Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Piggybacking In? A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Argumentation Schemes, Harmony Peach Jun 2020

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. Jun 2020

Commentary On Jens Kjeldsen’S “What Makes Us Change Our Minds In Everyday Life?”, Harry Weger Jr.

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott Jun 2020

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 Jun 2020

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.


Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin Jun 2020

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.


Commentary On: Michael Gilbert’S “Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis”, Jean Goodwin Jun 2020

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.


Institutional And Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments, Menno H. Reijven Jun 2020

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 Jun 2020

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 Jun 2020

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.