Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Douglas Walton’

As many will be aware, two weeks ago the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR) hosted a symposium on Mercier and Sperber’s argument-based theory of reasoning at the University of Windsor.  Hugo Mercier himself gave the keynote. The panelists were Ian Hacking, Burkhard Schafer, Mark Aakhus, and Lori Buchanan. The co-chairs were Doug Walton and myself. The event took place over two days. The first day was a public presentation and discussion of the theory. The center of the second day’s events was an open (but moderated) roundtable discussion on the theory in which the speakers, CRRAR fellows, and guests all participated.  Both days saw intense, but very stimulating and rewarding conversations.

Spurred by several requests from abroad, we decided to have the events of the first day recorded so that they could be shared with the entire argumentation studies community. I am pleased to be able to announce that that video is now available.  You can watch it by clicking here. Unfortunately, however, there were technical problems with the camera that resulted in our not having usable video. That said, the audio quality is good and the slides for the keynote presentation are synced so that they can be followed with the talk. The panelists’ responses to the keynote presentations are still included too. They were excellent and are well worth the listening.

Thanks again to all who participated, attended, and in other ways great and small helped to make it a great weekend!

Read Full Post »

RAIL is pleased to recommend the Special Issue of Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric on Argument and Computation.

If, for some reason, you’re not yet paying attention to the things that are happening in the computation-based wing of argumentation theory, let me ever-so-humbly suggest that you should be. The excellent work being done in this area integrates not only key insights from mainstream contemporary argumentation theory but key insights from the ever-developing field of non-monotonic logic too.  Well and truly gone are the days when, as applied to logic, ‘formal’ meant ‘classical’.  This is truly exciting stuff.  Those with no background in the overlap between argumentation and computation may wish to begin with Chris Reed and Marcin Kosowy’s excellent introduction.  Following that, I would recommend Doug Walton’s article, “How to Refute an Argument in Artificial Intelligence” and Marcin Lewinsky’s article too as being particularly friendly to those whose background is heavier in argumentation and/or dialectics (per the Walton-Krabbe model) than in computation as next steps.

This issue is special in that it shows the relevance of computational approaches to nearly every branch of argumentation theory. To look at what some would consider extremes, for example, formal logic is represented in Kazimierz Trzęsicki’s excellent treatment of the problem of argument classification, but so is rhetoric in the article by Katarzyna Budzyńska and Magdalena Kacprzak, that represents the latest extension of their work at the time of this writing.

It is timely too. For those who have an interest in the way that argumentation is carried out through the medium of the internet this issue will be very useful indeed. The aforementioned article by Lewinsky covers this ground as does the article by Karolina Stefanowicz.  Those interested in contemporary pragma-dialetctics will also find much to pique their interest here, especially the article by the team of Jacky Visser, Floris Bex, Chris Reed and Bart Garssen.

Though of course the computational wing of argumentation theory is established and thriving in departments all over the world, I think this issue of Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric also shows the variety of good things that are happening in what is becoming the vibrant argumentation theory community of Warsaw. We should all be paying attention.

Read Full Post »

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 »