Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘reasoning’

EXTENDED CALL

“Reasons and Deliberation in Real-World Contexts”

DATES: JUNE 17TH-18TH 2013

The Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem (Institute for the Philosophy of Language) at FCSH-Universidade Nova de Lisboa (New University of Lisbon) is proud to announce its second Graduate Student Conference, to be held on the 17thand 18thof June, 2013, as part of the “Argumentation, Communication, and Context” project.

Keynote speakers:

Dr. Hugo Mercier (CNRS Research Scientist, Laboratoire Langage, Cerveau et Cognition, Lyon, France)

Dr. Catherine Moury (Assistant Professor, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal)

Following the title of the conference, we are inviting graduate students from a variety of disciplines to deliver a 30-minute presentation discussing their current research pertaining to reason-giving and deliberation. The aim is to discuss the application of theoretical observations to empirical, or real-world, scenarios and thus highlight the importance of context to the processes of reason-giving and deliberation.

EXTENDED DEADLINE: 15 APRIL 2013

Submission guidelines:Submissions should consist of a 350-500 word abstract and be suitable for BLIND review. Abstracts and author information should be e-mailed as attachments to Michael Baumtrog at iflgraduateconference@gmail.com . Please place the blind abstract in one file and the author(s) contact information in a separate file (.doc(x) or .pdf).

Read Full Post »

2nd IFL Graduate Student Conference: “Reasons and Deliberation in Real-World Contexts”

DATES: JUNE 17TH-18TH 2013

The Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem (Institute for the Philosophy of Language) at FCSH-Universidade Nova de Lisboa (New University of Lisbon) is proud to announce its second Graduate Student Conference, to be held on the 17th and 18th of June, 2013, as part of the “Argumentation, Communication, and Context” project.

Keynote speakers:

Dr. Hugo Mercier (CNRS Research Scientist, Laboratoire Langage, Cerveau et Cognition, Lyon, France)

and

Dr. Catherine Moury (Assistant Professor, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal)

 

Following the title of the conference, we are inviting graduate students from a variety of disciplines to deliver a 30-minute presentation discussing their current research pertaining to reason-giving and deliberation. The aim is to discuss the application of theoretical observations to empirical, or real-world, scenarios and thus highlight the importance of context to the processes of reason-giving and deliberation. (more…)

Read Full Post »

"The Way You Hear It Is the Way You Sing It", by Jan Steen, c.1665

“The Way You Hear It Is the Way You Sing It”, by Jan Steen, c.1665

Seven people are sitting around the bar at the local college watering hole, when the bartender looks up from the taps and asks, “Say, how normative is logic, anyway?” From around the bar the patrons answer: (more…)

Read Full Post »

The program for the University of Windsor symposium on Psychology, Emotion and the Human Sciences is now available at http://www.thehumansciences.com/programme/.  Registration should be available in a few days.

Read Full Post »

Rhetoricians will appreciate the presence of an attentive, if quadrupedal, audience in addition to the speakers.

An interesting phone interview with Hugo Mercier popped up today on Point of Inquiry, the blog for the Center for Inquiry.  The role of the confirmation bias, disagreement, and polarization are covered in this interesting discussion.  There are some very familiar themes here for argumentation theorists. It’s well worth a listen.  The clear and economical discussion of what can be complicated ideas here makes the podcast something potentially useful in advanced classes on reasoning too. The interview is about 40 minutes long. Click on the link below to listen.

Interview with Hugo Mercier

(Note: The file may take a moment to load depending upon your connection speed, so do be patient!)

 

Read Full Post »

CALL FOR PAPERS: AILACT @ the APA Eastern Division, December 28-30, 2011, Washington, DC
Deadline: July 31

We are now accepting proposals on any relevant topic for the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT) session to be held in conjunction with this year’s Eastern Division meetings of the APA.  Papers, papers-with-commentators, author-meets-critics, and panel discussions are all welcome. Send proposals or abstracts to dhcohen@colby.edu by July 31.

Read Full Post »

Scientific American: Winning Argument: As a ‘New’ Critique of Reason, Argumentative Theory Is Trite but Useful.

In recent posts here on RAIL I’ve been upfront about my tendency to like Mercier and Sperber’s work. Critical discussion of it, however, is still valuable and this short article in Scientific American by John Horgan is an accessible, if somewhat ambivalent gesture in that direction.

Read Full Post »

Harman announced on Twitter today that the full text of his 1987 book on reasoning, Change in View had been made available for free download at his website.  Readers of RAIL will, I think, find Harman’s book interesting if they’ve not yet been exposed to it.  Chapter 2 in particular will be of interest to many, as Harman there argues that “logic is not of any special relevance” to the theory of reasoning.  Chapter 7, on explanatory coherence is also likely to arouse the interest of many readers. Apart from Chapters two and seven there are treatments of belief revision, implicit commitments, and reason and obligation that are likely to be of interest as well. Harman’s characteristically thorough and challenging analysis are evident throughout Change in View. The book can be downloaded in sections or as one file. Either way, it’s a great opportunity to get a hold of a fascinating book by one of the most influential American philosophers of the last 40 years.

Read Full Post »

Apollo and the Muses by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1533

The world of those who study argument and who study reason and rationality is abuzz with talk of the provocative research of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Anyone who was at last week’s OSSA conference heard their names in practically every other conversation or presentation. For my own part I’m not sure quite what to make of their work.  On the one hand it’s exciting to see argument and reason brought together in empirical research, and I’m well on record as being very friendly to the notion that argument has a very deeply rooted functionality for human beings at both the collective and individual levels. On the other hand, I’m not sure that there aren’t grave problems lurking within. For one, Mercier and Sperber seem at times to work from the assumption that ‘argument’ means ‘deductive argument’ and if this is so, I’m not at all sure that it is wise.  The body of work on analogy alone would give me pause regarding the prospects of such a view, to say nothing of the work of the informal logic movement in the last 30 years.  There are other things that trouble me, but as I’m still doing research in this general idea I’ll try to save myself what might turn out to be a super-sized helping of crow and leave the reader to their own devices where Messrs. Mercier and Sperber are concerned.

At any rate there’s no denying it’s relevance to the world of argumentation theory.  In that vein this video interview with Hugo Mercier is one that I expect will be of interest to many.  The interview is located at the web journal* Edge, itself worth a look to those with an interest in interdisciplinary intellectual discourse.

*(All apologies to those of you who thought that by ‘Edge’ I was referring to an Irish fellow–though I confess I probably would have watched that interview with interest too.)

Read Full Post »

Apparently the gang over at Less Wrong think so, and they’ve got a paper that backs them up.  From the blog:

Mercier and Sperber argue that, when you look at research that studies people in the appropriate settings, we turn out to be in fact quite good at reasoning when we are in the process of arguing; specifically, we demonstrate skill at producing arguments and at evaluating others’ arguments.

Interesting stuff, especially given that by ‘argument’ here Mercier and Sperber, the paper’s authors, intend the attempt to persuade, not to rationally convince.  In a nutshell, their contention is that we reason better when we are trying to persuade others to adopt our point of view. Conversely, when we aim at the truth we do worse at being reasonable.  Hmmm.  :-)

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers