Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Discussion’ Category

CRRAR has announced their schedule of seminars for Winter 2015. Click the link below for a pdf copy of the schedule, which includes dates and location information.

CRRAR-Schedule of seminars

As readers of this site are no doubt aware, CRRAR runs a schedule of seminars, colloquia, and argumentation- and informal logic-related events throughout the year. As can be seen from the schedule for Winter, these feature leading argumentation scholars from programs from around the world as well as speakers from CRRAR itself. The discussions are always lively! Hope to see you there!

Read Full Post »

Many of us working in argumentation theory have an interest in disagreement. Indeed, discussion of so-called “deep disagreement” (per Fogelin) is practically a cottage industry in our field. Recently, professional philosophy has circled around to the topic of disagreement too and spawned it’s own cottage industry on the subject: discussion of the epistemology of disagreement.

Though at present neither field is really engaging the other in a serious way, it would be great to see these bodies of research be brought together. (It can be done! As I have mentioned before here on RAIL, Harvey Siegel’s made a good start on the job.)

In the interest of pushing the argumentation research circle on disagreement further towards the philosophical research circle on disagreement, in the hopes of achieving a Venn diagram of research with a healthy intersection between the two, I offer the following in addition to the above link to Harvey’s paper:

First up, via Philosophy TV an interesting philosophical discussion about the epistemology of disagreement between David Christensen (a philosopher I think argumentation theorists should be reading anyway) and David Sorenson:

David Christensen & Roy Sorensen from Philosophy TV on Vimeo.

Secondly, there’s this more recent item of interest from the NewAPPS blog. The piece gives the results of a recent survey of philosophers’ attitudes towards religion. It specifically addresses the question of how philosophers recognize epistemic peers across religious boundaries.

It seems to me that in this (and in other areas) mainstream philosophy and argumentation theory could benefit from making each others’ mutual acquaintance. What do you think?

Read Full Post »

home_180The latest issue of the journal Cogency is now available! Most articles are open access pdf downloads. Do check it out!

Read Full Post »

From the Journal homepage:

In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of discord, strife, and quarrel. Aesop warned that Eris should be left undisturbed since combating Eris could cause it to intensify. However, Hesiod recognized Eris’s second nature as a force of progress and improvement, the noble competition. Argumentation and debate can regulate Eris and prioritize its second positive nature, sometimes leading to the solution or dissolution of the dispute.

The purpose of Eris is to refine and reflect on theory and practice of argumentation and debate. It seeks to attract and promote theoretical, empirical, and educational contributions on argumentation and debate from several perspectives (philosophical, rhetorical, educational, psychological, among others) with a focus on both their function to regulate conflicts and disagreements and their epistemic function.

Therefore, we invite you to submit paper proposals for the next issues of Eris. Italian, English, French and Spanish papers will be accepted for peer review.

For paper guidelines, please check the website: Eris.

Read Full Post »

Dan Cohen did a very nice TED talk on argumentation. If you haven’t seen it already, do check it out below!

Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 303 other followers