Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Amounts to there being a presumption in favor of the premise. We have also argued that presumption is dependent on the sources which have vouched for a statement. We have further claimed that whether a source's vouching for a statement creates a presumption for it depends in part on what type of statement is being vouched for. Suppose a proponent P vouches for both of these statements: "There is a red apple on the window sill." "Horatio placed the red apple on the window sill to show his love for Ophelia." Intuitively (1)
- And Kruger (1)
- And necessary statements as the basic types of statement. We shall also give accounts of the distinguishing features of each type. In doing this (1)
- And proposed criteria for distinguishing types of statements involve serious philosophical difficulties. Building on the work of Sproule (1)
- And that part of the explanation consists in pointing out that the first statement is a description while the second is an interpretation. But this brings us to the issue of what types of statements are there and how we distinguish them. The field of rhetoric known as stasis theory addresses these issues. However (1)
-
- Broadly speaking (1)
- But not for the first. I believe we can explain why this is the case (1)
- Different rhetoricians give different typologies of statements (1)
- Evaluations (1)
- Fahnestock and Secor (1)
- Interpretations (1)
- There is an air of controversiality or at least questionability about the second statement which does not apply to the first. We are inclined to ask for evidence for the second statement (1)
- We have argued that premise acceptability (1)
- We shall be giving a philosophical explication of these distinctions from stasis theory. We shall conclude by showing how this account of the various types of statements fits into an overall account of premise acceptability. (1)
- We shall distinguish descriptions (1)
- We shall present a specific typology of statements. In particular (1)
Articles 31 - 60 of 114
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Commentary On Bailenson & Rips, Stuart M. Keeley
Commentary On Bailenson & Rips, Stuart M. Keeley
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
The Limits Of The Dialogue Model Of Argument, J Anthony Blair
The Limits Of The Dialogue Model Of Argument, J Anthony Blair
OSSA Conference Archive
The paper starts from scepticism that all argumentation is dialogical or that all dialogue types are argumentation. The hypothesis is that the concepts of dialectic and dialogue are not isomorphic, at least as applied to argumentation. The paper will cover: (a) a review of the conceptions of dialectic and of dialogue in the argumentation literature, (b) an analysis of these concepts, (c) a critical assessment of the limits of the discussion of dialogue as a model for argumentation (d) a discussion of alternative models of argumentation, (e) an exploration of the implications of the proposed models for the relation between …
Aristotle’S Treatment Of Fallacious Reasoning In Sophistical Refutations And Prior Analytics, George Boger
Aristotle’S Treatment Of Fallacious Reasoning In Sophistical Refutations And Prior Analytics, George Boger
OSSA Conference Archive
Aristotle studies syllogistic argumentation in Sophistical Refutations and Prior Analytics. In the latter he focuses on the formal and syntactic character of arguments and treats the sullogismoi and non-sullogismoi as argument patterns with valid or invalid instances. In the former Aristotle focuses on semantics and rhetoric to study apparent sullogismoi as object language arguments. Interpreters usually take Sophistical Refutations as considerably less mature than Prior Analytics. Our interpretation holds that the two works are more of a piece than previously believed and, indeed, that Aristotle's treatment of fallacious reasoning presupposes the results of the formal theory.
Perelman As Educational Facilitator: The Reals Of Rhetoric And The Acquisition Of Rational Discourse, Maged El Komos
Perelman As Educational Facilitator: The Reals Of Rhetoric And The Acquisition Of Rational Discourse, Maged El Komos
OSSA Conference Archive
The paper approaches current problems pertaining to university students' written and spoken communication by suggesting how thought and expression are rhetorical in nature. It then proposes that ideas in Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca's The New Rhetoric, and Perelman's The Realm of Rhetoric, are consistent with the view presented and suggests that they can serve as a means of developing the capacity for reasoned communication through an emphasis on the individual student's relation to discourse practices and communities.
The Soundness Of Pragmatic Argumentation: Does The End Justify The Means?, Feteris T. Eveline
The Soundness Of Pragmatic Argumentation: Does The End Justify The Means?, Feteris T. Eveline
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper addresses a specific form of argumentation, pragmatic argumentation, in which a certain action, choice or decision is justified by referring to the favourable consequences of the action (and the unfavourable consequences of the alternative action). The paper starts with a survey of the ideas on legal argumentation developed in argumentation theory, analytical philosophy and legal theory. The various ideas are brought together in a pragma-dialectical perspective in order to give a systematic survey of the various conceptions of pragmatic argumentation and to decide which further lines of research must be developed.
Commentary On Feteris, Leo Groarke
Commentary On Gordon, Robert J. Yanal
Arguing Forever? Or: Two Tiers Of Argument Appraisal, Trudy Govier
Arguing Forever? Or: Two Tiers Of Argument Appraisal, Trudy Govier
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper I explore Ralph Johnson's proposal that in addition to premises and conclusion every argument should have a dialectical tier in which the arguer addresses objections to the argument, and considers alternative positions. After exploring several reasons for thinking that Johnson's proposal is a good one, I then raise a number of objections against it and move ahead to respond to those objections, which I do by distinguishing making out a case for a conclusion from offering an argument for it, and distinguishing supplementary arguments (responding to objections and considering alternative positions) from one's main argument. I contend …
Commentary On Gratton, Joseph A. Novak
Presumptions And The Distribution Of Argumentative Burdens In Acts Of Proposing And Accusing, Fred Kauffeld
Presumptions And The Distribution Of Argumentative Burdens In Acts Of Proposing And Accusing, Fred Kauffeld
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper joins the voices warning against hasty transference of legal concepts of presumption to other kinds of argumentation, especially to deliberation about future acts and policies. Comparison of the pragmatics which respectively constitute the illocutionary acts of ACCUSING and PROPOSING reveals striking differences in the ways presumptions prompt accusers and proposers to undertake probative responsibilities and, also, points to corresponding differences in their probative duties. This comparison highlights significant contrasts between the way presumptions figure in legal reasoning as opposed to deliberation; the comparison also raises theoretically important questions about the norms governing persuasive argumentation. This paper is based …
Who Is Afraid Of Figure Of Speech?, Erik C W Krabbe
Who Is Afraid Of Figure Of Speech?, Erik C W Krabbe
OSSA Conference Archive
Aristotle's examples of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are not very convincing to the modern reader. Most fallacy theorists have been happy to omit this fallacy from their accounts. But a study of Figure of Speech will lead one to find connections with twentieth-century analytical philosophy, where the idea that the apparent form of a sentence need not be its real logical form has been prominent. Other interesting issues concern the boundary between ambiguity and invalidity and the use of profiles of dialogue to describe the dialectics of this fallacy.
Commentary On Mathie, Philippe Azzie
Commentary On Missimer, Christina Slade
Logic, Coherence And Psychology, Robert C. Pinto
Logic, Coherence And Psychology, Robert C. Pinto
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper will argue that (a) some notion of coherence and/or explanatory coherence is essential to understanding epistemic justification and to clarifying the rational support that our beliefs or commitments lend to each other, and that (b) the requisite notion of coherence cannot be fully explicated on the basis of logic and/or epistemology. Two candidates for explicating coherence will be examined: narrative coherence and the sort of coherence that obtains when gestalt closure is achieved. The paper will attempt to determine under what conditions acceptance that is determined or guided by these sorts of coherence can be construed as rational …
Ad Hominem Arguments, Lawrence H. Powers
Ad Hominem Arguments, Lawrence H. Powers
OSSA Conference Archive
Ad hominem arguments (in one sense) argue that some opponent should not be heard and no argument of that opponent should be heard or considered. The opponent has generally pernicious views, false and harmful. Moreover he is diabolically clever at arguing for his views. Thus, the ad hominem argument is essentially a device by which non-intellectuals try to wrest control of a dialectical situation from intellectuals. Stifling intellectuals, disrupting the dialectical situation, is an unpleasant conclusion, but no fallacy has been shown in what leads up to that conclusion.
Commentary On Ruhl, Jean Goodwin
From A Critical Point Of View: News As A Soap Opera, Christina Slade
From A Critical Point Of View: News As A Soap Opera, Christina Slade
OSSA Conference Archive
Traditionally reasoning skills have been taught through written examples, often anachronistic or artificial. However, students use television as their major source of information about the world and as the source of basic understanding of the world. Yet we rarely provide students with the skills directly to criticize and analyze television's world view. This paper reports on a project designed to teach reasoning through the critical analysis of real television products. News presentation is shown to be influenced by the stereotypes and oversimplification of the genre of soap opera, to the detriment of balance.
Commentary On Souder, Daniel H. Cohen
Commentary On Woods, Robert C. Pinto
Disputation By Design, Sally Jackson
Disputation By Design, Sally Jackson
OSSA Conference Archive
In normative pragmatics, a kind of empirical discourse analysis organized by normative theory, the analysis of any communication process begins with an idealized model of the discourse that can be compared with actual practices. Idealizations of argumentation can be found, among other places, in theoretical descriptions of 'critical discussion' and other dialogue types. Comparing ideal models with actual practices can pinpoint defects in the models (leading to theoretical refinements), but it can also identify deficiencies in practice. This latter possibility invites redesign around well-justified idealizations. This paper outlines an approach to the design of discourse processes and illustrates the approach …
Persuasive Definition, Andrew Aberdein
Persuasive Definition, Andrew Aberdein
OSSA Conference Archive
Charles Stevenson introduced the term 'persuasive definition' to describe a suspect form of moral argument 'which gives a new conceptual meaning to a familiar word without substantially changing its emotive meaning'. However, as Stevenson acknowledges, such a move can be employed legitimately. If persuasive definition is to be a useful notion, we shall need a criterion for identifying specifically illegitimate usage. I criticize a recent proposed criterion from Keith Burgess-Jackson and offer an alternative.
Commentary On Allen, Ralph H. Johnson
Claim Strength And Burden Of Proof, Jeremy Bailenson, Lance J. Rips
Claim Strength And Burden Of Proof, Jeremy Bailenson, Lance J. Rips
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper, we report results from experiments in which people read conversational arguments and then judge (a) the convincingness of each claim and (b) the individual speakers' burden of proof. The results showed an "anti-primacy" effect: People judge the speaker who makes the first claim as having greater burden of proof. This effect persists even when each speaker's claims are rated equally convincing. We also find that people rate claims less convincing when they appear in the first part of an argument than when they appear in isolation.
Commentary On Blair, Erik C W Krabbe
Commentary On Browne, Keeley & Hiers, Derek Allen
Commentary On Browne, Keeley & Hiers, Derek Allen
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Clauss, Jim Gough
Eunoia On The Internet?: Usenet Newsgroups And The Subversion Of Rationality, Patrick Claus
Eunoia On The Internet?: Usenet Newsgroups And The Subversion Of Rationality, Patrick Claus
OSSA Conference Archive
Using Edward Damer's discussion of effective argumentation principles and Douglas Walton's discussion of argumentation dialogues, I consider arguments from several Usenet newsgroups, the largest collection of Internet discussion groups. In unmoderated newsgroups, participants can engage in open discussions and debates. However, with no central authority, the argumentation in many Usenet groups often degenerates into anarchy. Presenting examples where participants ignore standards of rational conduct and subvert attempts at goal-directed argumentation, I raise questions about the rhetorical nature of an unstructured discourse community. I also consider what the examples reveal about spontaneous argumentation and electronic communication.
Should We Assess The Basic Premises Of An Argument For Truth Or Acceptability?, Derek Allen
Should We Assess The Basic Premises Of An Argument For Truth Or Acceptability?, Derek Allen
OSSA Conference Archive
In this paper I challenge the currently fashionable view that we should assess the basic premises of an argument for acceptability rather than for truth, and argue in favour of recognizing premise-truth as a criterion of argument goodness in one important sense and premise-acceptability as a criterion of argument goodness in another important sense.
Commentary On Cohen, Michael Leff
Legal And Philosophical Fictions: At The Line Where The Two Become One, Michael G. Dzialo
Legal And Philosophical Fictions: At The Line Where The Two Become One, Michael G. Dzialo
OSSA Conference Archive
Anti-foundationalism is a central topic in recent legal scholarship. The critical legal studies movement (CLS) has mounted a strong challenge to the traditional belief that legal materials (constitutions, statutes, and precedents) determine legal outcomes and constrain judicial decisionmaking. This scholarship has overlooked, however, the degree to which the debate between traditional legal determinacy and anti-foundational indeterminacy is yet another manifestation of a continuous debate in Western thought—one that has its roots in pre-Socratic rhetoric and philosophy. My presentation traces the indeterminacy thesis back to the contest of ideas between Protagoras and Plato. I examine two well-known and related Protagorean notions: …