Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- N/A (99)
- Argumentation (22)
- Rhetoric (9)
- Argument (8)
- Critical thinking (7)
-
- Virtue (7)
- Pragma-dialectics (5)
- Deliberation (4)
- Democracy (4)
- Fallacy (4)
- Logic (4)
- Audience (3)
- Defeasible (3)
- Dialectic (3)
- Relevance (3)
- Strategic manoeuvring (3)
- Sufficiency (3)
- Trust (3)
- Warrant (3)
- Ad hominem (2)
- Advocacy (2)
- Argumentation theory (2)
- Argumentative pattern (2)
- Backing (2)
- Cognitive biases (2)
- Decision (2)
- Deep disagreement (2)
- Defeasibility (2)
- Dialogue (2)
- Epistemology (2)
Articles 1 - 30 of 194
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Integrating Natural Language Processing And Pragmatic Argumentation Theories For Argumentation Support, Mark Aaknus, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder
Integrating Natural Language Processing And Pragmatic Argumentation Theories For Argumentation Support, Mark Aaknus, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder
OSSA Conference Archive
Natural language processing (NLP) research and design that aims to model and detect opposition in text for the purpose of opinion classification, sentiment analysis, and meeting tracking, generally excludes the interactional, pragmatic aspects of online text. We propose that a promising direction for NLP is to incorporate the insights of pragmatic, dialectical theories of argumentation to more fully exploit the potential of NLP to offer sound, robust systems for various kinds of argumentation support.
Don't Feed The Trolls: Straw Men And Iron Men, Scott Aikin, John Casey
Don't Feed The Trolls: Straw Men And Iron Men, Scott Aikin, John Casey
OSSA Conference Archive
The straw man fallacy consists in inappropriately constructing or selecting weak (or comparatively weaker) versions of the opposition's arguments. We will survey the three forms of straw men recognized in the literature, the straw, weak, and hollow man. We will then make the case that there are examples of inappropriately reconstructing stronger versions of the opposition's arguments. Such cases we will call iron man fallacies.
Commentary On: Andrew Aberdein's "Fallacy And Argumentational Vice", Maurice A. Finocchiaro
Commentary On: Andrew Aberdein's "Fallacy And Argumentational Vice", Maurice A. Finocchiaro
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Commentary On: Scott Aikin And John Casey's "Don't Feed The Trolls: Straw Men And Iron Men", James B. Freeman
Commentary On: Scott Aikin And John Casey's "Don't Feed The Trolls: Straw Men And Iron Men", James B. Freeman
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Fallacy And Argumentational Vice, Andrew Aberdein
Fallacy And Argumentational Vice, Andrew Aberdein
OSSA Conference Archive
If good argument is virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of fallacies to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through case studies of several fallacies, with particular emphasis on the ad hominem.
Commentary On: Anne-Maren Andersen's "Pistis - The Common Ethos?", Paul Van Den Hoven
Commentary On: Anne-Maren Andersen's "Pistis - The Common Ethos?", Paul Van Den Hoven
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Pistis - The Common Ethos?, Anne-Maren Andersen
Pistis - The Common Ethos?, Anne-Maren Andersen
OSSA Conference Archive
The classical Greek term pistis (trust) is presented as a relevant norm in the analysis of parliamentary debate. Through exploration of pistis apparent similarities to the term ethos have appeared. It is proposed that pistis can be viewed as the equivalent to ethos, concerning the common space or connection between the speaker and the audience. Tentatively "truth", "faith" and "respect" are proposed as the elements equivalent to phronesis, areté and eunoia.
Response To My Commentator, Anne-Maren Andersen
Dialectic Of/Or Agitation? Rethinking Argumentative Virtues In Proletarian Elocution, Satoru Aonuma
Dialectic Of/Or Agitation? Rethinking Argumentative Virtues In Proletarian Elocution, Satoru Aonuma
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper explores the possible rapprochement between Marxism and argumentation attempted in Proletarian Elocution, a 1930 Japanese publication. Against a Western Marxist commonplace that “[a]s far as rhetoric is concerned,… a Marxist must be in a certain sense a Platonist” (Eagleton, 1981), the paper discusses how this work seeks to takes advantage of the inquiry and advocacy dimensions of argumentation for the Marxian strategy of “agitprop” and rearticulate it as part of civic virtues.
Commentary On: Satoru Aonuma's "Dialectic Of/Or Agitation? Rethinking Argumentative Virtues In Proletarian Elocution", Jeff Noonan
Commentary On: Satoru Aonuma's "Dialectic Of/Or Agitation? Rethinking Argumentative Virtues In Proletarian Elocution", Jeff Noonan
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Virtuous Argumentation And The Challenges Of Hype, Adam Auch
Virtuous Argumentation And The Challenges Of Hype, Adam Auch
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, I consider the virtue of proportionality in relation to reasoning in what I call ‘hype contexts’ (contexts in which otherwise perfectly temperate claims take on an outsized or inappropriate importance, simply due to their ubiquity). I conclude that a virtuous arguer is one that neither accepts nor rejects a claim based on its ubiquity alone, but who evaluates its importance with reference to the social context in which it is made.
Response To My Commentator, Adam Auch
Commentary On: Adam Auch's "Virtuous Argumentation And The Challenges Of Hype", Ralph H. Johnson
Commentary On: Adam Auch's "Virtuous Argumentation And The Challenges Of Hype", Ralph H. Johnson
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Identifying Argumentative Acts Within The Classroom Amongst Engineering Students, Juan Fernando Barros-Martinez
Identifying Argumentative Acts Within The Classroom Amongst Engineering Students, Juan Fernando Barros-Martinez
OSSA Conference Archive
Students’ arguments surrounding a scientific topic are analyzed. This analysis comes from research developed in the classroom where dialogic interaction was promoted. The purpose of this study has not only been to identify argumentative elements used by students during the sessions but principally to the process of discussion. Three different ways have been proposed for this analysis: speech acts, acts of argumentative process and acts of learning process, with the intention of establishing relationships between them.
Critical Thinking And Cognitive Biases, Mark Battersby, Sharon Bailin
Critical Thinking And Cognitive Biases, Mark Battersby, Sharon Bailin
OSSA Conference Archive
We argue that psychological research can enhance the identification of reasoning errors and the development of an appropriate pedagogy to instruct people in how to avoid these errors. In this paper we identify some of the findings of psychologists that help explain some common fallacies, give examples of fallacies identified in the research that have not been typically identified in philosophy, and explore ways in which this research can enhance critical thinking instruction.
Considering The Roles Of Values In Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation, Michael D. Baumtrog
Considering The Roles Of Values In Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation, Michael D. Baumtrog
OSSA Conference Archive
Building upon the role values take in Walton’s theory of practical reasoning, this paper will frame the question of how values should be evaluated into the broader question of what reasonable practical argumentation is. The thesis argued for is that if a positive evaluation of practical reasoning argumentation requires that the argument avoid a morally negative conclusion, then the role of values should be given a central, rather than supportive, position in practical argument evaluation.
Commentary On: Mark Battersby And Sharon Bailin's "Critical Thinking And Cognitive Biases", Frank Zenker
Commentary On: Mark Battersby And Sharon Bailin's "Critical Thinking And Cognitive Biases", Frank Zenker
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Commentary On: Michael Baumtrog's "Considering The Roles Of Values In Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation, Chris Campolo
Commentary On: Michael Baumtrog's "Considering The Roles Of Values In Practical Reasoning Argumentation Evaluation, Chris Campolo
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista
Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, I identify two sets of practical values of argumentation from a standpoint that places a premium on maximal participatory democracy. The first set includes pedagogical values for both teachers and learners. The second set of values are transformative and include: facilitating openness as both tolerance and opportunity; facilitating understanding of one’s own positions, other’s positions, and the conceptual frameworks underlying them; and, finally, fostering motivation by encouraging action.
Commentary On: Laura M. Benacquista's "Some Practical Values Of Argumentation", Trudy Govier
Commentary On: Laura M. Benacquista's "Some Practical Values Of Argumentation", Trudy Govier
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Assessing Presumptions In Argumentation: Being A Sound Presumption Vs. Being Presumably The Case, Lilian Bermejo-Luque
Assessing Presumptions In Argumentation: Being A Sound Presumption Vs. Being Presumably The Case, Lilian Bermejo-Luque
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper is an attempt to identify and provide the normative conditions for presumptions and for presumptive inferences. Basically, the idea is adopting the distinction between epistemic and ontological qualifiers proposed in Bermejo-Luque (2011) in order to explain the difference between something being a correct presumption and something being presumably the case.
Commentary On: Lilian Bermejo-Luque's "Assessing Presumptions In Argumentation: Being A Sound Presumpion Vs. Being Presumably The Case", Fred J. Kauffeld
Commentary On: Lilian Bermejo-Luque's "Assessing Presumptions In Argumentation: Being A Sound Presumpion Vs. Being Presumably The Case", Fred J. Kauffeld
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Are Conductive Arguments Really Not Possible?, J. Anthony Blair
Are Conductive Arguments Really Not Possible?, J. Anthony Blair
OSSA Conference Archive
In “Are conductive arguments possible?” Jonathan Adler argued that conductive argu-ments (those balancing considerations for a claim, C, against counter-considerations against C) are not possible because they are committed to two incompatible propositions: (I) C is reached without nullifying the counter-considerations; (II) C is accepted is true, which issues in belief, so C is detached from these premises. This paper offers an analysis and an assessment of Adler’s case for his thesis.
Commentary On: Patrick Bondy's "The Epistemic Approach To Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments", Bruce Russell
Commentary On: Patrick Bondy's "The Epistemic Approach To Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments", Bruce Russell
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Commentary On: J. Anthony Blair's "Are Conductive Arguments Really Not Possible?", Yun Xie, Min Ghui Xiong
Commentary On: J. Anthony Blair's "Are Conductive Arguments Really Not Possible?", Yun Xie, Min Ghui Xiong
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
The Epistemic Approach To Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments, Patrick Bondy
The Epistemic Approach To Argument Evaluation: Virtues, Beliefs, Commitments, Patrick Bondy
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper will have two parts. In the first, it will point out the agreement between lists of paradigm epistemic and argumentative virtues, and it will take that agreement as prima facie support for the epistemic approach to argument evaluation. Second, it will consider the disagreement over whether successful argument resolution requires change of belief or whether it only requires change of commitment. It turns out that the epistemic approach is neutral on that question.
Commentary On: David Botting's "Interpretative Dilemmas", John Casey
Commentary On: David Botting's "Interpretative Dilemmas", John Casey
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Commentary On: Tracy Bowell And Justine Kingsbury's "Critical Thinking And The Argumentational And Epistemic Virtues", Donald Hatcher
Commentary On: Tracy Bowell And Justine Kingsbury's "Critical Thinking And The Argumentational And Epistemic Virtues", Donald Hatcher
OSSA Conference Archive
N/A
Interpretative Dilemmas, David Botting
Interpretative Dilemmas, David Botting
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper I claim that the reason we are reluctant to call many informal fallacies fallacies of relevance is because we can interpret them as providing contextual information about how the argument is to be interpreted. This interpretative dilemma is that the logical form is determined in part by whether the analyst wishes to be charitable to the proponent or the opponent. The evaluation of the argument is nonetheless purely logical.
Critical Thinking And The Argumentational And Epistemic Virtues, Tracy Bowell, Justine Kingsbury
Critical Thinking And The Argumentational And Epistemic Virtues, Tracy Bowell, Justine Kingsbury
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper we argue that while a full-blown virtue-theoretical account of argumentation is implausible, there is scope for augmenting a conventional account of argument by taking a character-oriented turn. We then discuss the characteristics of the good epistemic citizen, and consider approaches to nurturing these characteristics in critical thinking students, in the hope of addressing the problem of lack of transfer of critical thinking skills to the world outside the classroom.