Archive for the ‘Connections’ Category
Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, tagged Constanza Ihnen, David Godden, eColloq, Frank Zenker, online conferences in argumentation on November 27, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in Communication, Connections, Rationality, Research Projects, tagged argument and cognitive science, cognitive science, discourse analysis, doctoral positions in argumentation, linguistics, psycholinguistics on November 27, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
2 SNF doctoral studentships
In linguistics – cognitive sciences – discourse analysis
Applications are invited for two SNF doctoral students (100%). Candidates will be working on their PhD within the SNF research project “Biased Communication: The Cognitive Pragmatics of Fallacies”. The project is closely connected to the activities and doctoral tuition offered by the CRUS doctoral programme ‘Language & Cognition’ based at the University of Fribourg and the Cognitive Sciences Centre based at the University of Neuchâtel, in Switzerland. Both PhDs will be jointly registered at both institutions (co-tutelle).
Fourth Iowa State University Summer Symposium on Science Communication
Normative Aspects of Science Communication
30-31 May, 2014; Ames, IA
Submission deadline: January 15, 2014
This workshop at Iowa State University continues the discussion of science communication ethics opened in previous events. While the principles of effective communication of science has attracted widespread interest in recent years, attention to normative aspects of the interactions among scientists, professional communicators, and publics has lagged. We invite work from relevant disciplines including communication, rhetoric, philosophy, science and technology studies, and the sciences themselves, on topics such as: (more…)
Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Computation, Connections, tagged arguing on the internet, argumentation and technology, Chris Reed, Fabio Paglieri, online argumentation on November 1, 2013 | 1 Comment »
ARGUING ON THE WEB 2.0
Amsterdam, June 30 – July 1, 2014
Chairs: Fabio Paglieri & Chris Reed
Local organizer: Ulle Endriss
Argument and debate form cornerstones of civilized society and of intellectual life. As online interaction usurps many traditional forms of interaction and communication, we would hope to see these processes alive and well on the web. But we do not. In spite of the ever-growing volume of online interaction, its current mechanisms hamper and discourage serious debate; they facilitate poor quality argument; and they allow fuzzy thinking to go unchecked. Meanwhile, these same online resources are increasingly being trusted and adopted with little critical reflection. The problem needs to be addressed from two different but converging perspectives: (more…)
Call for papers
TRUST, ARGUMENTATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Special issue of Argument & Computation
Guest edited by Fabio Paglieri (ISTC-CNR Roma)
Deadline for submission: 15 December 2013
Trust and argumentation have both been explored extensively, for their own sake as well as in the context of their relevance for technological transformations. More recently, these topics have started to be studied together, with an eye to their numerous and deep interactions. Trust and argumentation converge independently from technology (e.g., trust in speakers often affect our assessment of their arguments), but recent ICT developments have greatly magnified their interplay. (more…)
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
26th Anniversary Annual Meeting
May 3-4, 2014
New York City, NY
Theme: Clinical Reasoning
Ben Lewis, MD University of Utah School of Medicine
Brent Kious, MD PhD University of Utah School of Medicine
Claire Pouncey, MD PhD University of Pennsylvania
John Z Sadler, M.D. UT Southwestern Medical Center
Philosophers and clinicians have good reasons to reflect upon the processes of clinical reasoning. It is perhaps among the most important of the under-theorized and under-discussed elements of mental health practice. Despite being a psychological process that clinicians engage with every day, clinical reasoning remains poorly characterized both methodologically and pedagogically. Furthermore, it remains unclear how to combine the experiential aspects of clinical practice, with its traditional maxims and heuristics, with more evidence-based approaches. Models of psychiatric practice commonly overlook clinical reasoning processes and problems.
For this 26th annual meeting of AAPP, our theme focuses on the conceptual and philosophical aspects of clinical reasoning. (more…)
It’s no secret to regular readers here that I’m a big fan of argument mapping. I’ve written about it several times and it’s come to be a very important component of my teaching. That’s why I’m happy to have added Rationale Online, a web-based version of the Rationale software package, to the RAIL Resources page. Beyond merely listing it there, though, I thought I’d put up a short post about it as I think it really does represent a positive step in the evolution of argument diagramming software for the classroom.
The diagramming system used in Rationale Online is a descendant of that pioneered by Tim van Gelder (some will remember Reason!Able), wherein one can diagram both arguments and various sorts of rebuttals, with or without incorporating various sorts of argument schemes from a number of different models. (more…)
April 11-13, 2014
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
The 15th Biennial Wake Forest University Argumentation Conference will feature keynote addresses by Hans Hansen, Ekaterina Haskins, and Catherine Palczewski, as well as a special workshop with Frans van Eemeren and a workshop for undergraduate students with Gordon Mitchell.
The Biennial Wake Forest Argumentation Conference began in November, 1983, with a one-day conference on the Wake Forest University campus. After again meeting on the Wake Forest campus in 1985, the Conference was convened in 1987 in the Wake Forest study abroad facility, Casa Artom, in Venice, Italy, with co-sponsorship from the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). The conference has subsequently alternated between “the Venice Conference” and domestic sites.
The 15th Wake Forest University Argumentation Conference will take place concurrent with the 2014 Wake Debate Reunion in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
We invite papers, panel and seminar submissions: (more…)
Along with a team of fellow researchers, Vittorio Girotto (University of Venice) is investigating the intuitions people have about the outcomes of group reasoning efforts. Part of his research involves the survey that can be found at this link:
The survey takes only a few minutes to complete and should be interesting for respondents with experience in argumentation theory, informal logic, or critical thinking. The research team would be most grateful for responses!
Eric Schliesser, over at NewAPPS, has an interesting post up regarding a dispute between Marcus Arvan and Jason Brennan over the ethics of promoting the study of philosophy by citing empirical data about the success of philosophy majors. For those outside the discipline of philosophy this may seem a tempest in a teacup, but I think it warrants a closer look. For where one reads ‘philosophy’ in these discussions one could almost, in every case, substitute the name of another humanities discipline with no damage at all to the logic of the arguments in play. In the same way, I’m writing this post as a philosopher, but my guess is that a good deal of what I say here could probably be said just as well (if perhaps more eloquently) by my colleagues in, say, English or Communications. (more…)