Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2010

Have a look at this short talk by David McCandless on data visualization:

There are a number of interesting things for argumentation theorists to think about here.  For one, if McCandless is right then clearly what he says is wind in the sails for those who rate argument diagramming highly among our various tools of analysis.

While watching this presentation I also found myself wondering if McCandless’ technique might provide aid and comfort to the cause of those who believe in visual arguments too.   To be clear, I don’t think that any of the visuals he presents here is an argument. He makes visual statements, sure, and at times draws inferences from them, but that would make his arguments (in my book at least) arguments with visual elements–not visual arguments per se.  Still I found myself wondering if maybe purely visual arguments might be a possible innovation that could come from the kind of work McCandless is doing, somewhere down the line.

Read Full Post »

Mulling over deep disagreement (again) I came across this nice little piece by David Suissa at the Huffington Post from a little over a year ago.  In it he talks about the traditional Jewish narrative of the houses of Shammai and Hillel, who differed over how to interpret the Jewish law (Shammai insisted on strict adherence, while Hillel counseled in favor of compassion):

This idea of looking at more than one “truth” is at the heart of the epic debate in the Talmud between the house of Shammai, which represents the strict, uncompromising voice of Jewish law, and the house of Hillel, which represents the more lenient voice.

Rabbi Moti Bar-Or, who runs Kolot, a bridge-building Torah study institution in Israel, explained to me that “the uniqueness of Hillel is that he truly believes there is validity in the Shammai approach, although he totally disagrees with him.”
In Shammai’s world, there’s “no room for pluralism” because it’s the world of “true or false.” It is Hillel’s ability to see the other side, Bar-Or says, that makes Judaism follow his approach today — not the fact that he was “smarter or right.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Jonathan Haidt, is a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia.  In this short talk he outlines what he takes to be the basic axes of human morality and describes, using his own research, how liberals and conservatives tend to line up on those axes.  His conclusion is an interesting one and one I think should be of interest to anyone working on political argumentation.

You can get more information about Haidt and his work at his website.

Read Full Post »

Third International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment

THINKING AND SPEAKING A BETTER WORLD

October 22, 23, 24, 2010, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia

The Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia (Oddelek za filozofijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru, Slovenija), World Debate Institute (University of Vermont USA) and ZIP (Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga/Pro et contra Institute for culture of dialogue Slovenia) invite all scholars and practitioners of argumentation, rhetoric, debate, and educators using deliberative education methodologies to the Third International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment — THINKING AND SPEAKING A BETTER WORLD.

The conference will welcome scholars and educators from diverse fields for vigorous dialogue and exchange.  This conference will unite scholars of argumentation and rhetoric, teachers, and organizers of local, national and international debating networks to discuss critical thinking and advocacy discourse through pedagogy.  We intend for the conference to welcome all who are involved in public discussions and debates about different issues.

(more…)

Read Full Post »