Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- America (1)
- Architectural Drawings (1)
- Argumentation schemes (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Cogency (1)
-
- Critical questions (1)
- Culture during wartime (1)
- Defeasible reasoning (1)
- Diamond And Schmitt Architects (1)
- French Indian War (1)
- Heuristics (1)
- Lance (1)
- Models of dialogue (1)
- Newspapers (1)
- R.S.A criteria (1)
- Seven years war (1)
- Student newspapers (1)
- University of Windsor (1)
- University of Windsor. Leddy Library (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 181
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory As An Engaged Discipline, Michael A. Gilbert
Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory As An Engaged Discipline, Michael A. Gilbert
OSSA Conference Archive
Natural normativity describes the means whereby social and cultural controls are placed on argumentative behaviour. The three main components of this are Goals, Context, and Ethos, which combine to form a dynamic and situational framework. Natural normativity is explained in light of Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, and Rhetoric. Finally, the theory is applied to the Biro-Siegel challenge.
Norms Of Legitimate Dissensus, Christian Kock
Norms Of Legitimate Dissensus, Christian Kock
OSSA Conference Archive
Argumentation theory needs to develop a tightly reasoned normative code of reasonableness in argumentation so that reasonableness is severed from the goal of reaching “consensus,” as in Habermas and others, or of “resolving the difference of opinion,” as in Pragma-dialectics. On one hand, given degenerative trends in present-day public debate, there is a need for argumentation scholars to enter the public sphere and try to lay down such a code as a common ground of controversy; on the other hand, argumentation theory should recognize that in important respects public controversies cannot be modeled as collaborative enterprises, because dissensus between groups …
The Arguers, Dale Hample
The Arguers, Dale Hample
OSSA Conference Archive
I wish to argue in favor of a particular orientation, one expressed in Brockriede's remark that "arguments are not in statements but in people." While much has been gained from textual analyses, even more will accrue by additional attention to the arguers. I consider that textual materials are really only the artifacts of arguments. The actual arguing is done exclusively by people, either the argument producers or receivers, and never by words on a page. In fact, most of our textual interpretations are quietly founded on the assumption that the artifact is fully informative about what people think
Context-Dependence And The Defining Of Logical Fallacies, Theodora Achourioti
Context-Dependence And The Defining Of Logical Fallacies, Theodora Achourioti
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper illustrates the difficulties that context-dependence poses for defining the so-called logical fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. In particular, I question whether these fallacies can be identified with specific argument patterns. I argue that judging such patterns as fallacious is relative to a) the type of underlying reasoning, and b) the world-knowledge deemed relevant to the argumentation at hand. It is concluded that a more context-sensitive definition should be pursued.
Commentary On Achourioti, Menashe Schwed
Commentary On Achourioti, Menashe Schwed
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Distortion And Excluded Middles, Jonathan E. Adler
Distortion And Excluded Middles, Jonathan E. Adler
OSSA Conference Archive
Why is there so much distortion in ordinary, political, social, and ethical argument? Since we have a pervasive interest in reasoning well and corresponding abilities, the extent of distortion invites explanation. The leading candidates are the need to economize, widespread, fallacious heuristics or assumptions, and self-defensive biases. I argue that these are not sufficient. An additional force is the intellectual pressure generated by acceptance of norms of conversation and argument, which exclude ‘middles’ of, prominently, neither accept (believe) nor reject (disbelieve). I conjecture that the distortion we find is due to intellectual and normative pressures generated by our commitment to …
Commentary On Amjarso, Michael A. Gilbert
Commentary On Amjarso, Michael A. Gilbert
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Adler, Patrick Francken
Beyond The Boundaries: The Epistemological Significance Of Differing Cultural Perspectives, Sharon Bailin, Mark Battersby
Beyond The Boundaries: The Epistemological Significance Of Differing Cultural Perspectives, Sharon Bailin, Mark Battersby
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper explores the issue of the epistemological significance of taking into consideration alternative perspectives, particularly those from other cultures. We have a moral duty to respect the beliefs and practices of other cultures, but do we have an epistemological duty to take these beliefs and practices into consideration in our own deliberations? Are views that are held without exposure to alternatives from other cultures less credible than those that have undergone such exposure?
Commentary On Bailin & Battersby, Thomas J. Hynes Jr
Commentary On Bailin & Battersby, Thomas J. Hynes Jr
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Van Belle, Raymie E. Mckerrow
Commentary On Van Belle, Raymie E. Mckerrow
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
No News Is Good News, Or The Appeal Of Controversy, Hilde Van Belle
No News Is Good News, Or The Appeal Of Controversy, Hilde Van Belle
OSSA Conference Archive
One of the strategies journalists use to attract their audience towards a news item is the suggestion of controversy. The terms by which issues are created influences the way discussions evolve. I will examine how such controversies can be part of an argumentative situation, and I will examine whether any evaluation standard can be developed in this matter. The style figure antithesis, as it is explored in Jeanne Fahnestock’s work, is a useful tool in considering invention, form and function of controversy and opposition.
Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Aspect Of Argumentation, Lilian Bermejo-Luque
Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Aspect Of Argumentation, Lilian Bermejo-Luque
OSSA Conference Archive
Following Rescher’s (1977) conception of dialectics, I argue for the view that the dialectical aspect of argumentation enables a “second order intersubjectivity”, to be understood in terms of the recursive nature of the activity of giving and asking for reasons. This feature underlies that most argumentative discourses represent the explicit part of a dynamic activity, “a mechanism of rational validation” (Rescher, 1977: xiii) which presupposes the possibility of attaining objectivity.
Commentary On Bermejo-Luque, James B. Freeman
Commentary On Bermejo-Luque, James B. Freeman
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Rights, Reasoning, And Dissensus, Chris Campolo
Rights, Reasoning, And Dissensus, Chris Campolo
OSSA Conference Archive
The recent proliferation of rights claims within our moral and political debates poses a threat to our reasoning skills. Rights claims often represent bids to name common ground, and we risk harm to our reasoning skills when we attempt to address dissensus by searching for common ground.
Commentary On Blair, David Hitchcock
The “Logic” Of Informal Logic, J Anthony Blair
The “Logic” Of Informal Logic, J Anthony Blair
OSSA Conference Archive
Are there any logical norms for argument evaluation besides soundness and inductive strength? The paper will look at several concepts or models introduced over the years, including those of Wisdom, Toulmin, Wellman, Rescher, defeasible reasoning proponents and Walton to consider whether there is common ground among them that supplies an alternative to deductive validity and inductive strength.
Commentary On Campolo, Jerome E. Bickenbach
Commentary On Campolo, Jerome E. Bickenbach
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Is Common Ground A Word Or Just A Sound? Second Order Consensus And Argumentation Theory, Paola Cantu, Italo Testa
Is Common Ground A Word Or Just A Sound? Second Order Consensus And Argumentation Theory, Paola Cantu, Italo Testa
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper focuses on the role played by the concept of Common Ground by investigating various roles played by consensus and dissensus in different argumentation theories. A dynamic conception of Common Ground as a second order consensus will be invoked instead of a static definition as starting point, condition or result of an argumentative practice.
Commentary On Cantu & Testa, Moira Kloster
Commentary On Cantu & Testa, Moira Kloster
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Common Ground And Argument By Indirection In Two Seventeenth-Century Sermons, Claudia M. Carlos
Common Ground And Argument By Indirection In Two Seventeenth-Century Sermons, Claudia M. Carlos
OSSA Conference Archive
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet's sermon to Louis XIV on the "Devoirs des rois" (1662) and John Donne's sermon to Queen Anne at Denmark House (1617) are both texts that offer indirect critiques of their royal audiences--critiques which, if stated more bluntly, might be politically dangerous to the respective speakers. What makes such oblique criticism "safe" and what ultimately makes it understood? The answer lies in the rhetor's ability to build common ground with the audience.
Commentary On Carlos, M A. Van Rees
Dissent In The Midst Of Emotional Territory, Linda Carozza
Dissent In The Midst Of Emotional Territory, Linda Carozza
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper expands Gilbert’s emotional mode of argumentation (1997). First, general concerns with arguments that stray from the traditional approach are addressed. Then a classification system for different types of emotional arguments is developed. Some of the criteria that help determine emotional arguments include dialogue types, arguers involved, as well as the use of emotion.
Commentary On Carozza, Charles V. Blatz
Commentary On Ceron, Hilde Van Belle
A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis Of The Argumentative Discourse In Children, Gladys Ceron
A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis Of The Argumentative Discourse In Children, Gladys Ceron
OSSA Conference Archive
This is a research that describes and analyses the argumentative discourse in children from the second level of primary education in Chile. The corpus chosen are recordings from classes at each level (5th - 8th) at a school in Santiago. The argumentative segments of the corpus were isolated and classified according to the pragma-dialectical schemes and types of argument. It was observed that the classes analyzed were appropriate scenarios to develop a reflexive, open, tolerant and respectful dialogue.
Commentary On Cheng, Ruth Amossy
Undoing Common Ground: Argumentation In Self-Help Books, Martha S. Cheng
Undoing Common Ground: Argumentation In Self-Help Books, Martha S. Cheng
OSSA Conference Archive
Doxa have been central in theories of rhetorical persuasiveness since ancient times. Modern self-help books systematically undermine doxa in order to persuade readers to alter their behavior and their view of themselves. This paper investigates the method by which two best-selling self-help authors undo doxa. It finds that they use one type of doxa, generalized patterns of reasoning (topoi koinoi) to subvert another type of doxa, specific cultural or personal beliefs.
Prolepsis: Dealing With Multiple Viewpoints In Argument, Patrick Clauss
Prolepsis: Dealing With Multiple Viewpoints In Argument, Patrick Clauss
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper examines the argumentation strategy prolepsis: anticipating and subsequently responding to an argument before it has been made. Although prolepsis is common to a variety of arguments, it seems insufficiently studied or understood—or, worse, misunderstood as simply a “feint.” Drawing on scholarship in rhetorical theory and cognitive and social psychology, I offer a new understanding of prolepsis, recognizing the technique’s potential in argumentative discourse—especially in the search for “common ground.”
Virtue Epistemology And Argumentation Theory, Daniel H. Cohen
Virtue Epistemology And Argumentation Theory, Daniel H. Cohen
OSSA Conference Archive
Virtue epistemology (VE) was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about by argumentation.