Posts Tagged ‘thought experiments’

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 »

Though I’ve been keeping up with the CFP’s, RAIL readers may have noted that I’ve not been posting much else. Apologies for that! Deadlines, deadlines. 🙂 At times like these I try to assuage my guilt for not writing more of my share of the content here by pointing RAIL readers to interesting posts on other blogs. I may be bogged down with research and writing, but the argumentation blogosphere outside of RAIL is alive and well too. As proof, I humbly suggest to you the following very worthy reads:

First up, check out A Toulminian approach to thought experiments, by our good friend-blog Argumentics. In this post you’ll find the writer’s usual insightful and knowledgeable article analysis, this time on the use of thought experiments in philosophy and in science. Those who are familiar with Maurice Finocchiaro’s work on Galileo might want to read the entire serious of posts at Argumentics on this issue. It’s good stuff. So is the series of posts on Searle’s Chinese Room argument. In fact, just add this blog to your bookmarks. It’s consistently great.

Also consistently great is Jean Goodwin’s blog Between Scientists and Citizens. Though not as prolific as Argumentics (with whom I challenge anyone to keep up), Between Scientists and Citizens consistently serves up gems like this one: Burden of Proof #1: Managing our own thinking, In this post Jean identifies an all-too-familiar argumentative use of the concept of burden-of-proof that, while general in scope, will resonate with readers who have been enjoying Cate’s recent posts too.

Lastly I suggest The dismal state of political discourse, over at Tim Van Gelder’s blog. The reason I suggest it isn’t so much because there’s novel conceptual analysis to be had, but because it’s a wonderful example of van Gelder’s hallmark: practical application of ideas from argumentation theory to concrete problems. This time the problem being taken on is the need for better communication between ordinary citizens and political institutions in Australia.  It’s an interesting project that deserves to be better known. Have a look!

Also, don’t forget to check out the Twitter feed in the top right corner of the page next to the posts or just follow us: @RAILBlog

Happy Reading!

Read Full Post »