Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Answer To Commentators, Harald R. Wohlrapp

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Wohlrapp’S The Concept Of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation, Ralph Johnson

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On The Concept Of Argument By Harald Wohlrapp, Katharina Stevens

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

The Concept Of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation - Issues Of Logicism And Objectivity, Trudy Govier

OSSA Conference Archive

I would first like to congratulate Harald Wohlrapp on the substantial success of his book on the philosophy of argument. The learning, originality, and energetic dedication shown in this work are impressive indeed. Concerning Harald Wohlrapp’s theories, many fascinating issues arise, as we will be hearing today and in further conversations. In this presentation I shall concentrate on two aspects especially relevant to the treatment of pro and con argumentation; as will be apparent, even on this single topic more could be said. What I will discuss today are the themes of logicism and objectivity.

Commentary On Harald R. Wohlrapp, The Concept Of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation, Derek Allen

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

The Concept Of Argument: Introductory Statement, Harald R. Wohlrapp

OSSA Conference Archive

How to provide, in only 10 minutes, a kind of insight into the conception of argument that I have displayed in my book? This book has 500 pages and is the result of more than 25 years of work with my research group in Hamburg. Therefore it is a delicate task to give a substantive information about it in just some minutes. Despite this, I will start with something outside that task: I will deeply thank my commentators to have studied my book and have made up their minds about it. In particular I thank David Hitchcock who has initiated …

Imagine The Audience – On Audience Research In Rhetoric, Argumentation, And Christopher Tindale’S The Philosophy Of Argumentation And Audience Reception, Jens E. Kjeldsen

OSSA Conference Archive

Without audiences there would be no rhetorical argumentation. Without audiences there would be no rhetoric. Without audiences there would be no argumentation. The importance of audiences for rhetoric and argumentation cannot be overstated. Thus, considering the constitutive necessity of audiences in our fields, it is strange, if not down right worrying, that we spend so few pages on researching audiences. Fortunately, Professor Christopher Tindale has addressed this lacuna in many publications, and now he has done it in a book length work on the Philosophy of Argumentation and Audience Reception (Tindale 2015) The thrust of the argument in his book …

Comments On Christopher W. Tindale’S The Philosophy Of Argument And Audience Reception, Manfred E. Kraus, Manfred Kraus

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Outstanding Questions About Analogies, Trudy Govier

OSSA Conference Archive

I consider several outstanding questions about analogies. These include the following: (a) issues of interpretation especially with regard to whether an analogy should be considered argumentative, as distinct from serving as an illustration, explanation, or matter of rhetorical interest; (b) whether and how to draw a distinction between inductive analogies and a priori analogies; and (c) whether a priori analogies should be reconstructed as deductively valid arguments. The discussion will explore broader themes such as the distinction between the a priori and the deductive, and whether a priori analogies offer reasons for a choice, as distinct from a basis for …

Employing And Exploiting The Presumptions Of Communication In Argumentation: An Application Of Normative Pragmatics, Scott Jacobs

OSSA Conference Archive

Argumentation occurs through and as communicative activity. Communication (and therefore argumentation) is organized by pragmatic principles of expression and interpretation. Grice’s (1975) theory of conversational implicature provides a model for how people use rational principles to manage the ways in which they reason to representations of arguments, and not just reason from those representations. These principles are systematic biases that make possible reasonable decision-making and intersubjective understandings in the first place; but they also make possible all manner of errors and abuses. Much of what is problematic in argumentation involves the ways in which the pragmatic principles of communication are …

Commentary On Emotional Arguments: What Would Neuroscientists And Psychologists Say? By Linda Carozza, Ioana A. Cionea

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On G. Thomas Goodnight’S “Blind Spots, Moral Hazards & Wounded Narratives”, Christopher W. Tindale, Christopher W. Tindale

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Trudy Govier’S “Some Outstanding Questions About Analogies”, Marcello Guarini

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Cionea And Hample, Michael Hoppmann

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On ‘On Being Objective: Hard Data, Soft Data And Baseball’, Tim Dare

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On “Where Is The Reasonable?”, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Reply To “Macpherson’ Commentary On Santibanez’S “Strategically Wrong: Bias And Argumentation”, Cristian Santibanez Yanez

OSSA Conference Archive

Macpherson highlights that: “Santibanez does not take the further step of saying this explicitly. At the same time, the language used by the author throughout the paper suggests that he may assent to the claim that such lies are morally wrong: For example, even when discussing more benign forms of deception such as deceiving oneself into believing that they are a very good professor or a soccer player’s deceiving their opponents about their intent, there is reference to ‘damage’ and to the ‘victim’ of the deception.

Demonstrating Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Gmo Scientist Kevin Folta, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

Scientists can find it difficult to be seen as objective within the chaos of a civic controversy. This paper gives a normative pragmatic account of the strategy one GMO scientist used to demonstrate his trustworthiness. Kevin Folta made his talk expensive by undertaking to answer all questions, and carried out this responsibility by acting as if every comment addressed to him—even the most hostile—was in fact a question in good faith. This presumption of audience good faith gave in turn his audience good reason to presume his good faith, and a situation of reciprocal distrust was transformed into one with …

Two-Wise And Three-Wise Similarity, And Non-Deductive Analogical Arguments, Marcello Guarini

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper will add to the discourse on analogical arguments by showing that they need not be deductively reconstructed in common contexts of persuasion. Analogical arguments have varying degrees of similarity, which helps us to understand their varying degrees of strength. Pace Shecaira (2013) it will be argued that this is a common and useful way of examining analogical arguments. It will be shown that deductive reconstruction does not adequately capture the needed degrees of strength.

Let us start with two-wise similarity claims. Subject S₁ says that the disputed case C₁ is (relevantly) similar to C₂ and …

Approaching Logos Among Reason, Rationality, And Reasonableness, Xuan Yang, Minghui Xiong

OSSA Conference Archive

Logos, generally regarded as the basic principle of the operating world, seems to be closely tied up with development of human being. With the evolutionary history of human, logos evolves into three different dimensional expressions, namely reason, rationality, and reasonableness. In different historical periods, each expression of logos has their own glory days respectively. In the age of ancient Greek sages, reason referred to the whole range of subjects from geometry argumentation to rhetoric. Later on, there emerged a superiority on theoretical abstraction and logical deduction, which was called the dictatorship of rationality. Yet it was found that the …

Eliminating Gender-, Racial- And Age-Biases In Medical Diagnostic Reasoning (Paper), Brian Macpherson Dr.

OSSA Conference Archive

Much attention has been paid in the literature to the deleterious effects of errors in diagnostic reasoning due to underlying cognitive biases. This is an important topic since people’s lives and well-being are at stake. Empirical studies cited by Chapman et al. (2013) corroborate the view that gender, racial, or age biases exist in a significant number of clinicians, thereby limiting objective diagnosis. Croskerry (2003, 2013) endorses a so-called metacognitive (or cognitive ‘forcing’) approach to achieve de-biasing in clinicians, a key component of which is critical self-reflection on one’s own diagnostic reasoning (Croskerry, 2003). However, the first empirical study of …

Agnotology And Argumentation: A Rhetorical Taxonomy Of Not-Knowing, Blake D. Scott

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper attempts to integrate an agnotological taxonomy of “not-knowing” with argumentation theory. Given rhetoric’s emphasis on what arguers choose to make present for their audience, it is argued that the rhetorical approach is best suited to accommodate the proposed taxonomy. In doing so we can improve the capacities of both arguers and audiences to detect adverse elements such as prejudices, implicit biases, and ideologies, which can restrict an argument’s claim to objectivity.

Commentary On “The Use Of Arguments A Fortiori In Decision Making”, Takuzo Konishi

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On: John Fields’S “Objectivity, Autonomy, And The Use Of Arguments From Authority”, Maurice A. Finocchiaro

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On "Mapping Objectivity And Bias In Relation To Argument", Justine M. Kingsbury

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On “A Three-Dimensional Analysis Of Definition With Bearing On Key Concepts” By Robert Ennis, Kevin Possin

OSSA Conference Archive

On the nature of definitions and concepts, and the definition of critical thinking.

Commentary On: Frank Zenkers’S “The Polysemy Of ‘Fallacy’– Or ‘Bias’, For That Matter”, Michel Dufour

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On “Eliminating Gender-, Racial- And Age-Biases In Medical Diagnostic Reasoning”, Steve Oswald

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On Jean Goodwin, "Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Kevin Folta", Patrick Bondy

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Commentary On “The Strategic Formulation Of Abductive Arguments In Everyday Reasoning”, John R. Welch

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.