Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pragma-dialectics’ Category

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…)

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 »

We all know we’re not supposed to engage in fallacious argumentation.  We might disagree about what fallacies there are or how they work, but we all agree that there are certain moves in argumentation–at least in some contexts–that are just downright, well…dishonest. How do we keep students and others in our charge from wandering down that path? Most of the time the method is to teach and to reinforce practices of good argumentation, while at the same time teaching them how to recognize and nullify, with critique, the fallacious arguments of others. So far the story is not all that different from any other well-known model of moral education. Teach and promote the good, identify and punish the bad.  And that works most of the time in the hermetically sealed environment of the classroom.  Then our students go out into the world and encounter argumentation like this:

Or this… (more…)

Read Full Post »

RAIL is pleased to recommend the Special Issue of Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric on Argument and Computation.

If, for some reason, you’re not yet paying attention to the things that are happening in the computation-based wing of argumentation theory, let me ever-so-humbly suggest that you should be. The excellent work being done in this area integrates not only key insights from mainstream contemporary argumentation theory but key insights from the ever-developing field of non-monotonic logic too.  Well and truly gone are the days when, as applied to logic, ‘formal’ meant ‘classical’.  This is truly exciting stuff.  Those with no background in the overlap between argumentation and computation may wish to begin with Chris Reed and Marcin Kosowy’s excellent introduction.  Following that, I would recommend Doug Walton’s article, “How to Refute an Argument in Artificial Intelligence” and Marcin Lewinsky’s article too as being particularly friendly to those whose background is heavier in argumentation and/or dialectics (per the Walton-Krabbe model) than in computation as next steps.

This issue is special in that it shows the relevance of computational approaches to nearly every branch of argumentation theory. To look at what some would consider extremes, for example, formal logic is represented in Kazimierz Trzęsicki’s excellent treatment of the problem of argument classification, but so is rhetoric in the article by Katarzyna Budzyńska and Magdalena Kacprzak, that represents the latest extension of their work at the time of this writing.

It is timely too. For those who have an interest in the way that argumentation is carried out through the medium of the internet this issue will be very useful indeed. The aforementioned article by Lewinsky covers this ground as does the article by Karolina Stefanowicz.  Those interested in contemporary pragma-dialetctics will also find much to pique their interest here, especially the article by the team of Jacky Visser, Floris Bex, Chris Reed and Bart Garssen.

Though of course the computational wing of argumentation theory is established and thriving in departments all over the world, I think this issue of Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric also shows the variety of good things that are happening in what is becoming the vibrant argumentation theory community of Warsaw. We should all be paying attention.

Read Full Post »

RAIL is happy to announce the appearance of the latest issue of the journal Cogency!  

Click on the image to the right to view the table of contents for this issue.  The articles named therein make me wish this weren’t final exam season. Among them is an article by Tony Blair on the moral normativity of argumentation, an issue by Scott Aikin on how the rhetorical model of argument is self-defeating, and a note on practical reasoning by Gilbert Harman just to name a few. All the articles aren’t available for download yet but I’m assured that they will be soon. The editorial, which is available for download at the present time, gives a brief synopsis of the articles.  (It also gives a fairly comprehensive listing of recent and ongoing conferences in argumentation theory.) Happy reading!

Read Full Post »

International Colloquium “Argumentation in Political Deliberation”
ArgLab – IFL
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa

2 September 2011

Political deliberation, understood as a public debate aimed at forming political opinions and deciding what course of action to take, has traditionally been seen as a prime venue for public reasoning and argument. Aristotle considered political deliberation – next to forensic dispute and public oratory – as one of the three main genres of rhetoric. Today, different modes of political deliberation – from formal institutional procedures in parliaments, to public hearings, to citizens’ conferences, to televised debates, to informal online discussions among “ordinary citizens” – are at the centre of interest in argumentation theory, deliberative theory of democracy, and communication and media studies alike.

The goal of this colloquium is to bring together scholars from these interrelated disciplines to examine the role, shape and quality of argumentation in political deliberation. A theoretical and empirical focus of the presentations and discussions will be on the practices of argumentation. The questions addressed include: How can we best theorize, analyze and evaluate argumentation in the context of political deliberation? What is the impact of the contextual conditions in different deliberative activities on the shape and quality of public argument? What are the typical forms of deliberative argument and counterargument? To what extent is the “virtual public sphere” transforming the way we engage in public argument? Does it allow for inclusive participation and genuine argumentative debate between advocates of various political views? By addressing these questions, the colloquium hopes to provide a focused account of the multifaceted argumentative practices in political deliberation.

The colloquium is part of a project Argumentation, Communication and Context sponsored by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT: PTDC/FIL–FIL/10117/2009) and carried out at ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

For more information, visit the colloquium web page.

Read Full Post »

Informal Logic vol. 31 no. 2

Volume 31, number 2 of Informal Logic is now available for your reading pleasure.  Particularly recommended in this issue is Geoff Goddu’s 2010 AILACT Essay Prize-winning article on the process/product ambiguity.  I had the good fortune to see this work in an earlier phase at ISSA last summer and I’m very happy to see it in print here.  It’s a valuable article not only for it’s methodological challenge to what is for many in the study of argumentation a foundational notion, but because it spurs us to think more carefully about the metaphysics of argument in general.  The paper and its author well deserve the recognition of the AILACT prize.

Read Full Post »

I’m pleased to announce here on RAIL that the journal Cogency has allowed open access to it’s first four issues. I’m not sure if they plan to continue this policy, as, for instance, Informal Logic does, but for now it’s a great opportunity to check out what is already a diverse and interesting array of articles by many of the leading scholars in our field. (How they let an article of mine slip into the mix is anyone’s guess!)

Do check it out!

Read Full Post »

OSSA 2011 is now officially in the bag.  It was a good week. With such a high volume of papers presented it’s possible to follow many trajectories, but these were my highlights:

The Ambassador Bridge

  • Attending a pre-conference workshop on normative pragmatics with Jean Goodwin and Beth Innocenti. Jean and Beth did a fantastic job explaining their views and those of Fred Kauffeld, with whom I was also fortunate enough to chat with at length. Even having known something of these views before, I left considerably enriched for the experience, and convinced that normative pragmatics is a research program that deserves a lot more investigation and development.
  • Discourse analyst Karen Tracy’s keynote address on reasonable hostility in public hearings was also rich with ideas that I intend to think a lot more about in the coming weeks–especially her conception of how issues move through phases of being unarguable (unreflectively taken as settled), arguable (manifestly unsettled or controversial) and then unarguable again (settled sufficiently for the public discussion to move on).  This is not to say that the other keynotes were not also worthwhile–they were. Paul Thagard’s effort to bring a neuropsychological viewpoint to the discussion over the nature of critical thinking was timely, and David Hitchcock’s presentation of his work on inference claims was as interesting and challenging as those who know his work would expect it to be. (You can read the abstracts of the keynotes here.)
  • Having the chance both to attend Maurice Finocchiaro’s session on deep disagreement and to chat with him about it afterwards was illuminating.  As readers of this blog will know, deep disagreement is one of my areas of interest within argumentation theory. Finocchiaro’s work, which will be part of a forthcoming book on meta-argumentation, moves the discussion of deep disagreement forward in what I think are all the right ways.  I’m very glad he’s taken the problem on in the way that he has.
  • Of course I have to thank the wonderful audience that attended my presentation on the history of conductive argument and reflective equilibrium as well. We had an excellent discussion from which I learned much that I will bear in mind as I carry forward my work on this and other projects.

Finally, no discussion of an OSSA conference would be complete without mention of the enormous camaraderie and good will that animates these events.  Coming away from this iteration of OSSA I am reminded of my initial impression that the argumentation community models what I think are scholarly ideals of diversity of approach, internationality and interdisciplinarity.  Of course, we have our divisions and competitive moments just like any other body of scholars.  This is only natural among diverse people who care deeply about what they study and who struggle to get it right.  What is impressive about argumentation theory is that these divisions enliven the discussions rather than hamper them.  In many ways, these gatherings are as much gatherings of friends as they are academic gatherings. Thus, though I won’t try the reader’s patience with a long list of names, I will close this entry by saying how glad I am to have had the chance to catch up with so many old friends, and to have made so many new ones. All in all, it was a week well spent. I look forward to the next one.

Read Full Post »

Clicking here will take you to an interview with Frans van Eemeren, where he covers a number of topics regarding the applicability and usefulness of the pragma-dialectic method for folks working in the social sciences.  Though the blog is in French, the interview is in English.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers