Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Special Issue: Journal of Applied Communication

September 13, 2010 by SP

Call for Papers

A special issue of the Journal of Applied Communication is planned: Examining the Linkages between Religion, Spirituality and Communication for Individual and Social Change.

This special issue is devoted to research articles and essays that focus on the role and impact of religion and spirituality (R/S) on the design, impact and practice of communication via the media and between individuals. Papers that address practical implications and linkages between R/S and communication in areas such as health, wellbeing, personal relationships, instruction, policy, public understanding or social discourse will be ideal for this special issue.

Continue Reading »

Posted in CFP | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Third International Conference on Tools for Teaching Logic

September 13, 2010 by SP

Third International Congress on Tools for Teaching Logic

From June 1 to June 4 2011 we will organize the Third International Congress on Tools for Teaching Logic (TICTTL), in Salamanca, Spain. Previously, these events have also been organized in Salamanca, in 2000 and in 2006, and the webpages of these past events are http://aracne.usal.es/congress/congress.html and http://logicae.usal.es/SICTTL/. The webpage of TICTTL is http://logicae.usal.es/TICTTL/.

The congress will focus on a variety of topics including: logic teaching software, teaching formal methods, logic in the humanities, dissemination of logic courseware and logic textbooks, methods for teaching logic at different levels of instruction (secondary educuation, university level, and postgraduate), presentation of postgraduate programs in logic, e-learning, logic games, teaching argumentation theory and informal logic, pedagogy of logic.

Continue Reading »

Posted in CFP | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

2010 AILACT Essay Prize: Call for Submissions

September 4, 2010 by SP

Essay Prize in Informal Logic/Critical Thinking/Argumentation Theory

The Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT) invites submissions for the 2010 AILACT Essay Prize.  This will be the sixth year in which the prize has been offered.
●          Value: $300 U.S.
●          The prize-winning paper will be considered for publication in Informal Logic upon the conditions listed below.
●          Papers related to the teaching or theory of informal logic or critical thinking, and papers on argumentation theory, will be considered for the prize.
●          There are no restrictions on authorship.  Authors need not be members of AILACT.
●          Previously unpublished papers, and papers published or accepted for publication between January 1, 2007 and October 31, 2010, are eligible.  Maximum length: 6,000 words.

Posted in CFP | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

Argumentation and Visual Information

August 30, 2010 by SP

Have a look at this short talk by David McCandless on data visualization:

There are a number of interesting things for argumentation theorists to think about here.  For one, if McCandless is right then clearly what he says is wind in the sails for those who rate argument diagramming highly among our various tools of analysis.

While watching this presentation I also found myself wondering if McCandless’ technique might provide aid and comfort to the cause of those who believe in visual arguments too.   To be clear, I don’t think that any of the visuals he presents here is an argument. He makes visual statements, sure, and at times draws inferences from them, but that would make his arguments (in my book at least) arguments with visual elements–not visual arguments per se.  Still I found myself wondering if maybe purely visual arguments might be a possible innovation that could come from the kind of work McCandless is doing, somewhere down the line.

Posted in Connections, Discussion | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments »

Deep Disagreement: A Lesson from the Jewish Tradition

August 8, 2010 by SP

Mulling over deep disagreement (again) I came across this nice little piece by David Suissa at the Huffington Post from a little over a year ago.  In it he talks about the traditional Jewish narrative of the houses of Shammai and Hillel, who differed over how to interpret the Jewish law (Shammai insisted on strict adherence, while Hillel counseled in favor of compassion):

This idea of looking at more than one “truth” is at the heart of the epic debate in the Talmud between the house of Shammai, which represents the strict, uncompromising voice of Jewish law, and the house of Hillel, which represents the more lenient voice.

Rabbi Moti Bar-Or, who runs Kolot, a bridge-building Torah study institution in Israel, explained to me that “the uniqueness of Hillel is that he truly believes there is validity in the Shammai approach, although he totally disagrees with him.”
In Shammai’s world, there’s “no room for pluralism” because it’s the world of “true or false.” It is Hillel’s ability to see the other side, Bar-Or says, that makes Judaism follow his approach today — not the fact that he was “smarter or right.”

Continue Reading »

Posted in Connections, Discussion, Informal Logic | Tagged , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jonathan Haidt on Liberals and Conservatives

August 7, 2010 by SP

Jonathan Haidt, is a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia.  In this short talk he outlines what he takes to be the basic axes of human morality and describes, using his own research, how liberals and conservatives tend to line up on those axes.  His conclusion is an interesting one and one I think should be of interest to anyone working on political argumentation.

You can get more information about Haidt and his work at his website.

Posted in Connections | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Call for Papers: Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate, and the Pedagogy of Empowerment

August 4, 2010 by SP

Third International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment

THINKING AND SPEAKING A BETTER WORLD

October 22, 23, 24, 2010, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia

The Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia (Oddelek za filozofijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru, Slovenija), World Debate Institute (University of Vermont USA) and ZIP (Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga/Pro et contra Institute for culture of dialogue Slovenia) invite all scholars and practitioners of argumentation, rhetoric, debate, and educators using deliberative education methodologies to the Third International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment — THINKING AND SPEAKING A BETTER WORLD.

The conference will welcome scholars and educators from diverse fields for vigorous dialogue and exchange.  This conference will unite scholars of argumentation and rhetoric, teachers, and organizers of local, national and international debating networks to discuss critical thinking and advocacy discourse through pedagogy.  We intend for the conference to welcome all who are involved in public discussions and debates about different issues.

Continue Reading »

Posted in CFP | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Call for Papers: ARGAIP 2010

July 27, 2010 by SP

1st Workshop on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy: Computational and Philosophical Perspectives

http://wsarg2010.ing.unibs.it/

Part of the 11th Symposium of the Italian Association for the Artificial
Intelligence

Brescia, December 1-3, 2010

Argumentation is an important and exciting research topic that cuts
across a variety of disciplines: Philosophy, Psychology, Communications
Studies and Computer Science, in particular Artificial Intelligence. In
spite of the wide range of disciplines interested in Argumentation,
scientific communities tend to be organized along disciplinary
boundaries, with only moderate integration occurring between
computational models and philosophical theories of Argumentation. This
workshop aims to rectify this situation, bringing together people
from various disciplines (most notably, Artificial Intelligence,
Philosophy, and Psychology) and asking them to compare their methods and
results in the study of Argumentation.
Continue Reading »

Posted in CFP | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

Call for Papers: Special Issue of Culture, Language, and Representation

July 23, 2010 by SP

The journal Culture, Language and Representation seeks contributions for volume 9 to be published in May 2011.

The issue will be devoted to the interface between politics and discursive practices.

Possible topics for analysis would include:

– Critical discourse analysis of political rhetoric.
– Ideology and representation in political discourse.
– The interface of political discourse and the media.
– The role of social networking in conforming political discourse.
– The internet and political campaigning: new rhetorical strategies.
– Representations of power and politics in the Arts, literature and cinema.
– Countercultural discourses and their dissemination in society.
– The construction of social reality at the interface of political discourse, sources of power and the media.

Both theoretical articles and case studies are welcome.

Deadline for submissions: September 10th, 2010.

Please, send your contributions via e-mail to:
Articles in English: Jose R. Prado, e-mail: prado@ang.uji.es
Articles in Spanish: José Luis Blas, e-mail: blas@fil.uji.es

Questions or queries should be addressed to the editors at the e-mail addresses above.

Journal website: http://www.clr.uji.es/

Posted in CFP | Leave a Comment »

Is Punditry Ethical?

July 16, 2010 by SP

An interesting distinction is made by Andrew Cline in this recent post on his rhetoric and journalism blog, Rhetorica, between “punditry” and “opinion journalism”.

According to Cline, opinion journalism is reporting informed by or explicitly written from a particular political perspective.  It includes acting as a “custodian of fact” and observing a “discipline of verification”.  The offers this description of that discipline via a link to an older post:

A discipline of verification should be basic to any practice that we would understand as journalism. Practicing such a discipline means that journalists must be custodians of fact, i.e. journalists should get to the bottom of civic disputes by gathering and verifying facts rather than simply allowing interested sources to spout off. Journalists should protect the facts from those who would spin them, ignore them, or distort them. When journalists don’t practice this discipline, they are guilty of spinning, ignoring, and distorting, often in the name of fairness and balance.

As to being a custodian of fact, Cline has this to say in another older post on Rhetorica:

What I’m getting at here is this: facts are not necessarily easy things to nail down unless we’re measuring (and even then we can run into problems). […] There can be no argument over facts in themselves. We argue about how facts are measured and what facts mean. And we argue about assertions of fact until such assertions are established as fact. Reporters should consider the statements by sources as assertions of fact until such time as the reporter can establish them as facts. The news organization, then, should not publish unverified assertions without disclaimers or qualifiers.

In contrast to opinion journalism, according to Cline, punditry is simply about “winning politically” and does not include the imperatives to be a custodian of fact or to follow a discipline of verification.

Continue Reading »

Posted in Connections, Discussion, Rhetoric | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »