Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Announcements’ Category

Informal Logic vol. 31 no. 4, on Charles Hamblin

Posted in Announcements, Informal Logic, tagged , , , , , , , on December 2, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Informal Logic vol. 31 no. 4

The latest edition of Informal Logic, dedicated to topics emerging from Charles Hamblin’s landmark 1970 work, Fallacies, is now available.  Contributing authors to this volume include Jim Mackenzie, Douglas Walton, Ralph Johnson, Fabrizio Macagno, and Jan Ablert van Laar and John Woods.It’s an interesting and welcome collection of essays with entries that range from developments of Hamblin’s ideas to criticism of the same.  In the latter category is John Woods’s highly recommended essay “Whither Consequence?”. Those interested in foundational questions of informal logic (for instance, whether informal logic is rightly called logic in the first place) will find Woods’s discussion of Hamblin’s views on induction very stimulating indeed.  It is an important discussion not just for informal logicians and argumentation theorists, but for logicians of all denominations. It easily is one of the best essays of the year.

Having had only the opportunity to peruse the other entries at this point I have to say that I’m very much looking forward to reading them too. If they are as interesting and insightful as I believe they are on the basis of what I’ve seen of them, then this issue of Informal Logic is a worthy tribute to the enduring importance of Charles Hamblin’s work and its impact on our field.

 

Read Full Post »

Two New Books via CRRAR

Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Informal Logic, tagged , , , , on November 17, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Today CRRAR announced the publication of two new books that should be of interest to those working in the fields of argumentation studies and informal logic. The first is a collection of papers by co-founder of the informal logic movement J. Anthony Blair.  The volume collects works spanning 30 years of research of one of the most respected scholars in the field.

Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation, Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair, with an Introduction by Christopher W. Tindale. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.  Pp. xxii, 1-355.  (List price: cloth $189.00, €149,75)
[ Contents: Introduction; 23 papers by Blair; list of Blair’s publications; References; Name and Subject Indexes]

The second work announced today collects papers from the CRRAR symposium on conductive argument held in 2010.  I had the good fortune to be present at that event and I can attest firsthand that there is much of interest contained within these pages.  There were papers from a diverse  range of perspectives and approaches within argumentation theory and they covered many aspects of the topic of conductive argument.  I’m very happy to announce that this collection of papers is now available to all.

Conductive Argument, An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning Ed. by J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. London: College Publications, 2012. Pp. viii, 1-299. (List price: paper $20.75)
[Contents: Intro. by Blair; Papers by Derek Allen, Mark Battersby & Sharon Bailin, Maurice Finocchiaro, Thomas Fischer, James Freeman, Trudy Govier, Hans Hansen, Rongdong Jin, Ralph Johnson, Fred Kauffeld, Christian Kock, Robert Pinto, Douglas Walton, Harald Wohlrapp, Frank Zenker; References; Name and Subject Indexes]

Read Full Post »

CFP – Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, CFP on November 17, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Call for papers: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

The past few years have seen a resurgence of interest in the philosophy of medicine and health care. Controversies about evidence, value, clinical knowledge, judgment, integrity and ethics have required practitioners and policy-makers to confront the epistemic and moral basis of practice, while philosophers have found in these debates ways to invigorate and reframe the investigation of long-standing philosophical problems about: the nature of reasoning, science, knowledge and practice, and the relationships between epistemology and ethics, morals and politics.

The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice is an international journal that focuses on the evaluation and development of clinical practice in medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. It has a large and diverse readership including practitioners and academics from a vast range of areas, and a tradition of publishing papers raising epistemological, metaphysical and ethical issues underlying clinical policy and practice. Following the publication of two highly successful thematic issues in 2010 and 2011 on the philosophy of medicine and health care, we are seeking contributions to a third thematic edition, scheduled for publication in autumn 2012. Papers are particularly welcome on the following themes.

1) Reasoning in Medicine.
Possible questions/topics include: what is the role and what are the limitations of statistical reasoning in medicine? What alternative accounts of reasoning are available? If arguments are somehow at the core of medical reasoning, what are the sorts of argumentation skills we need to nurture in health care? What role do intuition and emotion play in a proper account of sound decision-making? How should we understand such ideas as judging, perceiving and interpreting and their role in reasoning in a range of contexts: clinical, policy, population/ public health?

2) Value, meaning and measurement.
Possible questions/topics include: how do we represent meaning and value in health care and are our representations adequate? How do we account for the value of ‘unquantifiable’ aspects of these processes? What is the relationship between epistemology and ethics in discussions of value? What are the criteria used to assess health care? (Which ‘outcomes’? what counts as ‘quality’? How is health gain assessed and valued in relation to other aspects of health care process/experience?) How do we defend expenditure on health care in the context of the current global environment?

However, we also welcome papers that do not fit neatly into one of these themes, but represent excellent examples of the application of philosophy to questions of substantive import in medicine and healthcare.

The deadline for submission of manuscripts is 30th April 2012. Original papers are usually no more than 5000 words in length, and detailed author guidelines are available at http://www.wiley.com/bw/submit.asp?ref=1356-1294&site=1

Those interested in submitting a paper are invited to contact Robyn Bluhm (Old Dominion University) at rbluhm@odu.edu

Read Full Post »

Open Access to THEORIA Symposium Issue on Bermejo-Luque’s “Giving Reasons”

Posted in Announcements, Discussion, tagged , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2011| 2 Comments »

The journal THEORIA has just published its 72nd issue with a symposium on Lilian Bermejo-Luque’s, Giving Reasons (Springer, 2011. Argumentation Series). The discussants are John Biro, Harvey Siegel, James B. Freeman, David Hitchcock, Robert C. Pinto and Luis Vega.

In Giving Reasons, Bermejo-Luque attempts to set out and defend an original approach to argumentation theory that hinges on what she calls “argumentation as a second order speech-act complex”.  The discussion that emerges between Bermejo-Luque and her distinguished panel of respondents about this approach to argumentation theory  is an interesting one.  Click here to view the journal page, from which all articles can be accessed free of charge: http://www.ehu.es/ojs/index.php/THEORIA/issue/current.

Read Full Post »

Informal Logic vol. 31 no. 3

Posted in Announcements, Informal Logic, tagged , , , , , , , on October 6, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Miss OSSA? Here's your chance to catch up!

 

RAIL is pleased to announce the appearance of a new issue of Informal Logic.  This issue features the keynote papers and the paper that won the J. Anthony Blair prize for best student paper.  Those who followed my postings here or on Twitter during the conference will recall my mentions of Karen Tracy’s fascinating keynote address. Here’s a chance to read the paper itself. While you’re at it I also highly recommend Moldovan and Smith’s Blair Prize paper “Arguments as Abstract Objects”.  Together with Geoff Goddu’s AILACT Prize paper (highlighted in a post of its own here on RAIL not too long ago), I’d say Moldovan and Smith’s paper marks the distinct emergence (some would say re-emergence) of an interesting metaphysical sub-field in informal logic and argumentation theory. It will be interesting to see how others respond to the arguments marshaled in these two papers. At any rate, there’s no denying that the gauntlet has been thrown down!  Happy reading. 🙂

Read Full Post »

International Colloquium: Argumentation in Political Deliberation

Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Pragma-dialectics, Seminar/Workshop/Program Announcements, tagged , , , , , , on August 11, 2011| Leave a Comment »

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

Posted in Announcements, Discussion, Informal Logic, Pragma-dialectics, Rhetoric, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2011| Leave a Comment »

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 »

Open Access to Cogency

Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, Fallacies, Informal Logic, Pragma-dialectics, Rationality, Rhetoric, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2011| 1 Comment »

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 »

CFP: First Issue of EID&A

Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, CFP, Connections, Discourse Analysis, Informal Logic, Rhetoric, tagged , , , , , , , on June 9, 2011| 1 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 Journal EID&A – Electronic Journal of Integrated Studies in Discourse and Argumentation – arises from a mission to contribute to the dissemination of studies located in the interface between Discourse Analysis and Argumentation. Thus, papers submitted to this Scientific Committee should be taken on the perspective of studies that comprise the argumentation in the process of constructing meaning in discourse and in the utterance situation. The goal is to promote discussion of theoretical objects or analysis of these discursive practices in society.

Call for Papers

The first issue EID&A will gather papers which focus precisely on the essence, problems and prospects from the interface between Discourse Analysis and Argumentation.

The journal EID&A – Electronic Journal of Integrated Studies in Discourse and Argumentation – invites researchers to contribute with papers focused on the discussion about the nature, problems and prospects of the interface between the Discourse Analysis and the Argumentation.

The Journal EID&A is going to publish papers, translations and reviews. For more details, authors must consult the rules for submissions of papers, available on the website www.uesc.br/revistas/eidea/english.

The deadline for submission of papers will end on July 1st, 2011. The first edition of the EID&A is awaited to September 2011.

Read the original announcement via the Analysis and Discourse wiki here.

Read Full Post »

New Online Journal: American Dialectic

Posted in Announcements, Connections, Discussion, tagged , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2011| 1 Comment »

An interesting find for me this week was the online philosophy journal American Dialectic.  Unlike most online journals AD doesn’t aspire simply to be the online version of a print journal. It aims, instead, to encourage thoughtful discussion by publishing focused responses to the articles and (ostensibly at least)  having authors respond to readers’ questions and comments about their articles.  Hence this, from the journal’s “About Us” page:

American Dialectic is an online journal committed to enriching scholarly publication, discourse, and intellectual development in Philosophy and related fields.  As an organization, American Dialectic is devoted to publishing intellectually excellent articles and to promoting the dialectical development of ideas among a broad community of readers.  This is accomplished by combining the best aspects of a traditional publication with the best aspects of a scholarly conference: lead articles are published on our website and then are followed throughout the publication cycle by edited responses that are written and submitted by our readers.  Through this unique publishing mechanism, American Dialectic aims to foster the continued intellectual development of contributors, respondents, and readers alike. […] Readers are encouraged to genuinely engage with the articles by asking targeted questions and formulating insightful responses.  Substantial questions and responses, junior submissions themselves, are then actively published following the lead article.  The lead authors, respondents and readers can then, as a community, identify important points, clarify issues, resolve problems, and ultimately find common ground by building toward a more complete philosophic understanding.

It’s a nice idea, and one that hearkens back to the way philosophy journals operated until the explosion of PhDs in the discipline in the 1970s and 80s.  Comments and discussion notes are still formally welcomed by many journals, but the reality is that they are seldom published and even less frequently answered.  This means that there isn’t much incentive to write such things even though they do a great service to the person trying to work the bugs out of his or her ideas.  The community of those interested in the ideas of a particular article or writer are, as a result, also deprived of the chance to see how the ideas in question fare in thoughtful, critical discussion. This, to my mind, is a real loss. (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »