Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 30 of 124
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Commentary On Novak, Jill Leblanc
Commentary On Pinto, Mark Vorobej
The Utility Of Perelman's Universal Audience, Niel Paris
The Utility Of Perelman's Universal Audience, Niel Paris
OSSA Conference Archive
I will endeavour to appraise Perelman's concept of the Universal Audience (UA). If indeed the measure of an argument's worth is solely dependent upon the UA's adherence to it, this fails to specify why the UA adheres to certain arguments and not other s. For Perelman's theory to be an improvement over a Protagorean view requires such a specification. Moreover, if freedom from prejudice and incompetence are the relevant characteristics of the UA, then why not simply declare that the worth of the argum ent itself is measurable by its freedom form prejudice and its competence?
Augustus De Morgan On Fallacy: Pettyfoggers And Controversialists, Marie Secor
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 of …
Commentary On Gellis, Michael Leff
Commentary On Hegelund & Kock, Jean Goodwin
Commentary On Hegelund & Kock, Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Hoaglund, Leo Groarke
Commentary On Gough, Claude Gratton
Commentary On Goodwin, Mark Gellis
What Is Acknowledgement And Why Is It Important?, Trudy Govier
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 what, …
Truth And Reconciliation: Comments On Coalescence, Sharon Bailin
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.
Lessons From Ten Years Of Research On Argument, Richard Andrews
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.
A Theory Of Normative Reasoning Schemes, J Anthony Blair
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.
The Riddle As Argument: Zarathustra's Riddle And The Eternal Return, Richard S G Brown
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 the only …
Aristotle: An Ancient Mathematical Logician, George Boger
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 his logic.
Once Upon An Argument: Being The Account Of A Dialogue Between A Poet And A Philosopher, Both Ancient, Daniel H. Cohen, John Rosenwald
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.
Justification, Commonplaces And Evidence, Emmanuelle Danblon
Justification, Commonplaces And Evidence, Emmanuelle Danblon
OSSA Conference Archive
Justification is a basic component of reasoning because it provides us with the warrant which should ground the acceptability of the whole argument. Indeed, justifying an argument consists in providing some principle which is seen as reasonable. In t his perspective, the set of possible justifications may be regarded as the set of those commonplaces that are admitted by a human community and are grounded on the values that are commonly endorsed by the community. I will try to show how the lack of dis cussion about those values that are regarded as obvious may lead to paradoxical conclusions.
Fallacies And The Preconditions Of Argumentation, Chris Campolo
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).
On The Educational Value Of Arguing In Indirectly Informative Language, Maged El Komos
On The Educational Value Of Arguing In Indirectly Informative Language, Maged El Komos
OSSA Conference Archive
Writing arguments in indirectly informative language can improve undergraduates' analytic and communicative competencies. A twofold support is offered. First, written examples are examined to show how producing such argument can develop one's practic al understanding of the cultural repertoire--a knowledge argued crucial to both the evaluative and the communicative uses of reasoning. Second, various articulations of the relation between practical understanding and communication are discussed: those o f Gadamer on the connection between hermeneutics and rhetoric; Ricouer on the continuity of the imagination, cognition, and feeling in metaphor; and work in cognitive psychology on the links among language, thought and …
Pragmatic Argumentation And The Application Of Legal Rules, Eveline T. Feteris
Pragmatic Argumentation And The Application Of Legal Rules, Eveline T. Feteris
OSSA Conference Archive
In law, the soundness of pragmatic argumentation in which a decision is defended by pointing to the consequences of the application of a particular legal rule, is often disputed. Some legal authors think that it is more of a rhetorical trick than a se rious attempt to convince in a rational way. Others think that it can be an acceptable way to defend a decision, provided that judges make explicit which value judgments underlie their decisions. I will sketch a pragma-dialectical framework for pragmati c argumentation and describe the criteria for sound pragmatic argumentation in a legal context.
A Consideration Of Empathy In Argumentation, Richard Friemann
A Consideration Of Empathy In Argumentation, Richard Friemann
OSSA Conference Archive
In Coalescent Argumentation, Michael Gilbert comes closest to the ethical with the idea and role empathy plays within his scheme. Empathy is an act of will which one need never do. Rather than from need, it stems from a desire for the other pe rson. I would call this desire ethical. However, Gilbert understands empathy in cognitive terms. I am interested in seeing just what kinds of difference a more ethical interpretation of empathy would yield. Here I will be drawing on contemporary conti nental and feminist work.
Sermons Of Corporate Identity: Argument In Two Corporate Annual Reports, Mark Gellis
Sermons Of Corporate Identity: Argument In Two Corporate Annual Reports, Mark Gellis
OSSA Conference Archive
While sermons are often studied in terms of how they persuade sinners to reform, they also serve to define and maintain the entire religious community's self-image. An examination of these sermonic elements in two corporate annual reports will reveal how these documents not only serve to provide factual information but also serve to create and defend a community, in terms of vision, self-image, and shared goals. The paper will be of interest to teachers and scholars concerned with corporate communica tion, rhetorical criticism, and religious rhetoric.
Gender And Rhetoric In Category Construction, Carmel Forde
Gender And Rhetoric In Category Construction, Carmel Forde
OSSA Conference Archive
Traditionally, heated philosophical debates regarding the status of categories ("real definitions", "kinds") have turned on questions of "nominal" vs "real" existence, where the role and significance of rhetoric and politics is obscured. Feminists in the late 20th century acknowledge a variety of elements involved in the construction of categories such as "human," "nature," rhetoric and logic. I argue for a position which undercuts the traditional debates between nominalism and realism, and using "wo men" as a case study, demonstrate the intricacies of the relationship of logic and rhetoric in category construction.
Psychologism In Contemporary Argumentation Theory, Daivd M. Godden
Psychologism In Contemporary Argumentation Theory, Daivd M. Godden
OSSA Conference Archive
The last half of this century witnessed a proliferation of competing and complimentary theories of argumentation, initiated by the methodological shift from the "product" to the "process" of argument. This paper considers the effect of that shift by c omparing the different logical and epistemic status various theories assign to the standards of argument analysis and evaluation. In view of such differences, I argue that the systematic study of argumentation must clearly demarcate the normative and emp irical study of argumentation with sensitivity to both the limit and significance of each.
Dialectics Of Criticism: Argumentation In Literary Reviews, Rob Grootendorst
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 …
Rhetoric And Dialectic In The Twenty-First Century, Michael Leff
Rhetoric And Dialectic In The Twenty-First Century, Michael Leff
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
What Are We Do About Traditional Logic?, Jesse Bohl
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.
Reasons For Reason-Giving In Unplanned Discourse, Martha Sylvia Cheng
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.
What Jokes Can Tell Us About Arguments, Thomas M. Conley
What Jokes Can Tell Us About Arguments, Thomas M. Conley
OSSA Conference Archive
Perelman teaches us that, unlike demonstrations, arguments cannot be reduced to or understood as closed systems. In some particular--but telling-- ways, arguments are like jokes. Telling a joke requires close attention to, e.g., appropriateness as re gards subjects, length (what details add or subtract from the humour), the extent of shared knowledge of both particulars and stereotypes, and whether it is possible to be ironic without being misunderstood. Thinking along these lines points up the futil ity of reducing either the invention or the evaluation of arguments to formal schemata.
Critical Thinking, Charity And Care: Reason And Goodness Both, Jacqueline M. Davies
Critical Thinking, Charity And Care: Reason And Goodness Both, Jacqueline M. Davies
OSSA Conference Archive
Care reasoning is valuable not because its nicer or kinder. Rather, it is the most reasonable way to come to terms with moral phenomena. Interpreting arguments requires making sense of the relationship between statements. Making sense of moral pheno mena requires making sense of relationships between (inherently indeterminate) moral subjects. Thus, the best reconstructions of moral problems will be realized in a medium (such as narrative) where meaningfulness is not undermined by indeterminacy. Fur ther, the rationality of care reasoning, which Gilligan calls narrative, can be appreciated by analogy with the rationale for the principle of charity in the interpretation …