Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Argumentation’ Category

CFP: 14th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2012)

Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Computation, Connections, Logic, tagged , , , , , , on February 21, 2012| Leave a Comment »

===============================================================================

CALL FOR PAPERS

NMR 2012

14th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2012)

http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/NMR12/

Co-located with KR 2012, DL 2012, KiBP 2012, CILC 2012, AI*IA 2012

Rome, Italy

June 8-10, 2012

===============================================================================

AIMS AND SCOPE

The NMR workshop series is the premier specialized forum for researchers in
non-monotonic reasoning and related areas. This will be the 14th workshop in
the series. Its aim is to bring together active researchers in the broad area
of non-monotonic reasoning, including belief revision, reasoning about
actions, argumentation, declarative programming, preferences, non-monotonic
reasoning for ontologies, uncertainty, and other related topics.

In this year, NMR will share a joint session together with the International
Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2012).

TOPICS

NMR 2012 welcomes the submission of papers broadly centered on issues and
research in non-monotonic reasoning. We welcome papers of either a
theoretical or practical nature. Topics of interest include (but are not
limited to): (more…)

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 »

Point of Inquiry Interview with Hugo Mercier

Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, Teaching, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »

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 »

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 »

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 »

CFP: Jurix 2011

Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Connections, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on June 2, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Call for Papers:  JURIX 2011, The 24th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems

University of Vienna, Austria, 14th-16th December 2011

Conference website: http://www.univie.ac.at/RI/JURIX2011/

The JURIX conference has been running annually for over 20 years and provides an international forum for both academics and practitioners in the field of legal informatics to meet and share their research and ideas to advance the field of legal knowledge systems. The 24th edition of JURIX will be hosted by the University of Vienna. We invite submission of original papers on the advanced management of legal information and knowledge, covering foundations, methods, tools, systems and applications for the following (non-exhaustive) list of topics:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Narrative Patterns and Argument

Posted in Argumentation, Computation, Connections, Discussion, Rationality, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on June 1, 2011| Leave a Comment »

"Homme assis" by Roger-Noël-François de La Fresnaye, c.1914

In a recent blog post provocatively titled “Kurt Vonnegut turns Cinderella into an Equation” Robert Krulwich (co-host of the excellent WNYC series Radiolab) uses a wonderful pair of cartoons to suggest that if humans are creatures who thrive on pattern, then scientists and mathematicians are compulsive pattern finders,  “pattern addicts” as it were.  Logicians and students of argument, I think, fairly belong in this category as well. Some of us talk about logical form and explain it in terms of complicated relationships between abstract symbols and letters. Or we classify arguments by scheme and develop equally schematic lists of questions with which to test their merits. The dialectically inclined among us give us patterns of argumentation between two or more arguers.  We create argument diagrams, relevance cubes, maps of controversies and many more things like them besides. We’re pattern people. There’s no doubt about it.

Interestingly, Krulwich closes his post by suggesting that even more than than scientists and mathematicians (and perhaps logicians and argumentation scholars too?) artists and storytellers may be even more pattern-aware. As exhibit the first he offers this short (and altogether too good not to reproduce) video of the legendary Kurt Vonnegut:

Let us begin with the obvious: we don’t need Vonnegut to tell us that stories have patterns too (though of course his way of telling us is very entertaining and we’re very lucky to have it). Clearly they’re there. The deeper issue has to do with the nature and significance of such patterns. How do we interpret them? How do we reason about them? How do we reason with them?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Edge Interview with Hugo Mercier

Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, Rationality, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on May 23, 2011| 4 Comments »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »