Results for 'Argumentation'

1000+ found
Order:
See also
  1. Argument's Value1.Ontological Arguments & G. O. D. In - 2009 - In William J. Wainwright (ed.), Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. pp. 2--54.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Courageous Arguments and Deep Disagreements.Andrew Aberdein - 2021 - Topoi 40 (5):1205-1212.
    Deep disagreements are characteristically resistant to rational resolution. This paper explores the contribution a virtue theoretic approach to argumentation can make towards settling the practical matter of what to do when confronted with apparent deep disagreement, with particular attention to the virtue of courage.
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  35
    Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   184 citations  
  4. Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   268 citations  
  5. Eudaimonistic Argumentation.Andrew Aberdein - 2020 - In Bart Garssen & Frans van Eemeren (eds.), From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild: A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 97–106.
    Virtue theories have lately enjoyed a modest vogue in the study of argumentation, echoing the success of more far-reaching programmes in ethics and epistemology. Virtue theories of argumentation (VTA) comprise several conceptually distinct projects, including the provision of normative foundations for argument evaluation and a renewed focus on the character of good arguers. Perhaps the boldest of these is the pursuit of the fully satisfying argument, the argument that contributes to human flourishing. This project has an independently developed (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  94
    Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - L. Erlbaum Associates.
    This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   232 citations  
  7. Arguments with Losers.Andrew Aberdein - 2016 - Florida Philosophical Review 16 (1):1-11.
    I want to say something about the sort of arguments that it is possible to lose, and whether losing arguments can be done well. I shall focus on losing philosophical arguments, and I will be talking about arguments in the sense of acts of arguing. This is the sort of act that one can perform on one’s own or with one other person in private. But in either of these cases it is difficult to win—or to lose. So I shall (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  8.  38
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  9. Debunking Arguments and Metaphysical Laws.Jonathan Barker - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (7):1829-1855.
    I argue that one’s views about which “metaphysical laws” obtain—including laws about what is identical with what, about what is reducible to what, and about what grounds what—can be used to deflect or neutralize the threat posed by a debunking explanation. I use a well-known debunking argument in the metaphysics of material objects as a case study. Then, after defending the proposed strategy from the charge of question-begging, I close by showing how the proposed strategy can be used by certain (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  10. Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2019 - The Philosophers' Magazine 86:66-73.
    This article is a brief overview of major ontological arguments. The most noteworthy feature of this article is the statement of a new parody of the Anselmian and Cartesian arguments that is obviously immune to objections adverting to intrinsic minima and maxima.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  11. Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief.Robert Merrihew Adams - 1979 - In C. F. Delaney (ed.), Rationality and Religious Belief. University of Notre Dame Press.
    Moral arguments were the type of theistic argument most characteristic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. More recently they have become one of philosophy’s abandoned farms. The fields are still fertile, but they have not been cultivated systematically since the latest methods came in. The rambling Victorian farmhouse has not been kept up as well as similar structures, and people have not been stripping the sentimental gingerbread off the porches to reveal the clean lines of argument. This paper is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  12.  18
    Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Frans H. Van Eemeren - 2018 - Springer Verlag.
    The book offers a compact but comprehensive introductory overview of the crucial components of argumentation theory. In presenting this overview, argumentation is consistently approached from a pragma-dialectical perspective by viewing it pragmatically as a goal-directed communicative activity and dialectically as part of a regulated critical exchange aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. As a result, the book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which are discussed in a number of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  13.  7
    Persistent Questions in the Theory of Argument Fields.Argument Fields - 1992 - In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications. pp. 11--417.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  80
    Coalescent Argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.
    Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucial connection between a claim and the attitudes, beliefs, feelings, values and needs to which it is connected dispute partners are able to identify points of agreement and disagreement. These points can then be utilized to effect coalescence, a joining or merging of divergent positions, by forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   162 citations  
  15. Argumentation Profiles and the Manipulation of Common Ground. The Arguments of Populist Leaders on Twitter.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Journal of Pragmatics 191:67-82.
    The detection of hate speech and fake news in political discourse is at the same time a crucial necessity for democratic societies and a challenge for several areas of study. However, most of the studies have focused on what is explicitly stated: false article information, language that expresses hatred, derogatory expressions. This paper argues that the explicit dimension of manipulation is only one – and the least problematic – of the risks of political discourse. The language of the unsaid is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16. Four Arguments for Denying That Lottery Beliefs Are Justified.Martin Smith - 2021 - In Douven, I. ed. Lotteries, Knowledge and Rational Belief: Essays on the Lottery Paradox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Cambridge:
    A ‘lottery belief’ is a belief that a particular ticket has lost a large, fair lottery, based on nothing more than the odds against it winning. The lottery paradox brings out a tension between the idea that lottery beliefs are justified and the idea that that one can always justifiably believe the deductive consequences of things that one justifiably believes – what is sometimes called the principle of closure. Many philosophers have treated the lottery paradox as an argument against the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  17.  20
    Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements.A. Snoeck Henkemans - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):81-95.
    In this paper, an argumentative pattern that is prototypical for the communicative practice of over-the-counter medicine advertisements will be discussed. First, a basic argumentative pattern for this type of advertisement will be identified. In addition, an overview of various types of extensions of this basic pattern will be presented. Finally, it will be made clear how combinations of the basic pattern and specific extensions can be analysed as the result of strategic choices made by the advertisers concerning the type of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  18.  42
    Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):1-23.
    This paper serves as an introduction to the special issue on argumentative patterns in discourse, more in particular on argumentative patterns with pragmatic argumentation as a main argument that are prototypical of argumentative discourse in certain communicative activity types in the political, the legal, the medical, and the academic domain. It situates the studies of argumentative patterns reported in these papers in the pragma-dialectical research program. In order to be able to do so, it is first explained in which (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  19. Philosophical Arguments.Charles Taylor - 1995 - Harvard University Press.
    In this book Taylor brings together some of his best essays, including "Overcoming Epistemology," "The Validity of Transcendental Argument," "Irreducibly Social ...
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   153 citations  
  20. Spectrum Arguments and Hypersensitivity.Theron Pummer - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (7):1729-1744.
    Larry Temkin famously argues that what he calls spectrum arguments yield strong reason to reject Transitivity, according to which the ‘all-things-considered better than’ relation is transitive. Spectrum arguments do reveal that the conjunctions of independently plausible claims are inconsistent with Transitivity. But I argue that there is very strong independent reason to reject such conjunctions of claims, and thus that the fact that they are inconsistent with Transitivity does not yield strong reason to reject Transitivity.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  21.  37
    Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. [REVIEW]David B. Skalak & Edwina L. Rissland - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):3-44.
    We discuss several aspects of legal arguments, primarily arguments about the meaning of statutes. First, we discuss how the requirements of argument guide the specification and selection of supporting cases and how an existing case base influences argument formation. Second, we present,our evolving taxonomy of patterns of actual legal argument. This taxonomy builds upon our much earlier work on argument moves and also on our more recent analysis of how cases are used to support arguments for the interpretation of legal (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  22. The Vices of Argument.Andrew Aberdein - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):413-422.
    What should a virtue theory of argumentation say about fallacious reasoning? If good arguments are 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 bad argumentation to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through analysis of several fallacies, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  23.  41
    Are Conductive Arguments Possible?Jonathan Adler - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):245-257.
    Conductive Arguments are held to be defeasible, non-conclusive, and neither inductive nor deductive (Blair and Johnson in Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. College, London, 2011). Of the different kinds of Conductive Arguments, I am concerned only with those for which it is claimed that countervailing considerations detract from the support for the conclusion, complimentary to the positive reasons increasing that support. Here’s an example from Wellman (Challenge and response: justification in ethics. Southern Illinois University Press, Chicago, 1971): (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  24. Another Argument for the Knowledge Norm.Jonathan E. Adler - 2009 - Analysis 69 (3):407-411.
    The knowledge norm of assertion is mainly in competition with a high probability or rational credibility norm. The argument for the knowledge norm that I offer turns on cases in which a hearer responds to a speaker's assertion by asserting another sentence that would lower the probability of the speaker's assertion, were its probability less than one. In cases like this, though with qualifications, is the hearer's contribution a challenge to the speaker's assertion or complementary to it? My answer is (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  25.  11
    Argumentation Mining.Manfred Stede & Jodi Schneider - 2018 - San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool.
    Argumentation mining is an application of natural language processing (NLP) that emerged a few years ago and has recently enjoyed considerable popularity, as demonstrated by a series of international workshops and by a rising number of publications at the major conferences and journals of the field. Its goals are to identify argumentation in text or dialogue; to construct representations of the constellation of claims, supporting and attacking moves (in different levels of detail); and to characterize the patterns of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  26. Operator Arguments Revisited.Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, John Hawthorne & Peter Fritz - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (11):2933-2959.
    Certain passages in Kaplan’s ‘Demonstratives’ are often taken to show that non-vacuous sentential operators associated with a certain parameter of sentential truth require a corresponding relativism concerning assertoric contents: namely, their truth values also must vary with that parameter. Thus, for example, the non-vacuity of a temporal sentential operator ‘always’ would require some of its operands to have contents that have different truth values at different times. While making no claims about Kaplan’s intentions, we provide several reconstructions of how such (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  27. Parsimony Arguments in Science and Philosophy—A Test Case for Naturalism P.Elliott Sober - 2009 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 83 (2):117 - 155.
    Parsimony arguments are advanced in both science and philosophy. How are they related? This question is a test case for Naturalismp, which is the thesis that philosophical theories and scientific theories should be evaluated by the same criteria. In this paper, I describe the justifications that attach to two types of parsimony argument in science. In the first, parsimony is a surrogate for likelihood. In the second, parsimony is relevant to estimating how accurately a model will predict new data when (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  28. Debunking Arguments.Daniel Z. Korman - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (12).
    Debunking arguments—also known as etiological arguments, genealogical arguments, access problems, isolation objec- tions, and reliability challenges—arise in philosophical debates about a diverse range of topics, including causation, chance, color, consciousness, epistemic reasons, free will, grounding, laws of nature, logic, mathematics, modality, morality, natural kinds, ordinary objects, religion, and time. What unifies the arguments is the transition from a premise about what does or doesn't explain why we have certain mental states to a negative assessment of their epistemic status. I examine (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  29. Argument From Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  30. Martin Heidegger, “The Argument Against Need (for the Being-in-Itself of Entities)”.Tobias Keiling & Ian Alexander Moore - 2022 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 30 (3):519-534.
    The argument against need[Need: the belonging of the essence of mortals to, a belonging which is appropriated in the event.]Metaphysically, and t...
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  31.  8
    Was es nicht alles gibt! Neue ideen und argumente zu substanzen und (ihren) eigenschaften. 1 Christian Kanzian universitat innsbruck.Neue Ideen Und Argumente Zu - 2005 - Grazer Philosophische Studien: Internationale Zeitschrift für Analytische Philosophie. Vol. 70 70:215-223.
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Evaluating Arguments for the Sex/Gender Distinction.Tomas Bogardus - 2020 - Philosophia 48 (3):873-892.
    Many philosophers believe that our ordinary English words man and woman are “gender terms,” and gender is distinct from biological sex. That is, they believe womanhood and manhood are not defined even partly by biological sex. This sex/gender distinction is one of the most influential ideas of the twentieth century on the broader culture, both popular and academic. Less well known are the reasons to think it’s true. My interest in this paper is to show that, upon investigation, the arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  33.  1
    Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation.Frans H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst & A. Francisca Sn Henkemans - 2015 - Routledge.
    This book concentrates on argumentation as it emerges in ordinary discourse, whether the discourse is institutionalized or strictly informal. Crucial concepts from the theory of argumentation are systematically discussed and explained with the help of examples from real-life discourse and texts. The basic principles are explained that are instrumental in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. Methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, analyzing and evaluating argumentation and presenting arguments in oral and written discourse. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  34. Argumentations and Logic.John Corcoran - 1989 - ARGUMENTAION 3 (1):17-43.
    Argumentations are at the heart of the deductive and the hypothetico-deductive methods, which are involved in attempts to reduce currently open problems to problems already solved. These two methods span the entire spectrum of problem-oriented reasoning from the simplest and most practical to the most complex and most theoretical, thereby uniting all objective thought whether ancient or contemporary, whether humanistic or scientific, whether normative or descriptive, whether concrete or abstract. Analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and function of argumentations are described. Perennial philosophic (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  35. Against Arguments From Reference.Ron Mallon, Edouard Machery, Shaun Nichols & Stephen Stich - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2):332 - 356.
    It is common in various quarters of philosophy to derive philosophically significant conclusions from theories of reference. In this paper, we argue that philosophers should give up on such 'arguments from reference.' Intuitions play a central role in establishing theories of reference, and recent cross-cultural work suggests that intuitions about reference vary across cultures and between individuals within a culture (Machery et al. 2004). We argue that accommodating this variation within a theory of reference undermines arguments from reference.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   115 citations  
  36. Arguments From Illusion.Jonathan Dancy - unknown
  37. Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367.
    Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts that argument content and (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  38. Squeezing Arguments.P. Smith - 2011 - Analysis 71 (1):22-30.
    Many of our concepts are introduced to us via, and seem only to be constrained by, roughand-ready explanations and some sample paradigm positive and negative applications. This happens even in informal logic and mathematics. Yet in some cases, the concepts in question – although only informally and vaguely characterized – in fact have, or appear to have, entirely determinate extensions. Here’s one familiar example. When we start learning computability theory, we are introduced to the idea of an algorithmically computable function (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  39.  62
    An Argumentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Giovanni Sartor & Douglas Walton - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  40. Ontological Arguments and Belief in God.Graham Oppy - 1995 - Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
    This book is a unique contribution to the philosophy of religion. It offers a comprehensive discussion of one of the most famous arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument. The author provides and analyses a critical taxonomy of those versions of the argument that have been advanced in recent philosophical literature, as well as of those historically important versions found in the work of St Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, Hegel and others. A central thesis of the book is that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  41.  4
    Debunking Arguments in Ethics.Hanno Sauer - 2018 - Cambridge University Press.
    In this crisply written book, Hanno Sauer offers the first book-length treatment of debunking arguments in ethics, developing an empirically informed and philosophically sophisticated account of genealogical arguments and their significance for the reliability of moral cognition. He breaks new ground by introducing a series of novel distinctions into the current debate, which allows him to develop a framework for assessing the prospects of debunking or vindicating our moral intuitions. He also challenges the justification of some of our moral judgments (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  42.  2
    Arguments and Reason-Giving.Matthew W. McKeon - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):229-247.
    Arguments figure prominently in our practices of reason-giving. For example, we use them to advance reasons for their conclusions in order to justify believing something, to explain why we believe something, and to persuade others to believe something. Intuitively, using arguments in these ways requires a certain degree of self-reflection. In this paper, I ask: what cognitive requirements are there for using an argument to advance reasons for its conclusion? Towards a partial response, the paper’s central thesis is that in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  33
    Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
    In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  44. An Argument for Uniqueness About Evidential Support.Sinan Dogramaci & Sophie Horowitz - 2016 - Philosophical Issues 26 (1):130-147.
    White, Christensen, and Feldman have recently endorsed uniqueness, the thesis that given the same total evidence, two rational subjects cannot hold different views. Kelly, Schoenfield, and Meacham argue that White and others have at best only supported the weaker, merely intrapersonal view that, given the total evidence, there are no two views which a single rational agent could take. Here, we give a new argument for uniqueness, an argument with deliberate focus on the interpersonal element of the thesis. Our argument (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  45. Virtues and Arguments: A Bibliography.Andrew Aberdein - manuscript
    A list of resources for virtue theories of argumentation. Last updated April 19th, 2022.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  46.  26
    Argumentation Schemes. History, Classifications, and Computational Applications.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Chris Reed - 2017 - IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications 8 (4):2493-2556.
    Argumentation schemes can be described as abstract structures representing the most generic types of argument, constituting the building blocks of the ones used in everyday reasoning. This paper investigates the structure, classification, and uses of such schemes. Three goals are pursued: 1) to describe the schemes, showing how they evolved and how they have been classified in the traditional and the modern theories; 2) to propose a method for classifying them based on ancient and modern developments; and 3) to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  47.  81
    Argumentation Mining.Raquel Mochales & Marie-Francine Moens - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1):1-22.
    Argumentation mining aims to automatically detect, classify and structure argumentation in text. Therefore, argumentation mining is an important part of a complete argumentation analyisis, i.e. understanding the content of serial arguments, their linguistic structure, the relationship between the preceding and following arguments, recognizing the underlying conceptual beliefs, and understanding within the comprehensive coherence of the specific topic. We present different methods to aid argumentation mining, starting with plain argumentation detection and moving forward to a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  48. Argumentative Skills: A Systematic Framework for Teaching and Learning.David Löwenstein, Anne Burkard, Annett Wienmeister, Henning Franzen & Donata Romizi - 2021 - Journal of Didactics of Philosophy 5 (2):72-100.
    In this paper, we propose a framework for fostering argumentative skills in a systematic way in Philosophy and Ethics classes. We start with a review of curricula and teaching materials from the German-speaking world to show that there is an urgent need for standards for the teaching and learning of argumentation. Against this backdrop, we present a framework for such standards that is intended to tackle these difficulties. The spiral-curricular model of argumentative competences we sketch helps teachers introduce the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  49. Debunking Arguments and the Cognitive Science of Religion.Matthew Braddock - 2016 - Theology and Science 14 (3):268-287.
    Do the cognitive origins of our theistic beliefs debunk them or explain them away? This paper develops an empirically-motivated debunking argument and defends it against objections. First, we introduce the empirical and epistemological background. Second, we develop and defend the main argument, the debunking argument from false god beliefs. Third, we characterize and evaluate the most prominent religious debunking argument to date, the debunking argument from insensitivity. It is found that insensitivity-based arguments are problematic, which makes them less promising than (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  50. Arguments From Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias.Moti Mizrahi - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):175-195.
    Accounts of arguments from expert opinion take it for granted that expert judgments count as (defeasible) evidence for propositions, and so an argument that proceeds from premises about what an expert judges to a conclusion that the expert is probably right is a strong argument. In Mizrahi (2013), I consider a potential justification for this assumption, namely, that expert judgments are significantly more likely to be true than novice judgments, and find it wanting because of empirical evidence suggesting that expert (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000