Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Workshops’ Category

First Call for Papers

http://argdiap.pl/argdiap2014

ArgDiaP 2014: the 12th ArgDiaP Conference “From Real Data to Argument Mining”

23-24 May 2014, Warsaw, Poland

IGSAR 2014: the 2nd Interdisciplinary Graduate School on Argumentation and Rhetoric “Corpus Analysis in Argument Studies”

21-24 May 2014, Warsaw, Poland

Submissions are invited for the 12th ArgDiaP conference “From Real Data to Argument Mining” to be held in Warsaw, Poland.

The 12th ArgDiaP conference is dedicated to argument mining. We will discuss techniques and methods for analyzing real data in natural arguments which will ultimately help us to automatically recognize and extract argumentative structures. The confirmed invited speakers are:

  • Prof. Fabio Paglieri (Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione — CNR, Rome, Italy)
  • Prof. Andrea Rocci (Istituto di Argumentazione, Linguistica e Semiotica, Universita della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland)
  • Prof. Patrick Saint-Dizier (Institut de Recherches en Informatique de Toulouse — CNRS, France).

Associated with the conference is the 2nd edition of the Interdisciplinary Graduate School on Argumentation and Rhetoric, IGSAR. Students will participate in two days of introductory tutorials (21-22 May) and in the ArgDiaP conference (23-24 May). Thanks to the financial support offered by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, students may apply for grants to cover a registration fee to participate in four days of IGSAR (accommodation and travel have to be covered by a participant). (more…)

Read Full Post »

5th Biennial RSA Summer Institute
Lawrence, KS
June 3 – 9, 2013

The Institute will commence with five Seminars running from Monday to Friday, June 3-7, culminating in a plenary luncheon. After lunch on the 7th, twenty Workshops begin and will run to midday on Sunday, June 9th.

2013 Institute Schedule of Events


Registration for the 2013 RSA Summer Institute in Lawrence, KS is open! If you have been accepted into a Workshop or a Seminar (or if you are a session leader), it’s time to register. To do so, please visit http://www.continuinged.ku.edu/programs/rhetoric-society/. If you are a session leader or a graduate student, you will need a special code to receive the appropriate discounts. You should have received this code already. If you are not a session leader or a graduate student, you do not need a code to register. The Registration deadline is April 1, 2013.

Related news: Information on Lodging for the Institute can be found here:http://rhetoricsociety.org/aws/RSA/pt/sp/institute_lodging.

Argumentation

Seminar leaders:

David Zarefsky, Northwestern University
Robert C. Rowland, University of Kansas
Jean Goodwin, Iowa State University
Jeanne Fahnestock, University of Maryland
Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam

Argumentation is the study of how people justify their acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values, and influence the thought and actions of others, by providing good reasons for the claims they make. This subfield includes both descriptive study (what do people consider to be good reasons and what are they doing when they offer what they take to be justifications?) and normative investigation (under what circumstances should claims be considered justified?). It addressesboth argumentation in general and argumentation in specific contexts such as law, business,science, religion, and public affairs. (more…)

Read Full Post »

7th eColloq on Argumentation
Thursday April 11, 4-6 pm GMT+1  (Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm)
 
PROGRAM
4.00-4.10 Connect, Welcome
 
4.10-4:35 Bart Verheij (Groningen, The Netherlands):
Defeasible rule-based arguments with a logico-probabilistic foundation
 
Abstract: A theory of defeasible arguments is proposed that combines logical and probabilistic properties. This logico-probabilistic argumentation theory builds on two foundational theories of nonmonotonic reasoning and uncertainty: the study of nonmonotonic consequence relations (and the associated minimal model semantics) and probability theory. A key result is that, in the theory, qualitatively defined argument validity can be derived from a quantitative interpretation. The theory provides a synthetic perspective of arguments `jumping to conclusions’, rules with exceptions, and probabilities. The approach is compared to Pollock’s computational model of argumentation OSCAR, designed on the basis of his well-developed positions concerning the relations between argumentation, logic and probability. In contrast with Pollock’s OSCAR, the present approach is compatible with the standard probability calculus.
 
4:35-4:50 Discussion
 
4:50-5:00 Break
 
5:00-5:25 Emmanuel J. Genot (Lund University, Sweden):
The Myth of a Confirmation Bias (Arguments for a better argumentative theory of reasoning)
 
Abstract: Wason, confronted with an apparent instance of the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent in his empirical Selection Task, hypothesized a “Confirmation Bias” (CB) to be responsible for subjects’ selections [4]. When Bayesian rational analysis of the selection task (RAST, [3]) substituted a richer probabilistic semantics to Wason’s truth-functional semantics, subjects’ selection emerged as being vindicated, and evidence for CB (in fact, any bias) vanished. Relevance Theorists later produced data that Bayesian models could not accommodate [1], yet without exhibiting evidence for biases of any sort. However, Relevance Theory has more recently been superseded by the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR, [2]), in which CB has returned with a vengeance, backed by an evolutionary narrative that pits “argumentative” and “logical” competences against one another. I will argue that this narrative is a remnant of the same truncated view of logic (and semantics) that informed Wason’s theorizing, but that argumentation-theoretic considerations are necessary to account for the data. To support this view, I will present a generalization of RAST that accounts for both standard and non-standard cases of ST (resp. from [3, 4] and [1]) once argumentative goals are “factored in,” but with an underlying semantics that undermines the very idea of “logical competence”—without which the CB is but a myth.
 
Girotto, Kemmelmeier, Sperber & van der Henst. “Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task”, Cognition, 2001, 81, B69-B7
Mercier & Sperber, Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2011, 34, 57-74.
Oaksford & Chater. A Rational Analysis of the Selection Task as Optimal Data Selection. Psychological Review, 1994, 101, 608-631
Wason, Reasoning About a Rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 20, 273-281
 
5:25-5:40 Discussion
 
Discussants (preliminary list)
Nir Oren (University of Aberdeen, UK)
David Hitchcock (McMasters, Canada)
Thomas Gordon (Berlin, Germany)
Jean Goodwin (Iowa State, USA)
Iowan Drehe (University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
Sune Holm Petersen (Copenhagen University, Denmark)
Steven Patterson (Marygrove College, Detroit, USA)
Sarah Uckelman (Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg, Germany)
Marcin Lewinski (New University of Lisbon, Portugal)
Thomas Fischer (University of Houston, Texas, USA)
 
PARTICPATION
To participate as a discussant (just “sitting in” is in fact fine!), please review the links under “TechThings” at the above website (to test your hardware) and contact the organizer at frank.zenker@fil.lu.se.
 
ORGANIZER
Frank Zenker
Department of Philosophy & Cognitive Science
Kungshuset, Lundagård, 222 22 Lund, Sweden

Read Full Post »

Quantitative Methods in the Legal Evaluation of Evidence: Challenges and Prospects
April 10, 2013
The Pufendorf Institute, Sölvegatan 2, Lund
 
 
The workshop is funded by the Swedish Research Council. Attendance is free
of charge but registration is required. Please be aware that the number of
participants is limited. Register by e-mail to dragi.anevski@maths.lu.se or
lena.wahlberg@jur.lu.se no later than April 4. The registration is valid
once you have received confirmation from us. (more…)

Read Full Post »

The Amsterdam Workshop on Truth is organised by the Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation of the University of Amsterdam.

The workshop will take place from Wednesday the 13th to Friday the 15th of March 2013.

 

The workshop is intended to serve as a meeting point for researchers working on the philosophy of truth in order to discuss latest results and work in progress.
It will address a wide range of truth-related topics and it is open to more formal or less formal approaches.

 

The following speakers have confirmed participation:

Stefan Wintein,  Philip Welch,  Albert Visser,  Giulia Terzian,  Johannes Stern, Jönne Speck,  Sonja Smets,  Georg Schiemer,  Robert van Rooij,  Carlo Nicolai, Iris Loeb, Øystein Linnebo,  Graham Leigh,  Jeffrey Kettland,  Leon Horsten,  Volker Halbach, Nina Gierasimczuk,  Martin Fischer,  Theodora Achourioti.

 
Workshop venues (map):

Wednesday 13 March, Thursday 14 March: VOC-zall, Bushuis
Friday 15 March: Oudemanhuispoort A0.08

The workshop will start on Wednesday at 12:00 and end on Friday at 15:00.

 

Attendance is free of charge, however, registration is required.

The deadline for registering is March the 3rd.

 

More information may be found at the workshop website: http://www.illc.uva.nl/truth/truth13/

Read Full Post »

University of Guelph graduate students (it’s my understanding) have been organizing in a serious fashion to take philosophy out of the ivory tower.  A two-day series of events, with six concurrent sessions addresses issues from Einstein to zombies, heuristics, and feminism. 

Philopolis Guelph, inspired by Philopolis Montreal aims to “[do] a better job [than academic philosophers have been doing] of engaging in dialogue with the public: this requires finding a common language, as well as being explicit about the relevance of the ideas at issue. Both academic philosophers and the broader public stand to benefit one another greatly through this kind of exchange—free of jargon, of minced words, and of exclusionary assumptions. “

Philopolis’ resistance to academic jargon and presumption promises to make philosophy accountable as well as show non-philosophers how valuable philosophy can be.  The development of a common language is a creative endeavour that requires public engagement, and making assumptions explicit is an important principle of critical thinking to put into practice.

Philosophers sometimes think we own “critical thinking,” which is an extremely dangerous assumption in itself.  Sociologists, neurologists and physicists engage in critical thinking too, and are more aware of the limitations to their methods.

I know at Guelph they’ve been talking about this sort of event for years, and I spoke at one such around 2004.  Unfortunately, that lacked the upswell and publicity that supports this event.  Such savvy is to the credit of the graduate students, I expect.

As a faculty brat, I have a long-abiding affection for graduate students from the old days when there were more personal relationships between faculty and graduate students.  While that intimacy could and often did involve a number of problems regarding sexual morality and nepotism, some of us benefited in the most benign ways.  As the numbers of graduate students swell — at least in Canada where governments are putting money into that sector of education (mostly to the exclusion of others), many freshly-minted doctors will be disappointed by their job prospects.  The benefit however (and this is the reason the government puts the money there) is for society in general.  Graduate students have insight, passion, networking skills, and drive that can drive social and intellectual progress.  That power is well-demonstrated by Philopolis Guelph.

Read Full Post »

The purpose of this international workshop is to bring together researchers who apply formal methods, widely understood, to natural language argumentation in order to provide a reconstruction which can provide the basis for an evaluation.

A related objective is to make the state of the art accessible to audiences who predominantly reconstruct natural language argumentation with more traditional formal or informal tools.

The workshop will be held 20-21 September 2012, following the GAP.8 conference at the University of Konstanz, Germany.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers