Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Arts and Humanities (13)
- Philosophy (13)
- Communication (11)
- Speech and Rhetorical Studies (6)
- Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (1)
-
- Cognitive Psychology (1)
- Computer Sciences (1)
- Critical and Cultural Studies (1)
- Education (1)
- Film and Media Studies (1)
- Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication (1)
- Higher Education (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Other Film and Media Studies (1)
- Other Legal Studies (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Politics and Social Change (1)
- Psychology (1)
- Rhetoric (1)
- Rhetoric and Composition (1)
- Social Influence and Political Communication (1)
- Sociology (1)
- Sociology of Culture (1)
- Theory and Algorithms (1)
- Keyword
-
- Rhetoric (3)
- Adherence (2)
- Argument (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Informal logic (2)
-
- Analogy (1)
- Argumentation schemes (1)
- Assertion (1)
- Black box (1)
- Cassin (1)
- Consolation (1)
- Controversy (1)
- Critical discourse analysis (1)
- Critical thinking (1)
- Dunning-Kruger (1)
- Duration (1)
- Education (1)
- Epideictic (1)
- Epistemic injustice (1)
- Expertise (1)
- Fallacies (1)
- Fallacy (1)
- Gender (1)
- Health reasoning (1)
- Humanities (1)
- Ignorance (1)
- Inference methods (1)
- Informal Logic (journal) (1)
- Informal Logic Newsletter (1)
- Informal logic movement (1)
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
Piggybacking In? A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Argumentation Schemes, Harmony Peach
Piggybacking In? A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Argumentation Schemes, Harmony Peach
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, Douglas Walton’s Argumentation Schemes and corresponding critical questions are taken through Thomas Huckin’s (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis in order to further demonstrate that a schematic-pragmatic approach to argument evaluation needs to account for bias in and of itself. Building on the work of Audrey Yap (2013, 2015) and Ciurria and Al Tamini (2014) which demonstrates how the schemes have not addressed, and may even intensify, various disadvantages people with systemic identity prejudices face, Huckin’s approach offers additional nuance as to how these concerns can be exacerbated by the schemes. As the schemes have been devised through observations …
Commentary On Jens Kjeldsen’S “What Makes Us Change Our Minds In Everyday Life?”, Harry Weger Jr.
Commentary On Jens Kjeldsen’S “What Makes Us Change Our Minds In Everyday Life?”, Harry Weger Jr.
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On "The Problem Of Mission Creep", Curtis Scott Jacobs
Commentary On "The Problem Of Mission Creep", Curtis Scott Jacobs
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary: Peitho And The Consolation Of Philosophy: A Reply To Blake D. Scott, G Thomas Goodnight
Commentary: Peitho And The Consolation Of Philosophy: A Reply To Blake D. Scott, G Thomas Goodnight
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott
Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott
OSSA Conference Archive
In “Three Perspectives on Argument,” Wenzel argued that scholars should orient their research around the well-known triad of rhetorical, dialectical, and logical perspectives on argument. Despite the success of Wenzel’s triad in orienting pluralistic research, he nonetheless maintained that an “eventual synthesis” of the three perspectives was both possible and desirable. In this paper I reconsider Wenzel’s idea by asking what might be preventing such a synthesis today. I argue that one obstacle to this is a common philosophical assumption about rhetoric that opposes assertion to persuasion, truth to effectiveness. Following Barbara Cassin, I challenge this assumption and consider how …
Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior In The 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates, Harry Weger Jr., John S. Seiter
Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior In The 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates, Harry Weger Jr., John S. Seiter
OSSA Conference Archive
The purpose of our paper is to explore the gendered double-bind in political communication. Research by argumentation scholars and others point to a double standard in media portrayals of nonverbal behavior by male and female politicians. Our analysis will rely on primarily strategic maneuvering to examine closely the ways in which gender stereotypes were enacted by U.S. Presidential candidates during televised debates in 2016.
