7 found
Order:
See also
Jean H.M. Wagemans
University of Amsterdam
  1.  61
    The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
    In this contribution, I will develop a comprehensive tool for the reconstruction and evaluation of argumentation from expert opinion. This is done by analyzing and then combining two dialectical accounts of this type of argumentation. Walton’s account of the ‘appeal to expert opinion’ provides a number of useful, but fairly unsystematic suggestions for critical questions pertaining to argumentation from expert opinion. The pragma-dialectical account of ‘argumentation from authority’ offers a clear and systematic, but fairly general framework for the reconstruction and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  2.  7
    Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural Approach.Martin Hinton & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):61-84.
    In this paper, we formulate a procedure for assessing reasoning as it is expressed in natural arguments. The procedure is a specification of one of the three aspects of argumentation assessment distinguished in the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation that makes use of the argument categorisation framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments. The theoretical framework and practical application of both the CAPNA and the PTA are described, as well as the evaluation procedure that combines the two. The procedure (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  27
    Analogy, Similarity, and the Periodic Table of Arguments.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):63-75.
    The aim of this paper is to indicate the systematic place of arguments based on the concept of analogy within the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, a new method for describing and classifying arguments that integrates traditional dialectical accounts of arguments and fallacies and rhetorical accounts of the means of persuasion into a comprehensive framework. The paper begins with an inventory of existing approaches to arguments based on analogy, similarity and adjacent concepts. Then, the theoretical framework of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  5
    How Persuasive is AI-Generated Argumentation? An Analysis of the Quality of an Argumentative Text Produced by the GPT-3 AI Text Generator.Martin Hinton & Jean H. M. Wagemans - forthcoming - Argument and Computation:1-16.
    In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation in evaluating the arguments produced by an Artificial Intelligence text generator, GPT-3, in an opinion piece written for the Guardian newspaper. The CAPNA examines instances of argumentation in three aspects: their Process, Reasoning and Expression. Initial Analysis is conducted using the Argument Type Identification Procedure to establish, firstly, that an argument is present and, secondly, its specific type in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  67
    Review of M. A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. [REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):271-274.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  29
    Review of M. Spranzi, The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition[REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):89-92.
  7.  21
    Review of J. Crosswhite, Deep Rhetoric: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom. [REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):475-479.
    Recent scholarship in the field of argumentation theory has shown an increasing interest in rethinking the relation between dialectic and rhetoric. In the debate concerning this issue, some scholars take the position of ‘isolationists’. They think that fundamental differences exist between the two disciplines and that it is impossible to translate insights developed within the one discipline in terms of the other. Other scholars can be characterized as ‘combinationalists’. They take the position that insights from dialectic and rhetoric can be (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark