As if a new issue of Cogency wasn’t enough to keep us all engrossed in our reading, there is a new issue of Informal Logic out as well. Hilde van Belle’s, “Less Ado, More Done: Verbal and Visual Antithesis in the Media” offers an excellent a contributions both to the worthy effort to explain the idea of antithesis in Aristotle’s rhetorical framework (per Fahnestock) and to the ongoing discussion about multi-modal arguments. It is well worth the time of anyone interested in either discussion. Though quite a different paper, “The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises: Presumptions in Enthymemes”, by Fabrizio Macagno and Giovanni Damele is also a very thorough and fascinating treatment of its topic. Haven’t gotten to the other papers yet, but these two suggest a very strong issue of IL indeed.
Posts Tagged ‘Fabrizio Macagno’
New Issue: Informal Logic
Posted in Announcements, tagged enthymemes, Fabrizio Macagno, Giovanni Damele, Hilde van Belle, Informal Logic journal, multi-modal arguments on September 15, 2013| Leave a Comment »
Informal Logic vol. 31 no. 4, on Charles Hamblin
Posted in Announcements, Informal Logic, tagged and Jan Ablert van Laar, Charles Hamblin, Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno, fallacies, Jim Mackenzie, John Woods, Ralph Johnson on December 2, 2011| Leave a Comment »
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.