 1999

Commentary On Johnson, Erik C W Krabe

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


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 ...


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.


Seduction As Deduction: Persuasion As Deductive Argument, Leo Groarke May 1999

Seduction As Deduction: Persuasion As Deductive Argument, Leo Groarke

OSSA Conference Archive

Both 'persuasion' and 'rational convincing' play a major role in argumentative discourse but only the latter is said to constitute argument and be amenable to traditional logical analysis. I argue against this assumption by showing that there are many paradigmatic instances of persuasion which are best understood as implicit arguments. So understood, acts of persuasion can conform to well recognized argument schemata and are best assessed accordingly. I shall argue that the attempt to distinguish arg ument and persuasion is fraught with difficulties. I contrast my conclusions with those of authors like Gilbert, Johnson, and Johnson and Blair.


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.


The Truth About Truth As A Condition Of Premise Adequacy, James B. Freeman May 1999

The Truth About Truth As A Condition Of Premise Adequacy, James B. Freeman

OSSA Conference Archive

Is truth a condition of premise adequacy? We may distinguish objective and subjective argument correctness. Objective correctness means true premises rendering the conclusion true or probable. Subjective correctness means acceptable pr emises rendering the conclusion acceptable. Acceptability depends on evidence available and so is internalist. Objective and subjective correctness of the premises is ordinarily distinct. For connection adequacy, objective rightness and subjective righ tness coincide. We recognize entailment or rendering probably a priori. Logic is thus internalist. Logic needs an internalist notion of acceptability for premise evaluation to fall within its purview, although it need not deny the objective sens ...


Commentary On Siegel, J Anthony Blair May 1999

Commentary On Siegel, J Anthony Blair

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Aristotle's Topics And Informal Reasoning, Joseph Novak May 1999

Aristotle's Topics And Informal Reasoning, Joseph Novak

OSSA Conference Archive

The modern tradition of informal logic has relied heavily on accepting, modifying, or criticizing the patterns of reasoning mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations. However, already in 1971, Stachowiak focussed his attention on the muc h neglected Topics and enumerated in his work, Rationalismus im Ursprung some of the Aristotelian rules governing the formation of definitions and principles for correct reasoning. The paper will try to examine how these principles might ap ply to informal arguments today.


Once Upon An Argument: Being The Account Of A Dialogue Between A Poet And A Philosopher, Both Ancient, Daniel H. Cohen, John Rosenwald May 1999

Once Upon An Argument: Being The Account Of A Dialogue Between A Poet And A Philosopher, Both Ancient, Daniel H. Cohen, John Rosenwald

OSSA Conference Archive

A complex network of reciprocal relations connect arguments and stories. Arguments can occur in stories and stories can be parts of arguments. Further, stories can themselves be arguments. Whether a text or exchange serves as an argument partly depe nds on how we read it, i.e., on the story we tell about it and how well we argue for that story, but the circle is not as vicious as it appears. Or at least, that is the story we present and the argument we tell in this dialogue revisiting the ancient ar gument between the poets and the philosophers.


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.


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 ...


Commentary On Vassiliev, Wayne Grennan May 1999

Commentary On Vassiliev, Wayne Grennan

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Sillince, Bishop May 1999

Commentary On Sillince, Bishop

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Slade, Drake May 1999

Commentary On Slade, Drake

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Reygadas & Haidar, Michael Gilbert May 1999

Commentary On Reygadas & Haidar, Michael Gilbert

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


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.


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.


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 ...