Posts Tagged ‘truth’

“Truth and Persuasion”

September 24-26, 2015,
Sassari (Italy)

Call for Papers

The S.I.F.A. (Italian Society for Analytic Philosophy) is pleased to announce its Midterm Conference on Truth and Persuasion.

General Aim

The conference aims to advance our understanding of the relationships between the concepts of truth and persuasion. While the absolute conception of truth has been widely criticised, the philosophical implications of this critique are far from clear. There is a general agreement that we need a conception of truth sensitive to contexts and to historically situated subjects. Some have concluded that truth is local and rational argumentation culturally bounded. Others have suggested that sound argumentation is culturally relative. What is the role of truth and rational argumentation in the exchange among different cultures? Are conversations among cultures based on persuasion, rather than truth? The Conference aims to refocus the discussion on the intricacies and
complexities of the relation between truth and persuasion, a theme that has been largely neglected in the last decades.

Keynote Speakers

The Keynote speakers will include:

Simon Blackburn
Marian David
Wolfgang Huemer
Frans van Eemeren

Read Full Post »

The Amsterdam Workshop on Truth is organised by the Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation of the University of Amsterdam.

The workshop will take place from Wednesday the 13th to Friday the 15th of March 2013.


The workshop is intended to serve as a meeting point for researchers working on the philosophy of truth in order to discuss latest results and work in progress.
It will address a wide range of truth-related topics and it is open to more formal or less formal approaches.


The following speakers have confirmed participation:

Stefan Wintein,  Philip Welch,  Albert Visser,  Giulia Terzian,  Johannes Stern, Jönne Speck,  Sonja Smets,  Georg Schiemer,  Robert van Rooij,  Carlo Nicolai, Iris Loeb, Øystein Linnebo,  Graham Leigh,  Jeffrey Kettland,  Leon Horsten,  Volker Halbach, Nina Gierasimczuk,  Martin Fischer,  Theodora Achourioti.

Workshop venues (map):

Wednesday 13 March, Thursday 14 March: VOC-zall, Bushuis
Friday 15 March: Oudemanhuispoort A0.08

The workshop will start on Wednesday at 12:00 and end on Friday at 15:00.


Attendance is free of charge, however, registration is required.

The deadline for registering is March the 3rd.


More information may be found at the workshop website: http://www.illc.uva.nl/truth/truth13/

Read Full Post »

Today there’s a lovely little piece by Rex W. Huppke in the Chicago Tribune on the life and death of facts.

That’s right, facts are dead.

A favorite quote from the obituary:

“It’s very depressing,” said Mary Poovey, a professor of English at New York University and author of A History of the Modern Fact. “I think the thing Americans ought to miss most about facts is the lack of agreement that there are facts. This means we will never reach consensus about anything. Tax policies, presidential candidates. We’ll never agree on anything.”

I often tell my students that to have critical discussions that aren’t aimed either at truth or at consensus is like having archery without targets. Nice to see I’m not the only one who will miss Facts (and probably duck more frequently) now that they’re gone.  Ah, but how did facts die, you ask?  Poovey again:

“There was an erosion of any kind of collective sense of what’s true or how you would go about verifying any truth claims,” Poovey said. “Opinion has become the new truth. And many people who already have opinions see in the ‘news’ an affirmation of the opinion they already had, and that confirms their opinion as fact.”

Of course, the article goes on to point out, many people won’t believe that facts are dead.  This makes them something like the people who think that Elvis is alive and walking among us, or that Tupac Shakur survived his 1996 shooting.  Jeez. As if being a philosophy prof wasn’t challenging enough already…

The op-ed is funny–but only in that way that makes you glance nervously around the room with a look in your eyes that says “We’re all laughing because this is preposterous, right? Right?”

I’d write more on this, but I think I just saw the flash of sequins out of the corner of my eye. I’m gonna go check it out. Just to be sure.

Read Full Post »

CALL FOR PAPERS: Trends in Logic XI, 2012 (Ruhr University Bochum)

The 11th Trends in Logic international conference will be held at Ruhr
University Bochum, Germany, from June 3-June 5, 2012 under the title
“Advances in Philosophical Logic”. It is organized by the chair of Logic and
Epistemology at the Department of Philosophy II of Ruhr University Bochum,
in co-operation with the journal Studia Logica,

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/philosophy/trendsxi .

We invite submissions presenting substantial recent advances in formal
philosophical logic. The range of topics includes but is not limited to: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Arguments from Hamblin, Chapter 7
David Hitchcock’s diagram of Hamblin’s arguments against requiring true premises. (photos: Kelly Webster, editing: Steve Patterson)

This past Summer I had the great good fortune to participate in the Summer Institute in Argumentation hosted by CRRAR.  The Summer Institute preceded the OSSA conference, so the whole experience turned out to be about two and half weeks of really great discussions on all kinds of topics in argumentation theory and rhetoric.

One of the topics that’s been bouncing around in the back of my thoughts since then has been the question of whether or not an argument must have true premises in order to be good.  The question was raised in a fantastic session on Chapter 7 of Hamblin’s Fallacies that was led by David Hitchcock during the Summer Institute.  Hamblin, of course, answers this question in the negative, and I think it fair to say that the consensus of most of those attending agreed with him in that. For my part, I’ve been mulling it over since then and a few thoughts are beginning to emerge.


Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: