Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Discussion’ Category

WANTED: Ideas for a paper or a panel discussion or a book review session for the AILACT Group Session at the Central Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association, February 18-21, 2015, at the Ballpark Hilton, St. Louis.

This is a great way to share some ideas and test some arguments with friends. It’s always a fun social occasion too.

Topics include:  critical thinking, informal logic, argumentation, their instruction, assessment, and philosophical and psychological foundations.

Please send ideas or questions by September 30 to Kevin Possin: kpossin@winona.edu

Read Full Post »

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

Vol.36 No. 49

Budzynska Katarzyna, van Eemeren Frans H., Koszowy Marcin, “Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies”

PART I: SPEECH ACTS AND ARGUMENTS

Searle John R., “The Structure and Functions of Language”

Snoeck Henkemans A., Francisca, “Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation”

Andone, Corina, “Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability”

Goodwin, Jean, “Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate about Advocating”

PART II: ARGUMENTATION IN A DIALOGUE

Simons Peter, “Linguistic Complexity and Argumentative Unity: A Lvov-Warsaw School Supplement”

Mackenzie Jim, “From Speech Acts to Semantics”

Jacquette Dale, “Collective Referential Intentionality in the Semantics of Dialogue”

Botting David, “Without Qualification: an Inquiry into the Secundum Quid”

Wells Simon, “Supporting Argumentation Schemes in Argumentative Dialogue Games”

Lewiński Marcin, “Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies”

PART III: DISCUSSION PAPERS

van Laar Jan Albert,”Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton’s Theory of Criticism”

Szymanek Krzysztof, “Justification and Argumentation”

Forgács Gábor,”Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-Dialectical Framework”

All papers are available as open access, pdf downloads at the Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric homepage

Read Full Post »

Informal Logic

Vol 34, No 2 (2014)

Table of Contents

Articles

Rhetoric, Dialectic and Logic: The Wild-Goose Chase for an Essential Distinction (152-166), Charlotte Jørgensen

The Authority of Citations and Quotations in Academic Papers (167-191), Begoña Carrascal

Throwing the Baby Out with the Water: From Reasonably Scrutinizing Authorities to Rampant Scepticism About Expertise (192-218), Markus Seidel

Critical Reviews

Meta-argumentation, An Approach to  Logic and Argumentation Theory (219-239), J. Anthony Blair

All articles available online, open access: Informal Logic:  Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice

Read Full Post »

9th eColloq on Argumentation
Thursday DEC 12, 2013, 4 pm Central European Time (Berlin, Rome, Stockholm)
PROGRAM
4.00-4.10 Connect, Welcome
4.10-4:35 Constanza Ihnen (University of Chile): Deliberation and negotiation: Grasping the difference
4:35-4:50 Discussion
4:50-5:00 Break
5:00-5:25 David Godden (Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA): Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning
5:25-5:40 Discussion
Abstracts are available at the above website.
To participate as a discussant, please review the hard- and software requirement (listed under “TechThings”), and send e-mail to frank.zenker@fil.lu.se.

Read Full Post »

A screen shot of Rationale Online

A screen shot of Rationale Online, click for a larger view.

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…)

Read Full Post »

Paul Gustav Fischer, "A fire on Kultorvet" c.1900

Paul Gustav Fischer, “A fire on Kultorvet” c.1900

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…)

Read Full Post »

The connections between argumentation theory and mainstream analytic-ish philosophy may not always be clear for those outside of either discipline. For those that find themselves so bemused, I recommend having a look at yesterday’s interview with philosopher Robert Stalnaker, by 3:AM magazine.  The discussion ranges over a wide spectrum of issues, from the importance of pragmatics to the motivations for possible worlds metaphysics. Along the way a number of contact points with the concerns of argumentation theory can be discerned. Consider Stalnaker on this bit about contextualism and disagreement, for example:

There is a philosophical problem that needs to be addressed, but the threat is not just an abstract philosophical concern. The contextualist picture also points to a practical threat that is worth worrying about. The contexts in which discourse and inquiry take place can be, and are, manipulated in ways that distort the outcome. If, as I believe, we can make sense of rational discourse, deliberation and inquiry, only in a given context which involves substantive presuppositions, we face a daunting challenge when the contexts we find ourselves in are skewed – when the basic presuppositions that define the context are false. When disagreements are deep, or when one judges that our whole way of looking at things is radically mistaken, we need to find our way into a new context, and there may be no neutral way to do so. But we have rich and diverse resources for talking and thinking about the world and for deciding what we must do, and even if there is no absolutely neutral set of rules governing rational activity, and no safe platform where we are guaranteed to find common ground on which to settle our disagreements and find the truth, with good will we can usually find a way to get to a place where we can understand each other, and engage in what we can agree is rational debate.

The interview is well worth your time, if you have an interest in connections like these. A plus is that the interviewer makes a point of pushing the question of how the work that Stalnaker does as a professional philosopher is relevant to the world outside the discipline–a challenge that Stalnaker largely is able to answer.  You can read interview in its entirety here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers