Results for 'argumentation'

1000+ found
Order:
See also
  1. 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  
  2.  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  
  3. The Argument for Panpsychism From Experience of Causation.Hedda Hassel Mørch - 2019 - In William Seager (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. Routledge.
    In recent literature, panpsychism has been defended by appeal to two main arguments: first, an argument from philosophy of mind, according to which panpsychism is the only view which successfully integrates consciousness into the physical world (Strawson 2006; Chalmers 2013); second, an argument from categorical properties, according to which panpsychism offers the only positive account of the categorical or intrinsic nature of physical reality (Seager 2006; Adams 2007; Alter and Nagasawa 2012). Historically, however, panpsychism has also been defended by appeal (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  4.  59
    Argumentation, Rationality, and Psychology of Reasoning.David Godden - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (2):135-166.
    This paper explicates an account of argumentative rationality by articulating the common, basic idea of its nature, and then identifying a collection of assumptions inherent in it. Argumentative rationality is then contrasted with dual-process theories of reasoning and rationality prevalent in the psychology of reasoning. It is argued that argumentative rationality properly corresponds only with system-2 reasoning in dual-process theories. This result challenges the prescriptive force of argumentative norms derives if they derive at all from their descriptive accuracy of our (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  5. 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  
  6.  51
    Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (4):365-397.
    Why do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to stimulate reflection on one’s own reasoning. Since this cognitive function of arguments should be important to improve the quality of people’s arguments and reasoning, for learning processes, for coping with “wicked problems,” and for the resolution of conflicts, it deserves to be studied in its own right. This contribution develops first steps (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  7.  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  
  8.  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  
  9. Chomskyan Arguments Against Truth-Conditional Semantics Based on Variability and Co-predication.Agustín Vicente - 2021 - Erkenntnis 86 (4):919-940.
    In this paper I try to show that semantics can explain word-to-world relations and that sentences can have meanings that determine truth-conditions. Critics like Chomsky typically maintain that only speakers denote, i.e., only speakers, by using words in one way or another, represent entities or events in the world. However, according to their view, individual acts of denotations are not explained just by virtue of speakers’ semantic knowledge. Against this view, I will hold that, in the typical cases considered, semantic (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10. 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  
  11. Probabilistic Arguments for Multiple Universes.Kai Draper, Paul Draper & Joel Pust - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
    In this paper, we discuss three probabilistic arguments for the existence of multiple universes. First, we provide an analysis of total evidence and use that analysis to defend Roger White's "this universe" objection to a standard fine-tuning argument for multiple universes. Second, we explain why Rodney Holder's recent cosmological argument for multiple universes is unconvincing. Third, we develop a "Cartesian argument" for multiple universes. While this argument is not open to the objections previously noted, we show that, given certain highly (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  12.  7
    A Workbook for Arguments: A Complete Course in Critical Thinking.David R. Morrow & Anthony Weston - 2011 - Hackett Publishing Company.
    "A Workbook for Arguments" builds on Anthony Weston's "Rulebook for Arguments" to provide a complete textbook for a course in critical thinking or informal logic. "Workbook" includes: The entire text of "Rulebook," supplemented with extensive further explanations and exercises. Homework exercises adapted from a wide range of arguments from newspapers, philosophical texts, literature, movies, videos, and other sources. Practical advice to help students succeed when applying the "Rulebook's" rules to the examples in the homework exercises. Suggestions for further practice, outlining (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  13. The Dynamics of Argumentative Discourse.Carlotta Pavese & Alexander W. Kocurek - 2021 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 51 (2):413-456.
    Arguments have always played a central role within logic and philosophy. But little attention has been paid to arguments as a distinctive kind of discourse, with its own semantics and pragmatics. The goal of this essay is to study the mechanisms by means of which we make arguments in discourse, starting from the semantics of argument connectives such as `therefore'. While some proposals have been made in the literature, they fail to account for the distinctive anaphoric behavior of `therefore', as (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  14.  30
    Moorean Arguments Against the Error Theory: A Defense.Eric Sampson - forthcoming - Oxford Studies in Metaethics.
    Moorean arguments are a popular and powerful way to engage highly revisionary philosophical views, such as nihilism about motion, time, truth, consciousness, causation, and various kinds of skepticism (e.g., external world, other minds, inductive, global). They take, as a premise, a highly plausible first-order claim (e.g., cars move, I ate breakfast before lunch, it’s true that some fish have gills) and conclude from it the falsity of the highly revisionary philosophical thesis. Moorean arguments can be used against nihilists in ethics (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. The Argument From Design.R. G. Swinburne - 1968 - Philosophy 43 (165):199 - 212.
    ARGUMENTS FROM DESIGN TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD MAY TAKE AS THEIR PREMISS EITHER THE EXISTENCE OF REGULARITIES OF COPRESENCE OR THE EXISTENCE OF REGULARITIES OF SUCCESSION. THERE ARE NO VALID FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO A CAREFULLY ARTICULATED ARGUMENT OF THE LATTER TYPE. AGAINST SUCH AN ARGUMENT NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS IN HUME’S "DIALOGUES" HAVE ANY WORTH. THE ARGUMENT MAY HOWEVER GIVE ONLY A SMALL DEGREE OF SUPPORT TO ITS CONCLUSION.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  16.  34
    Argument Structure:: Representation and Theory.James B. Freeman - 2011 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    An approach to argument macrostructure -- The dialectical nature of argument -- Toulmin's problematic notion of warrant -- The linked-convergent distinction, a first approximation -- Argument structure and disciplinary perspective : the linked-convergent versus multiple-co-ordinatively compound distinctions -- The linked-convergent distinction, refining the criterion -- Argument structure and enthymemes -- From analysis to evaluation.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  17. Arguments From Ignorance.Douglas N. Walton - 1995 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    _Arguments from Ignorance _explores the situations in which the argument from ignorance functions as a respectable form of reasoning and those in which it is indeed fallacious. Douglas Walton draws on everyday conversations on all kinds of practical matters in which the _argumentum ad ignorantiam _is used quite appropriately to infer conclusions. He also discusses the inappropriate use of this kind of argument, referring to various major case studies, including the Salem witchcraft trials, the McCarthy hearings, and the Alger Hiss (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations  
  18. Argument Structure a Pragmatic Theory.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
    William Baird collection in Social Sciences is the gift of the Estate of William Cameron Baird.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   64 citations  
  19.  12
    Bayesian Argumentation – The Practical Side of Probability.Frank Zenker (ed.) - 2012 - Springer.
    Relevant to, and drawing from, a range of disciplines, the chapters in this collection show the diversity, and applicability, of research in Bayesian argumentation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  20.  1
    Legal Argumentation and Evidence.Douglas N. Walton - 2002 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
    A leading expert in informal logic, Douglas Walton turns his attention in this new book to how reasoning operates in trials and other legal contexts, with special emphasis on the law of evidence. The new model he develops, drawing on methods of argumentation theory that are gaining wide acceptance in computing fields like artificial intelligence, can be used to identify, analyze, and evaluate specific types of legal argument. In contrast with approaches that rely on deductive and inductive logic and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   50 citations  
  21.  20
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  22. Analoge Argumente und Analogieargumente.David Löwenstein - 2015 - In Anna Wehofsits, David Löwenstein, Dirk Koppelberg & Gregor Betz (eds.), Weiter Denken - Über Philosophie, Wissenschaft Und Religion. De Gruyter. pp. 105-124.
    Analogien lassen sich aus unserem vernünftigen Nachdenken und Argumentieren kaum wegdenken. Ganz zurecht stellen sie eines der klassischen Themen der Argumentationstheorie dar. Doch wie genau sollte die argumentative Rolle von Analogien in Argumentrekonstruktionen dargestellt werden? Das ist die Leitfrage dieses Beitrags. Zunächst wird mit Michael Dummetts Schach-Analogie ein prominentes Beispiel dargestellt und eine genauere Charakterisierung des Analogiebegriffs vorgeschlagen. Danach wird die gängigste Rekonstruktionsform von Analogien diskutiert, das Analogieargument, und in einigen Punkten verfeinert. Vor diesem Hintergrund schlägt der Beitrag eine zweite, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  23. Extending the Argument From Unconceived Alternatives: Observations, Models, Predictions, Explanations, Methods, Instruments, Experiments, and Values.Darrell Patrick Rowbottom - 2016 - Synthese (10).
    Stanford’s argument against scientific realism focuses on theories, just as many earlier arguments from inconceivability have. However, there are possible arguments against scientific realism involving unconceived (or inconceivable) entities of different types: observations, models, predictions, explanations, methods, instruments, experiments, and values. This paper charts such arguments. In combination, they present the strongest challenge yet to scientific realism.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  24.  12
    Money-Pump Arguments.Johan E. Gustafsson - forthcoming - Cambridge University Press.
    Suppose that you prefer A to B, B to C, and A to C. Your preferences violate Expected Utility Theory by being cyclic. Money-pump arguments offer a way to show that such violations are irrational. Suppose that you start with A. Then you should be willing to trade A for C and then C for B. But then, once you have C, you are offered a trade back to A for a small cost. Since you prefer A to C, you (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  25. The Two-Dimensional Argument Against Materialism.David Chalmers - 2009 - In Brian P. McLaughlin & Sven Walter (eds.), Oxford Handbook to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press.
    A number of popular arguments for dualism start from a premise about an epistemic gap between physical truths about truths about consciousness, and infer an ontological gap between physical processes and consciousness. Arguments of this sort include the conceivability argument, the knowledge argument, the explanatory-gap argument, and the property dualism argument. Such arguments are often resisted on the grounds that epistemic premises do not entail ontological conclusion. My view is that one can legitimately infer ontological conclusions from epistemic premises, if (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   101 citations  
  26.  3
    Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge.Charles Arthur Willard - 1982 - University Alabama Press.
    "As a distinctive philosophy, religious humanism emphasizes man's place in an unfathomed universe, reason as an instrument for discovering the truth, free inquiry as a condition for discerning meaning and purpose, and happiness as a fundamental value. "Man's uniqueness emerges partly from homo sapiens' capacity to employ symbols effectively. For this reason, Willard's provocative book is not a celebration of controversy but a sophisticated study exploring the grounds of man's knowledge. Drawing upon phenomenologists such as Alfred Schultz, psychologists such as (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  27.  66
    Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  28.  30
    Ethical Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2003 - Lexington Books.
    Bridging the gap between applied ethics and ethical theory, Ethical Argumentation draws on recent research in argumentation theory to develop a more realistic model of how ethical justification actually works.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  29. The Evidential Argument From Evil.Daniel Howard-Snyder - 1996 - Indiana University Press.
    Is evil evidence against the existence of God? Even if God and evil are compatible, it remains hotly contested whether evil renders belief in God unreasonable. The Evidential Argument from Evil presents five classic statements on this issue by eminent philosophers and theologians and places them in dialogue with eleven original essays reflecting new thinking by these and other scholars. The volume focuses on two versions of the argument. The first affirms that there is no reason for God to permit (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  30. Mining Arguments From 19th Century Philosophical Texts Using Topic Based Modelling.John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Simon McAlister, Andrew Ravenscroft, Colin Allen & David Bourget - 2014 - In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Baltimore, USA: pp. 79-87.
    In this paper we look at the manual analysis of arguments and how this compares to the current state of automatic argument analysis. These considerations are used to develop a new approach combining a machine learning algorithm to extract propositions from text, with a topic model to determine argument structure. The results of this method are compared to a manual analysis.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31. Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation.Douglas N. Walton - 1992
  32.  18
    Valid Arguments as True Conditionals.Andrea Iacona - forthcoming - Mind.
    This paper explores an idea of Stoic descent that is largely neglected nowadays, the idea that an argument is valid when the conditional formed by the conjunction of its premises as antecedent and its conclusion as consequent is true. As it will be argued, once some basic features of our naıve understanding of validity are properly spelled out, and a suitable account of conditionals is adopted, the equivalence between valid arguments and true conditionals makes perfect sense. The account of validity (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  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  
  34. The Argument From Motivation.Frank Snare - 1975 - Mind 84 (333):1-9.
    Much of the plausibility of non-cognitivism in meta-ethics rests on the following argument derived from hume: 1) cognitive judgments alone can never have any motivational influence on our actions, 2) moral judgments have a motivational influence on our actions, and 3) therefore, no moral judgment is simply a cognitive judgment. this paper subjects various forms of this argument to criticism.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  35. An Argument in Defence of a Strictly Scientific Study of Religion. The Controversy at Delphi. A Critical Account of the Meeting of the Extended Executive Committee of the International Association for the History of Religions. September 13–15, 2019 Delphi, Greece. Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion.Donald Wiebe - 2021
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. A Classification System for Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):219-245.
    This paper explains the importance of classifying argumentation schemes, and outlines how schemes are being used in current research in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics on argument mining. It provides a survey of the literature on scheme classification. What are so far generally taken to represent a set of the most widely useful defeasible argumentation schemes are surveyed and explained systematically, including some that are difficult to classify. A new classification system covering these centrally important schemes is built.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  37. Les Échelles Argumentatives.Gilles Deleuze - 1980 - Les Editions de Minuit.
    À quelles conditions peut-on, dans un discours réel, utiliser un énoncé comme argument en faveur d’un autre ? La réponse semble aller de soi, au moins si l’on assimile l’argumentation à une espèce de raisonnement - peut-être lâche et flou, mais analogue en son fond à la démonstration étudiée par les logiciens. Dans ce cas, l’enchaînement des énoncés se fonde sur les informations qu’ils véhiculent, sur ce qu’ils disent de la réalité. C’est justement l’inverse que veut montrer la théorie (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  38.  28
    Arguments and Metaphors in Philosophy.Daniel Harry Cohen - 2004 - University Press of America.
    In this book, Daniel Cohen explores the connections between arguments and metaphors, most pronounced in philosophy because philosophical discourse is both thoroughly metaphorical and replete with argumentation. Cohen covers the nature of arguments, their modes and structures, and the principles of their evaluation, and addresses the nature of metaphors, their place in language and thought, and their connections to arguments, identifying and reconciling arguments' and metaphors' respective roles in philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  39.  64
    An Argument Against General Validity?Rohan French - 2012 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1 (1):4-9.
    This paper argues that a prominent—and oft-thought to be persuasive—argument against general validity as the best account of validity for languages containing the actuality operator is flawed, the flaw arising out of inadequate attention to the formalisation of mood distinctions.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  40.  56
    Structured Argumentation Dynamics: Undermining Attacks in Default Justification Logic.Stipe Pandžić - forthcoming - Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence:1-41.
    This paper develops a logical theory that unifies all three standard types of argumentative attack in AI, namely rebutting, undercutting and undermining attacks. We build on default justification logic that already represents undercutting and rebutting attacks, and we add undermining attacks. Intuitively, undermining does not target default inference, as undercutting, or default conclusion, as rebutting, but rather attacks an argument’s premise as a starting point for default reasoning. In default justification logic, reasoning starts from a set of premises, which is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. A New Evolutionary Debunking Argument Against Moral Realism.Justin Morton - 2016 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2 (2):233-253.
    Evolutionary debunking arguments claim that evolution has influenced our moral faculties in such a way that, if moral realism is true, then we have no positive moral knowledge. I present several popular objections to the standard version of this argument, then give a new EDA that has clear advantages in responding to these objections. Whereas the Standard EDA argues that evolution has selected for many moral beliefs with certain contents, this New EDA claims that evolution has selected for one belief: (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  42. 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  
  43.  75
    Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.David Zarefsky - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):317-330.
    Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  44.  77
    Arguments Over Intuitions?Tomasz Wysocki - 2016 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology (2):1-23.
    Deutsch 2010 claims that hypothetical scenarios are evaluated using arguments, not intuitions, and therefore experiments on intuitions are philosophically inconsequential. Using the Gettier case as an example, he identifies three arguments that are supposed to point to the right response to the case. In the paper, I present the results of studies ran on Polish, Indian, Spanish, and American participants that suggest that there’s no deep difference between evaluating the Gettier case with intuitions and evaluating it with Deutsch’s arguments. Specifically, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  45.  85
    Transcendental Arguments and Idealism.Ross Harrison - 1982 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 13:211-224.
    ‘Metaphysics’, said Bradley, ‘is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct, but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.’ This idea that reasoning is both instinctive and feeble is reminiscent of Hume; except that reasons in Hume tend to serve as the solvent rather than the support of instinctive beliefs. Instinct leads us to play backgammon with other individuals whom we assume inhabit a world which exists independently of our own perception and which will (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  46. Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry.Axel Gelfert - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
    This paper argues that the problem of expertise calls for a rapprochement between social epistemology and argumentation theory. Social epistemology has tended to emphasise the role of expert testimony, neglecting the argumentative function of appeals to expert opinion by non-experts. The first half of the paper discusses parallels and contrasts between the two cases of direct expert testimony and appeals to expert opinion by our epistemic peers, respectively. Importantly, appeals to expert opinion need to be advertised as such, if (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  47.  26
    BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments Through Heuristic Retrieval. [REVIEW]Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1):1-71.
    The BankXX system models the process of perusing and gathering information for argument as a heuristic best-first search for relevant cases, theories, and other domain-specific information. As BankXX searches its heterogeneous and highly interconnected network of domain knowledge, information is incrementally analyzed and amalgamated into a dozen desirable ingredients for argument (called argument pieces), such as citations to cases, applications of legal theories, and references to prototypical factual scenarios. At the conclusion of the search, BankXX outputs the set of argument (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  48. Grounding and the Argument From Explanatoriness.David Kovacs - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (12):2927-2952.
    In recent years, metaphysics has undergone what some describe as a revolution: it has become standard to understand a vast array of questions as questions about grounding, a metaphysical notion of determination. Why should we believe in grounding, though? Supporters of the revolution often gesture at what I call the Argument from Explanatoriness: the notion of grounding is somehow indispensable to a metaphysical type of explanation. I challenge this argument and along the way develop a “reactionary” view, according to which (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  49. 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  
  50.  64
    Ad Hominem Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University Alabama Press.
    Walton gives a clear method for analyzing and evaluating cases of ad hominem arguments found in everyday argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   75 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000