Evidence In Health Controversies, Sally Jackson
Evidence In Health Controversies, Sally Jackson
OSSA Conference Archive
Health controversies involve the now-familiar complexities of polylogue: multiple positions, multiple players, and multiple places. A vexing issue that cuts across many health topics is what counts as evidence. Several different expert fields may each try to enforce their own evidence standards, and lay participants (whose well-being depends on any expert consensus that may form) often bring their own distinctive forms of evidence. This presentation examines disagreements over evidence within a series of case studies.
Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin
Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
In this cogent paper, Wang urges argumentation theorists to pay attention to the myriad things that are happening whenever someone makes an argument. To do this he updates and extends the classical rhetorical cannon of style. He documents the importance of argumentative style through a case study of deep disagreement, showing how one arguer’s choices served to reconstruct an otherwise abusive situation. I urge him to continue the project by providing an equally cogent account of explaining why an arguer’s stylistic choices lead to the desired audience’s response.
Assessing Evidence Relevance By Disallowing Assessment, John Licato, Michael Cooper
Assessing Evidence Relevance By Disallowing Assessment, John Licato, Michael Cooper
OSSA Conference Archive
Guidelines for assessing whether potential evidence is relevant to some argument tend to rely on criteria that are subject to well-known biasing effects. We describe a framework for argumentation that does not allow participants to directly decide whether evidence is potentially relevant to an argument---instead, evidence must prove its relevance through demonstration. This framework, called WG-A, is designed to translate into a dialogical game playable by minimally trained participants.
Commentary On: Michael Gilbert’S “Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis”, Jean Goodwin
Commentary On: Michael Gilbert’S “Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis”, Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
If the goal to inquire into, understand, and respond to what it for someone to be “anti-vax,” the concept of fallacy seems the wrong tool to pick up.
Commentary On: Linda Carozza’S “Diversity, Conflict, And (Dis)Agreement”, Sally Jackson
Commentary On: Linda Carozza’S “Diversity, Conflict, And (Dis)Agreement”, Sally Jackson
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Developing Critical Thinking With Rhetorical Pedagogy, Elizabeth Ismail
Developing Critical Thinking With Rhetorical Pedagogy, Elizabeth Ismail
OSSA Conference Archive
The development of critical thinking skills is emphasized as a fundamental attribute of successful graduates (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005; Willingham, 2008). Some critical thinking textbooks inform students to “see beyond the rhetoric to the core idea being stated” (Moore and Parker, 2009, p. 21); however, other scholars have begun to suggest that rhetoric is intrinsically interrelated to critical thinking and plays a pivotal role in everyday interactions (Saki, 2016). This paper explores the later.
Institutional And Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments, Menno H. Reijven
Institutional And Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments, Menno H. Reijven
OSSA Conference Archive
To improve argumentative discourse, it is necessary to make fallacy judgments which take into consideration the social practice in which argumentation occurs. In this paper, I propose four meta-categories for fallacies to study the connection of fallacies to their institutionalized discourse. Using the first 2016 U.S. Presidential Debate as a case study, I show how this framework can be used to propose improvements to argumentative contexts.
Canadian Infrastructure For A “Canadian School” Of Informal Logic And Argumentation, Takuzo Konishi
Canadian Infrastructure For A “Canadian School” Of Informal Logic And Argumentation, Takuzo Konishi
OSSA Conference Archive
This article comments on Federico Puppo's position that a 'Canadian' school of argumentation exists. Based upon archival research, oral history interviews and published documents on the informal logic movement in the 1970s and 1980s, it is argued that Canadian infrastructure for informal logic and argumentation existed, in which a Canadian school of argumentation could exist.
Harmony In Diversity. On The (Possible) Existence Of ‘The Canadian School Of Argumentation’, Federico Puppo
Harmony In Diversity. On The (Possible) Existence Of ‘The Canadian School Of Argumentation’, Federico Puppo
OSSA Conference Archive
By looking at the birth and evolution of the informal logic movement, and by clarifying which kind of relations in a diversity we need in order to understand what “school” means, we would like to consider the hypothesis that there is something which could be called ‘the Canadian school of argumentation’ or, at least, of a Canadian tradition amongst those that make up the greater field of the study of argumentation.