The fourth international conference Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADAAD) will take place at the University of Minho in Braga, Portugal, 4-6 July 2012.
CADAAD conferences are intended to promote current directions and new developments in cross-disciplinary critical discourse research. We welcome papers dealing with any contemporary social, scientific, political, economic, or professional discourse/genre. Possible topics include but are not limited to the following:
Continue Reading »
Posted in CFP | Tagged argumentation conferences, CADAAD, call for papers, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, critical theory, discourse analysis, functional linguistics, political discourse, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, University of Minho | Leave a Comment »
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.)
Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Discussion, Rationality | Tagged argument, argument theory, Argumentation, argumentation theory and cognitive psychology, cognitive psychology, Dan Sperber, Edge, Hugo Mercier, Mercier and Sperber, Rationality, reasoning | 4 Comments »
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:
The Ambassador Bridge
- Attending a pre-conference workshop on normative pragmatics with Jean Goodwin and Beth Innocenti. Jean and Beth did a fantastic job explaining their views and those of Fred Kauffeld, with whom I was also fortunate enough to chat with at length. Even having known something of these views before, I left considerably enriched for the experience, and convinced that normative pragmatics is a research program that deserves a lot more investigation and development.
- Discourse analyst Karen Tracy’s keynote address on reasonable hostility in public hearings was also rich with ideas that I intend to think a lot more about in the coming weeks–especially her conception of how issues move through phases of being unarguable (unreflectively taken as settled), arguable (manifestly unsettled or controversial) and then unarguable again (settled sufficiently for the public discussion to move on). This is not to say that the other keynotes were not also worthwhile–they were. Paul Thagard’s effort to bring a neuropsychological viewpoint to the discussion over the nature of critical thinking was timely, and David Hitchcock’s presentation of his work on inference claims was as interesting and challenging as those who know his work would expect it to be. (You can read the abstracts of the keynotes here.)
- Having the chance both to attend Maurice Finocchiaro’s session on deep disagreement and to chat with him about it afterwards was illuminating. As readers of this blog will know, deep disagreement is one of my areas of interest within argumentation theory. Finocchiaro’s work, which will be part of a forthcoming book on meta-argumentation, moves the discussion of deep disagreement forward in what I think are all the right ways. I’m very glad he’s taken the problem on in the way that he has.
- Of course I have to thank the wonderful audience that attended my presentation on the history of conductive argument and reflective equilibrium as well. We had an excellent discussion from which I learned much that I will bear in mind as I carry forward my work on this and other projects.
Finally, no discussion of an OSSA conference would be complete without mention of the enormous camaraderie and good will that animates these events. Coming away from this iteration of OSSA I am reminded of my initial impression that the argumentation community models what I think are scholarly ideals of diversity of approach, internationality and interdisciplinarity. Of course, we have our divisions and competitive moments just like any other body of scholars. This is only natural among diverse people who care deeply about what they study and who struggle to get it right. What is impressive about argumentation theory is that these divisions enliven the discussions rather than hamper them. In many ways, these gatherings are as much gatherings of friends as they are academic gatherings. Thus, though I won’t try the reader’s patience with a long list of names, I will close this entry by saying how glad I am to have had the chance to catch up with so many old friends, and to have made so many new ones. All in all, it was a week well spent. I look forward to the next one.
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 | Leave a Comment »
Rhetoric and argumentation don’t usually seem like tools of war. Typically, we think of them as ways of preventing war; of wars as something that happens when rhetoric and
German stamp showing the pen and sword together, via Wikimedia Commons
argumentation (under form of diplomacy) fail. A recent article changes this picture entirely. “Information Operations”, or “IO”: military operations with the general goal of influencing or compromising the decision making of adversaries or of protecting one’s own decision making from such interference, are now an openly acknowledged part of what the US military (and one would assume, that of many other nations) does. The article, “Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment: A Civilian Primer” by Sara King, appears in the August 2010 issue of the journal Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy and gives a strikingly detailed overview of IO. King supports her overview with ample evidence from actual uses of IO in current, and in some cases even ongoing conflicts. The article can be read online here in its entirety (at the time of this writing). Psychologist Vaughan Bell also has an interesting write up about the article on the blog Mind Hacks.
As King notes, it isn’t necessarily news that the military does this. What is news is the degree to which they do it comprehensively, and the degree to which the management of public opinion both abroad and at home is the focus of ongoing military concern.
This, I think, is something which scholars of argument and rhetoric should take very seriously. It raises a number of hard questions. Many will no doubt be horrified by the military’s use of techniques of persuasion across the smallest and largest of scales, but if the desired result is less use of lethal force, then how strenuous should those objections be made? Similarly, while one might not object to IO aimed at making it harder for terrorists to recruit new members to their causes, it does to some degree compromise the autonomous decision making processes of the individuals involved–and isn’t this the very basis on which we would object to being subject to similar manipulations? Does the fact that we are “at war” make it alright to do this? If so, why? To what degree? And what does knowing that these kinds of operations are going on all the time do to our trustworthiness in traditional media outlets and the institution of journalism overall? These and other questions, I think, are well worth our time. No matter how we answer them, the fact remains that some of the techniques we teach are now, for better or for worse, openly acknowledged weapons of war. It’s worth considering whether or not the ethical approach we take to teaching them needs reevaluation in that light.
Posted in Argumentation, Connections, News, Rhetoric | Tagged Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Argumentation, ASAP, Information Operations, journalism, military tactics, Mind Hacks, persuasion, propaganda, psyops, Rhetoric, Sara King, terrorism, Vaughn Bell, war | Leave a Comment »
The Ambassador Bridge, via Wikimedia Commons. Original by Mike Russell, CC 3.0 S-A
As many in the argumentation studies community know next week is OSSA 9, one of the bigger events on our calendars. The conference theme this go around is “Argumentation, Cognition and Community”. Having had a look at the schedule I think this promises to be an interesting conference. Many leading scholars in argumentation, informal logic, rhetoric, and normative pragmatics will be there presenting and responding to papers. There is also a good range of strong papers by up and coming scholars as well. This is one to look forward to, if you’ll be coming.
All the pertinent information for OSSA, including .pdf downloads of the schedule and abstracts among other things, can be accessed here.
Unfortunately, as we all know, not everyone who would like to attend can attend. These are tough times and many of us find ourselves at institutions who can’t always support travel to events like these as often or to the degree that they would wish. For those who won’t be coming but want to follow along, I thought I might propose a conference back-channel on Twitter with the hashtag #OSSA2011. Those of us who have Twitter accounts and will be there could post about discussions, sessions, workshops, and everything else OSSA between sessions or whenever else we have the chance. That way those who cannot come can follow along. An added benefit is that those of us who are there will be able get to know each other a little better and to coordinate a little easier when it comes to dinner plans, taxi rides, etc.. (To get a better idea of how it works, you might check out this post from the innovative and consistently helpful ProfHacker blog on the Chronicle of Higher Ed website.)
If you’re interested, let me know! You can comment here or post to Twitter including “#OSSA2011” somewhere in your tweet.
Posted in Announcements, Connections, Discussion | Tagged Argumentation, conference backchannel, CRRAR, fallacies, Formal Dialectic, Informal Logic, Normative Pragmatics, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, OSSA 2011, Rhetoric, Twitter, University of Windsor | 1 Comment »
Thankfully, messaging technology is now far more advanced than this.
Recently I had the pleasure to participate in an online argumentation colloquium. We used Skype for the actual video interaction and Dropbox to share files before, during, and after the event. Frank Zenker (also an author here) was the driving force behind the project. Jean Goodwin, Bart Verheij, Frank, and myself all did presentations or read papers which we then discussed. It is safe to say that all participants unanimously regarded the event as a success. You can read Frank’s excellent summary of the experience and what we learned by doing it in Informal Logic here or by downloading the pdf (containing screen-shots of the event) from his website here.
As those with a scholarly interest in argumentation know, our peers and friends in this field are scattered across the entire planet. Other areas of research can say the same thing of course, but in many cases the number of folks working in those areas is such that getting together doesn’t necessarily require extensive international travel. Often, unless a scholar in argumentation studies has the good fortune to be located near a university-sponsored institute or grad program like the ones at the University of Windsor, UVA or Lugano, one has to wait until a conference to see one’s colleagues and have the chance to discuss works in progress. Put that together with the increasing financial constraints most of us find ourselves under, with the environmental impacts of all those plane, train, and taxi rides, and with the increasing quality, availability, and ease of use of the requisite software, and the idea of online collaboration of the sort we tried starts to make more and more sense.
It seems clear that online colloquia couldn’t take the place of large scale gatherings like ISSA, OSSA, the RSA or ArgMAS. Still, they’re a great way to stay in contact and work collaboratively to move our research programs forward. At least, that’s what we think. What do you think? Would you be open to participating in or hosting events of this kind? Perhaps you’ve already tried this sort of thing. If so, how did it go for you?
Posted in Connections, Discussion, News | Tagged argumentation colloquia, Dropbox, online conferencing, online presentations, Skype | Leave a Comment »
CPH LU Workshops in Social Epistemology
SEPT 27, 2011: University of Copenhagen, Denmark
DEC 9, 2011: University of Lund, Sweden
http://www.fil.lu.se/conferences/conference.asp?id=43&lang=se
Themes
– Pluralistic Ignorance
– Information Cascades
– Belief Polarization
– Echo Chambers
To present formal or informal work on one or more of the above themes, please send a max. 500 word abstract on or before JUNE 27 to frank.zenker@fil.lu.se, indicating which of the above two dates you prefer.
Confirmed Speakers
– Alessio Lomuscio
– Cristina Bicchieri
– Hans van Ditmarsch
– Mark Colyvan
– Wiebe van der Hoek
Continue Reading »
Posted in Announcements, Seminar/Workshop/Program Announcements | Tagged belief polarization, echo chambers, information cascades, pluralistic ignorance, social epistemology, Universitty of Copenhagen, University of Lund, workshops in epistemology | Leave a Comment »
2 positions are now open for a 4-year PhD programme at the ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal, in the domain of political and legal argumentation. The programme is meant to include international cooperation, first of all within the ArguPolis framework developed by the University of Lugano and their partners.
Funding is secured through a grant received by the Institute from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and should not be affected by the current financial volatility in Portugal.
Deadline for applications: May 31st, 2011.
Start of the programme: September 1st, 2011.
Details can be found here:
http://www.arglab.ifl.pt/arglab-events/2011/4/12/2-phd-positions-4-years-open-at-arglab.html
and here:
http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/investigacao/bolsas/programa-de-doutoramento-internacional-argumentation-and-communication-instituto-de-filosofia-da-linguagem-ifl/view
(Many thanks to Marcin Lewinsky and the ARGTHRY mailing list for this announcement)
Posted in Announcements, Seminar/Workshop/Program Announcements | Tagged Argumentation, ArguPolis, graduate programs in argumentation, legal argumentation, political argumentation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, University of Lugano | Leave a Comment »
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.
Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, CFP, Discourse Analysis, News | Tagged Argumentation, discourse analysis, discourseduanalysis.net, new journal announcement, Universidade Estaudal de Santa Cruz | Leave a Comment »
2011 Workshop in Computational Models of Natural Argument
The 2011 CMNA workshops will be held concurrently with the 25th AAAI Conference in San Francisco, CA, August 7-11.
Description
The series of CMNA workshops, since its inception in 2001, has been acting to nurture and provide succor to the ever growing community working in “Argument and Computation”. AI has witnessed a prodigious growth in uses of argumentation throughout many of its subdisciplines: agent system negotiation protocols that demonstrate higher levels of sophistication and robustness; argumentation-based models of evidential relations; groupwork tools that use argument to structure interaction and debate; computer-based learning tools that exploit monological and dialogical argument structures in designing pedagogic environments; decision support systems that build upon argumentation theoretic models of deliberation to better integrate with human reasoning
The CMNA workshop series has seen a notable growth in submissions, and forms a complement to more recent series or events, like the ArgMAS series, begun in 2004, and the nascent COMMA series, which held its first meeting in 2006. CMNA keeps a broader, interdisciplinary emphasis on natural (real) arguments and the computational tools and techniques for modeling, manipulating and exploiting them. Continue Reading »
Posted in CFP, Computation, Connections, Seminar/Workshop/Program Announcements | Tagged ARGMAS, Argumentation, CMNA 2011, COMMA, Computation, decision systems, dialogue, models of reasoning | Leave a Comment »
« Newer Posts - Older Posts »
RAIL 