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 [...]
Archive for the ‘Rhetoric’ Category
Open Access to Cogency
Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, Fallacies, Informal Logic, Pragma-dialectics, Rationality, Rhetoric, tagged Argumentation, argumentation journals, CEAR, Cogency, free content from journals, Informal Logic, informal logic journals, logic journals, open access journals, Pragma-dialectics, Rationality, Rhetoric, rhetoric jourals, Universidad Diego Portales on June 9, 2011 | 1 Comment »
CFP: First Issue of EID&A
Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, CFP, Connections, Discourse Analysis, Informal Logic, Rhetoric, tagged argumentation journals, CFP, discourse analysis, EID&A, Electronic Journal of Integrated Studies in Discourse and Argumentation, new journal, online journals, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz on June 9, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
Note: This is a re-posting to remind readers that the CFP deadline is fast approaching! This Call for Papers is for the first issue of the Electronic Journal of Integrated Studies in Discourse and Argumentation From the EID&A home page: Linked to the Department of Arts and Literature of Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, the [...]
OSSA 2011 Recap
Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Discourse Analysis, Discussion, Informal Logic, News, Pragma-dialectics, Rhetoric, tagged argumentation conferences, Beth Innocenti, CRRAR, David Hitchcock, Deep Disagreement, discourse analysis, Fred Kauffeld, Jean Goodwin, Karen Tracy, Maurice Finocchiaro, Normative Pragmatics, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, OSSA 2011, OSSA 9, Paul Thagard, University of Windsor on May 22, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
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: Attending a pre-conference workshop on normative pragmatics with Jean Goodwin and Beth Innocenti. Jean and Beth did a fantastic job explaining their views [...]
Sexism and the Idea of the “Great Speech”: The Guardian’s Classicist on Rhetoric
Posted in Connections, Discussion, Rhetoric, tagged great oratory, great speech, Mary Beard, patriarchy, Rhetoric, sexism, the Guardian, The King's Speech, woman orators, women's history on February 27, 2011 | 2 Comments »
Many in the field of rhetoric, I’ll wager, are happy to see an article about their discipline at all in a major newspaper like the Guardian. Being a philosopher myself I sympathize with the sort of small-town-ish “Hey! They’re talking about US!!” feeling engendered by articles like Mary Beard’s What makes a great speech? The [...]
The Validating Experience of Extremity: Esquire on Roger Ailes
Posted in Connections, Discussion, Rhetoric, tagged Esquire Magazine, Fox News, political discourse, pundits, Rhetoric, Roger Ailes, television on January 18, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
Tom Junod’s remarkable piece on Fox News mogul Roger Ailes in Esquire magazine is well worth your time anyway, but for rhetoricians and students of political argument it’s pure gold–a look inside the head of the man who is largely responsible for the shape of American political discourse. It’s a long article but it pays [...]
Michael Sandel on Political Deliberation
Posted in Discussion, Informal Logic, Rhetoric, tagged Michael Sandel, political debate, political deliberation on December 31, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Now, here’s the thing. I like Michael Sandel. I really do. (I even met him once, though I really, really doubt he would remember.) He’s done a lot to advance the cause of political communitarianism–a position that I respect immensely though I do not share it–and I generally regard him as a decent political [...]
Is Punditry Ethical?
Posted in Connections, Discussion, Rhetoric, tagged Deep Disagreement, journalism, politics, pundits, Rhetoric on July 16, 2010 | 1 Comment »
An interesting distinction is made by Andrew Cline in this recent post on his rhetoric and journalism blog, Rhetorica, between “punditry” and “opinion journalism”. According to Cline, opinion journalism is reporting informed by or explicitly written from a particular political perspective. It includes acting as a “custodian of fact” and observing a “discipline of verification”. [...]
Cognitive Dissonance, Deep Disagreement, and the Loch Ness Monster
Posted in Connections, Discussion, Rationality, Rhetoric, tagged cognitive dissonance, Deep Disagreement, Goldacre, ISSA, Kraus, polarization, Sophists, Sunstein, Zarefsky on July 9, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Cognitive dissonance is one of the best established notions in psychology. Simply put (perhaps too simply) the idea is that people in general will go to almost any length to hold onto a cherished belief, no matter how strong the evidence against it is, and no matter how irrational the attempt to do so may [...]
Rhetoric and Responsibility
Posted in Discussion, News, Rhetoric, tagged Bill O'reilly, free speech, moral responsibility, political rhetoric, Rhetoric, talk radio on March 30, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
It is common knowledge that political extremism is on the rise in the U.S.. I was listening to a radio broadcast in this series this morning, and the question came up of whether or not talk radio and television personalities who play to political extremes are morally responsible for the acts that some of their [...]