Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Discourse Analysis, tagged argumentation journals, EID&A on February 1, 2015| Leave a Comment »
Via the journal’s homepage:
Linked to the Department of Arts and Literature of Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Brazil, the Journal EID&A (Electronic Journal of Integrated Studies in Discourse and Argumentation) semiannually publishes papers and reviews which aim the integrated studies of the discourse and the argumentation in order to promote the discussion about the nature, the problems and perspectives of the interface between these two objects of study.
Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Computation, Connections, tagged argument and computation, belief revision, formal epistemology, LORI 5 on January 13, 2015| Leave a Comment »
October 28 – 31, 2015
Department of Philosophy,
National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan
Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition,
National Yang Ming University
Taipei, Taiwan
Conference Website: https://www.yoursaas.cc/websites/36224472513387025486/home.html
The LORI workshop series aims at bringing together researchers working on a wide variety of logic-related fields that concern the understanding of rationality and interaction. These fields include Game Theory and Decision Theory, Philosophy (in particular Epistemology), Linguistics, Computer Science, and Artificial Intelligence. The series aims at fostering a view of Logic as an interdisciplinary endeavor, and supports the creation of an East-Asian community of interdisciplinary researchers.
We invite submission of contributed papers on any of the broad themes of the LORI workshop series; specific topics of interest include, but are not limited to, formal approaches to
Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Discourse Analysis, Linguistics, Pragma-dialectics, tagged ARG-AGE 2015, CoRReA on January 13, 2015| 1 Comment »
The CoRReA (Collectif Romand de Recherches sur l’Argumentation, http://www.collectifcorrea.wordpress.com) is pleased to issue the call for papers for the International Conference ARG-AGE 2015, to be held at the University of Lausanne in 2015 (9-11 September). The languages of the conference will be English and French.
Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, tagged Deep Disagreement, disagreement, epistemology, philosophy on December 16, 2014| Leave a Comment »
Many of us working in argumentation theory have an interest in disagreement. Indeed, discussion of so-called “deep disagreement” (per Fogelin) is practically a cottage industry in our field. Recently, professional philosophy has circled around to the topic of disagreement too and spawned it’s own cottage industry on the subject: discussion of the epistemology of disagreement.
Though at present neither field is really engaging the other in a serious way, it would be great to see these bodies of research be brought together. (It can be done! As I have mentioned before here on RAIL, Harvey Siegel’s made a good start on the job.)
In the interest of pushing the argumentation research circle on disagreement further towards the philosophical research circle on disagreement, in the hopes of achieving a Venn diagram of research with a healthy intersection between the two, I offer the following in addition to the above link to Harvey’s paper:
First up, via Philosophy TV an interesting philosophical discussion about the epistemology of disagreement between David Christensen (a philosopher I think argumentation theorists should be reading anyway) and David Sorenson:
David Christensen & Roy Sorensen from Philosophy TV on Vimeo.
Secondly, there’s this more recent item of interest from the NewAPPS blog. The piece gives the results of a recent survey of philosophers’ attitudes towards religion. It specifically addresses the question of how philosophers recognize epistemic peers across religious boundaries.
It seems to me that in this (and in other areas) mainstream philosophy and argumentation theory could benefit from making each others’ mutual acquaintance. What do you think?
Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Rhetoric, tagged John Benjamins, multimodal argumentation, visual argument on December 15, 2014| 1 Comment »
(provisional title)
Editors: Assimakis Tseronis (University of Amsterdam); Charles Forceville (University of Amsterdam)
Taking up on the momentum that has been gathering in the last two decades around the study of multimodal discourse from an argumentation studies perspective, we have taken the initiative to propose the first edited volume on the subject to the Argumentation in Context book series of John Benjamins Publishing House. The number of papers presented in the last OSSA and ISSA conferences as well as the special issues devoted to the subject by journals such as Argumentation and Advocacy, Argumentation, and Semiotica attest the growing interest and maturing discussions on the theoretical, methodological and analytical issues that the argumentative analysis of non-verbal modes raises. We would like to invite you to submit a proposal for a chapter that fits with the project as described in the outline of the book.
Posted in Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Fallacies, Informal Logic, tagged debiasing, defeasible argumentation, John Locke, Watson-Glaser test on December 10, 2014| Leave a Comment »
Informal Logic vol. 31 no. 4
Informal Logic vol. 34, no. 4 is up at the journal’s homepage.
Looking forward to reading that first one, myself! Interesting issue overall, though–do check it out!
Posted in Argumentation, CFP, Communication, Connections, tagged interpersonal reasoning, normativity in argumentation, strategic maneuvering, Topoi special issues on November 30, 2014| 1 Comment »
DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 11 JANUARY 2015
Guest Edited by Chris Campolo and David Godden
The re-discovery, in the late 1970’s, of the perspectives on argument as process and practice (added to that of product) occasioned a dramatic re-visioning of the object of study in argumentation. Viewed as a practice of transacting reasons, argumentation became a situated activity, or doing, requiring know-how, rather than a collection of reasons – a thing containing a collection of knowledge-that.
This volume focuses on the normative and epistemic dimensions and consequences of viewing argumentation as the practice/s of transacting (giving and asking for) reasons. We mean to create momentum behind the perspectives focused primarily on the actions and doings which, alongside many related human practices, constitute argumentation. Here we open a space to explore and interrogate the idea that neither argumentation as a whole, nor the many elements into which it may be analyzed, can be adequately understood apart from an account of what it is to give reasons, with all the complexity and fluidity that attends our engagement in any kind of know-how. Rather, the practice/s of transacting reasons is central to the projects of explaining what a reason is, how reasons work, the normativity of reasons, as well as their prescriptivity (or our accountability to them).
Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Connections, Informal Logic, tagged argumentation conferences, argumentation resources, ISSA, OSSA on November 16, 2014| 1 Comment »
Just in case you’ve not yet heard about this, the folks in Windsor have done us all a great service. The proceedings of all OSSA conferences from the very first to the most recent are now available online at the OSSA Conference Archive. Papers and commentaries are available for viewing and download. Search options are up-to-date too. For those of us who want to cite these papers in our work, this is an indispensable and easy-to-use resource that compares favorably with the ISSA Conference Archive maintained by Rozenberg Quarterly. Both are laudable additions to the online resources available for argumentation researchers.
RAIL 