Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘strategic maneuvering’

Hyperlinked titles indicate that the article is currently available on an open access basis.

Table of Contents

“Bolivia’s Strategic Maneuvering on its claims for a fully sovereign access to the sea”, Marjorie Gallardo Castañeda, Centro de Estudios Estratégicos de la Academia de Guerra del Ejército de Chile, Santiago, Chile

“Studying Argumentation Behaviour”, Hans V. Hansen, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada

“Argumentos e inferencias: teoría de la argumentación y psicología del razonamiento”, Hubert Marraud, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, España

“Argumentative moves in a thought experiment”, Eugen OctavPopa, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Book Reviews

Douglas Walton, Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation Cambridge University Press, 2014, 318 pp., US$ 85.00 (hc) ISBN 978-1-107- 04662-7, US$32.99 (pbk) ISBN 978-1-107-67882-8, US$26.00 (e-bk) ISBN 978- 1-139-95048-0.

Reviewed by David Godden, Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, Michigan, United States

Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Formal Languages in Logic: A Philosophical and Cognitive Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 275 pp., $26.99 (pbk), ISBN 978-1-107-46031-7.

Reviewed by David Hitchcock, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Read Full Post »

DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 11 JANUARY 2015

The Practice/s of Giving Reasons: a special issue of Topoi

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).

(more…)

Read Full Post »

International Colloquium “Argumentation in Political Deliberation”
ArgLab – IFL
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa

2 September 2011

Political deliberation, understood as a public debate aimed at forming political opinions and deciding what course of action to take, has traditionally been seen as a prime venue for public reasoning and argument. Aristotle considered political deliberation – next to forensic dispute and public oratory – as one of the three main genres of rhetoric. Today, different modes of political deliberation – from formal institutional procedures in parliaments, to public hearings, to citizens’ conferences, to televised debates, to informal online discussions among “ordinary citizens” – are at the centre of interest in argumentation theory, deliberative theory of democracy, and communication and media studies alike.

The goal of this colloquium is to bring together scholars from these interrelated disciplines to examine the role, shape and quality of argumentation in political deliberation. A theoretical and empirical focus of the presentations and discussions will be on the practices of argumentation. The questions addressed include: How can we best theorize, analyze and evaluate argumentation in the context of political deliberation? What is the impact of the contextual conditions in different deliberative activities on the shape and quality of public argument? What are the typical forms of deliberative argument and counterargument? To what extent is the “virtual public sphere” transforming the way we engage in public argument? Does it allow for inclusive participation and genuine argumentative debate between advocates of various political views? By addressing these questions, the colloquium hopes to provide a focused account of the multifaceted argumentative practices in political deliberation.

The colloquium is part of a project Argumentation, Communication and Context sponsored by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT: PTDC/FIL–FIL/10117/2009) and carried out at ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

For more information, visit the colloquium web page.

Read Full Post »