Switch to: References

Citations of:

Argumentation Schemes

Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press (2008)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Correspondence Between Th Pragma-Dialectical Disussion Model and the Argument Interchange Format.Jacky Visser, Floris Bex, Chris Reed & Bart Garssen - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components.Eddo Rigotti & Sara Greco Morasso - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):489-512.
    This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics, we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT’s denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and methodological perspective (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • An Argumentative Approach to “Framing”. Framing, Deliberation and Action in an Environmental Conflict.Isabela Fairclough & Irina Diana Madroane - 2020 - Co-herencia 17 (32):119-158.
    This article proposes a new theorization of the concept of framing or framework, in which the argumentation plays a fundamental role. When we talk about making decisions, framing a matter involves offering the audience a prominent and therefore possibly paramount premise in a deliberative process that allows to substantiate as much of the decision as the action. The analysis focuses on the case of The Public Policy Controversy, which, over the years, became a socio-environmental movement and which, in September 2013, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Debts, Oligarchies, and Holisms: Deconstructing the Fallacy of Composition.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):143-174.
    This is a critical appreciation of Govier’s 2006 ISSA keynote address on the fallacy of composition, and of economists’ writings on this fallacy in economics. I argue that the “fallacy of composition” is a problematical concept, because it does not denote a distinctive kind of argument but rather a plurality, and does not constitute a distinctive kind of error, but rather reduces to oversimplification in arguing from micro to macro. Finally, I propose further testing of this claim based on examples (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-Disciplinary Guide.Marcello Guarini, Amy Butchart, Paul Simard Smith & Andrei Moldovan - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (2):84-197.
    Work on analogy has been done from a number of disciplinary perspectives throughout the history of Western thought. This work is a multidisciplinary guide to theorizing about analogy. It contains 1,406 references, primarily to journal articles and monographs, and primarily to English language material. classical through to contemporary sources are included. The work is classified into eight different sections (with a number of subsections). A brief introduction to each section is provided. Keywords and key expressions of importance to research on (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (1):322-350.
    To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What's in a Good Argument About Evaluative Claims? Argumentation in Accountability Practices.Mohammed Dima - unknown
    What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature. The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments.H. M. Wagemans Jean - unknown
    The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (3):203-228.
    The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the relationship between persuasive definition and common knowledge (propositions generally accepted and not subject to dispute in a discussion). We interpret the gap between common knowledge and persuasive definition (PD) in terms of potential disagreements: PDs are conceived as implicit arguments to win a potential conflict. Persuasive definitions are analyzed as arguments instantiating two argumentation schemes, argument from classification and argument from values, and presupposing a potential disagreement. The argumentative structure of (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Criticism in Need of Clarification.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):401-423.
    It furthers the dialectic when the opponent is clear about what motivates and underlies her critical stance, even if she does not adopt an opposite standpoint, but merely doubts the proponent’s opinion. Thus, there is some kind of burden of criticism. In some situations, there should an obligation for the opponent to offer explanatory counterconsiderations, if requested, whereas in others, there is no real dialectical obligation, but a mere responsibility for the opponent to cooperate by providing her motivations for being (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On Arguments From Ignorance.Martin David Hinton - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (2):184-212.
    The purpose of this paper is twofold: to give a good account of the argument from ignorance, with a presumptive argumentation scheme, and to raise issues on the work of Walton, the nature of abduction and the concept of epistemic closure. First, I offer a brief disambiguation of how the terms 'argument from ignorance' and 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' are used. Second, I show how attempts to embellish this form of reasoning by Douglas Walton and A.J. Kreider have been unnecessary and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Developing Argumentation Strategies in Electronic Dialogs: Is Modeling Effective?Fabrizio Macagno, Elizabeth Mayweg-Paus & Deanna Kuhn - 2015 - Discourse Processes 53 (4):280-297.
    The study presented here examines how interacting with a more capable interlocutor influences use of argumentation strategies in electronic discourse. To address this question, 54 young adolescents participating in an intervention centered on electronic peer dialogs were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control condition. In both conditions, pairs who held the same position on a social issue engaged in a series of electronic dialogs with pairs who held an opposing position. In the experimental condition, in some dialogs, unbeknownst (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (3):309-332.
    The classification of a state of affairs under a legal category can be considered as a kind of con- densed decision that can be made explicit, analyzed, and assessed us- ing argumentation schemes. In this paper, the controversial conflict of opinions concerning the nature of “marriage” in Obergefell v. Hodges is analyzed pointing out the dialecti- cal strategies used for addressing the interpretive doubts. The dispute about the same-sex couples’ right to marry hides a much deeper disa- greement not only (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Argument and Medicine: A Model of Reasoning for Clinical Practice.Kara Gilbert & Gordon Whyte - unknown
    In a doctor-linguist collaboration, a framework of reasoning in clinical contexts is presented. Arguments used for inquiry, justification and persuasion are sketched in diagnosis, counselling, and management settings integral to everyday clinical practice thereby extending the diagnostic function typically associated with clinical reasoning per se. A system of logic, a method of persuasive orientation, and a synthesis of negotiation in dialogue are then elaborated to illustrate the complexity of argument practice in medical culture.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Epistemology, Pedagogy, Assessment and Learning Analytics.Simon Knight, Simon Buckingham Shum & Karen Littleton - 2013 - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge.
    There is a well-established literature examining the relationships between epistemology (the nature of knowledge), pedagogy (the nature of learning and teaching), and assessment. Learning Analytics (LA) is a new assessment technology and should engage with this literature since it has implications for when and why different LA tools might be deployed. This paper discusses these issues, relating them to an example construct, epistemic beliefs – beliefs about the nature of knowledge – for which analytics grounded in pragmatic, sociocultural theory might (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Probabilistic Analysis of Argument Cogency.David Godden & Frank Zenker - 2018 - Synthese 195 (4):1715-1740.
    This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Assessing Relevance.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Lingua 210:42-64.
    This paper advances an approach to relevance grounded on patterns of material inference called argumentation schemes, which can account for the reconstruction and the evaluation of relevance relations. In order to account for relevance in different types of dialogical contexts, pursuing also non-cognitive goals, and measuring the scalar strength of relevance, communicative acts are conceived as dialogue moves, whose coherence with the previous ones or the context is represented as the conclusion of steps of material inferences. Such inferences are described (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Causal Argument.Ulrike Hahn, Frank Zenker & Roland Bluhm - 2017 - In Michael R. Waldmann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 475-494.
    In this chapter, we outline the range of argument forms involving causation that can be found in everyday discourse. We also survey empirical work concerned with the generation and evaluation of such arguments. This survey makes clear that there is presently no unified body of research concerned with causal argument. We highlight the benefits of a unified treatment both for those interested in causal cognition and those interested in argumentation, and identify the key challenges that must be met for a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning.Fabrizio Macagno & Benedetta Zavatta - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):453-488.
    Metaphorical meaning can be analyzed as triggered by an apparent communicative breach, an incongruity that leads to a default of the presumptive interpretation of a vehicle. This breach can be solved through contextual renegotiations of meaning guided by the communicative intention, or rather the presumed purpose of the metaphorical utterance. This paper addresses the problem of analyzing the complex process of reasoning underlying the reconstruction of metaphorical meaning. This process will be described as a type of abductive argument, aimed at (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Narration as Argument.Paula Olmos (ed.) - 2017 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    In this paper I explore the possibilities of acknowledging the argumentative character of narration. Two basic models will be revised: 1) primary narratives, regarding issues and facts under discussion, which may work as implicit arguments about the coincidence between discourse and reality via their own internal plausibility and 2) secondary narratives, imaginatively inserted in discourse, and serving as evidence for diverse lines of analogical or exemplary argumentation.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Argumentation Schemes and Communities of Argumentational Practice.Andrew Aberdein - 2009 - In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. OSSA.
    Is it possible to distinguish communities of arguers by tracking the argumentation schemes they employ? There are many ways of relating schemes to communities, but not all are productive. Attention must be paid not only to the admissibility of schemes within a community of argumentational practice, but also to their comparative frequency. Two examples are discussed: informal mathematics, a convenient source of well-documented argumentational practice, and anthropological evidence of nonstandard reasoning.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • A Simple Theory of Argument Schemes.Geoff Goddu - 2021 - Informal Logic 41 (4):539-578.
    While there has been in depth discussion of many particular argumentation schemes, some lament that there is little to no theory underpinning the notion of an argumentation scheme. Here I shall argue against the utility of argument schemes, at least as a fundamental part of a complete theory of arguments. I shall also present and defend a minimalist theory of their nature—a scheme is just a set of proposition expressions and propositional functions. While simple, the theory contravenes several typical desiderata (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Argument of Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.) - 2013 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Written by experts in the field, this volume presents a comprehensive investigation into the relationship between argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematical practice. Argumentation theory studies reasoning and argument, and especially those aspects not addressed, or not addressed well, by formal deduction. The philosophy of mathematical practice diverges from mainstream philosophy of mathematics in the emphasis it places on what the majority of working mathematicians actually do, rather than on mathematical foundations. -/- The book begins by first challenging the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Implicatures and Hierarchies of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (University of Windsor, ON 18-21 May 2011). OSSA. pp. 1-17.
    Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Fallacies in the Historiography of Generative Linguistics.András Kertész - 2019 - Foundations of Science 24 (4):775-801.
    The paper relates two different fields of research: the historiography of generative linguistics and argumentation theory, a central topic of which is the investigation of fallacies. Relating the two fields is a challenge: Since fallacies seem to be at the heart of the historiography of generative linguistics, any thorough evaluation of its present state of the art also involves accounting for fallacies. The paper applies Kertész and Rákosi’s p-model of plausible argumentation to a case study on heated discussions in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Circularity in Ethotic Structures.Katarzyna Budzynska - 2013 - Synthese 190 (15):3185-3207.
    The aim of this paper is to provide a model that allows the representation and analysis of circularity in ethotic structures, i.e. in communication structures related to the speaker’s character and in particular, his credibility. The paper studies three types of cycles: in self-referential sentences, embedded testimony and ethotic begging the question. It is shown that standard models allow the reconstruction of the circularities only if those circular utterances are interpreted as ethotic arguments. Their alternative, assertive interpretation requires enriching the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases.Henry Prakken - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (1):27-49.
    In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: Springer, 2017, 2nd Edn, Pp. 363.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (3):307-314.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education.Aikaterini Konstantinidou & Fabrizio Macagno - 2013 - Science & Education 22 (5):1069-1087.
    The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’T IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2017 - Argumentation 32 (4):569-587.
    Whether abduction is treated as an argument or as an inference, the mainstream view presupposes a tight connection between abduction and inference to the best explanation. This paper critically evaluates this link and supports a narrower view on abduction. Our main thesis is that merely the hypothesis-generative aspect, but not the evaluative aspect, is properly abductive in the sense introduced by C. S. Peirce. We show why equating abduction with IBE unnecessarily complicates argument evaluation by levelling the status of abduction (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Elusive Notion of “Argument Quality”.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):213-240.
    We all seem to have a sense of what good and bad arguments are, and there is a long history—focusing on fallacies—of trying to provide objective standards that would allow a clear separation of good and bad arguments. This contribution discusses the limits of attempts to determine the quality of arguments. It begins with defining bad arguments as those that deviate from an established standard of good arguments. Since there are different conceptualizations of “argument”—as controversy, as debate, and as justification—and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Arguments From Authority and Expert Opinion in Computational Argumentation Systems.Douglas Walton & Marcin Koszowy - 2017 - AI and Society 32 (4):483-496.
    In this paper we show that an essential aspect of solving the problem of uncritical acceptance of expert opinions that is at the root of the ad verecundiam fallacy is the need to disentangle argument from expert opinion from another kind of appeal to authority. Formal and computational argumentation systems enable us to analyze the fault in which an error has occurred by virtue of a failure to meet one or more of the requirements of the argumentation scheme from argument (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • HYPO's Legacy: Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (2):205-250.
    This paper is an introduction to a virtual special issue of AI and Law exploring the legacy of the influential HYPO system of Rissland and Ashley. The papers included are: Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining, BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval, Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue Game, A note on dimensions and factors, An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application, Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes, A factor-based definition (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Questioning the Virtual Friendship Debate: Fuzzy Analogical Arguments From Classification and Definition.Oliver Laas - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):99-149.
    Arguments from analogy are pervasive in everyday reasoning, mathematics, philosophy, and science. Informal logic studies everyday argumentation in ordinary language. A branch of fuzzy logic, approximate reasoning, seeks to model facets of everyday reasoning with vague concepts in ill-defined situations. Ways of combining the results from these fields will be suggested by introducing a new argumentation scheme—a fuzzy analogical argument from classification—with the associated critical questions. This will be motivated by a case study of analogical reasoning in the virtual friendship (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory.Petar Bodlović - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):513-534.
    According to Douglas Walton, the concept of presumption relates to both logical and dialogical components. Logically, a presumption is the conclusion of a presumptive defeasible inference. Dialogically, the function of a presumptions to shift the burden of proof to the respondent in order to move the dialogue forward when the proponent, due to an objective lack of evidence, cannot present a sufficiently persuasive proposition. Presumptive status, assigned only at the argumentation stage of dialogue, is provisional: a particular presumption stands until (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Argument Web: An Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation.Mark Snaith, Alison Pease, John Lawrence, Barbara Konat, Mathilde Janier, Rory Duthie, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):137-160.
    The Argument Web is maturing as both a platform built upon a synthesis of many contemporary theories of argumentation in philosophy and also as an ecosystem in which various applications and application components are contributed by different research groups around the world. It already hosts the largest publicly accessible corpora of argumentation and has the largest number of interoperable and cross compatible tools for the analysis, navigation and evaluation of arguments across a broad range of domains, languages and activity types. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?Peter Jan Schellens, Ester Šorm, Rian Timmers & Hans Hoeken - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):681-703.
    Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions.Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):591-613.
    In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise “the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today”. I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The “presumption of veracity” is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reasoning and Arguing, Dialectically and Dialogically, Among Individual and Multiple Participants.Michael Baumtrog - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):77-98.
    Within three of the most well-known contemporary approaches to argumentation, the notions of solo argumentation and arguing with one’s self are given little attention and are typically argued to be able to be subsumed within the dialectical aspects of the approach being propounded. Challenging these claims, this paper has two main aims. The first is to argue that while dialogical argumentation may be most common, there exists individual dialectical argumentation, which is not so easily subsumed within these theories. Second, in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):469-484.
    Although in some contexts the notions of an ordinary argument’s presumption, assumption, and presupposition appear to merge into the one concept of an implicit premise, there are important differences between these three notions. It is argued that assumption and presupposition, but not presumption, are basic logical notions. A presupposition of an argument is best understood as pertaining to a propositional element (a premise or the conclusion) e of the argument, such that the presupposition is a necessary condition for the truth (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans.Douglas Walton - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6):1507-1528.
    This article applies tools from argumentation theory to slippery slope arguments used in current ethical debates on genetic engineering. Among the tools used are argumentation schemes, value-based argumentation, critical questions, and burden of proof. It is argued that so-called drivers such as social acceptance and rapid technological development are also important factors that need to be taken into account alongside the argumentation scheme. It is shown that the slippery slope argument is basically a reasonable form of argument, but is often (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):221-243.
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Stimulating Reflection and Self-Correcting Reasoning Through Argument Mapping: Three Approaches.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2018 - Topoi 37 (1):185-199.
    A large body of research in cognitive science differentiates human reasoning into two types: fast, intuitive, and emotional “System 1” thinking, and slower, more reflective “System 2” reasoning. According to this research, human reasoning is by default fast and intuitive, but that means that it is prone to error and biases that cloud our judgments and decision making. To improve the quality of reasoning, critical thinking education should develop strategies to slow it down and to become more reflective. The goal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory.Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):283-300.
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Computational Dialectic and Rhetorical Invention.Douglas Walton - 2011 - AI and Society 26 (1):2011.
    This paper has three dimensions, historical, theoretical and social. The historical dimension is to show how the Ciceronian system of dialectical argumentation served as a precursor to computational models of argumentation schemes such as Araucaria and Carneades. The theoretical dimension is to show concretely how these argumentation schemes reveal the interdependency of rhetoric and logic, and so the interdependency of the normative with the empirical. It does this by identifying points of disagreement in a dialectical format through using argumentation schemes (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Changing Philosophy Through Technology: Complexity and Computer-Supported Collaborative Argument Mapping.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2015 - Philosophy and Technology 28 (2):167-188.
    Technology is not only an object of philosophical reflection but also something that can change this reflection. This paper discusses the potential of computer-supported argument visualization tools for coping with the complexity of philosophical arguments. I will show, in particular, how the interactive and web-based argument mapping software “AGORA-net” can change the practice of philosophical reflection, communication, and collaboration. AGORA-net allows the graphical representation of complex argumentations in logical form and the synchronous and asynchronous collaboration on those “argument maps” on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Baseballs and Arguments From Fairness.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):423-449.
    This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme for argument from fairness is shown to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Dialogues in Argumentation.Von Burg Ron - 2016 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This volume focuses on dialogue and argumentation in contexts which are marked by truculence and discord. The contributors include well known argumentation scholars who discuss the issues this raises from the point of view of a variety of disciplines and points of view. The authors seek to address theoretically challenging issues in a way that is relevant to both the theory and the practice of argument. The collection brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark