-
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Moral Foundations in Argumentation Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-07-19 Alina Landowska, Katarzyna Budzynska, He Zhang
-
Pathos in Natural Language Argumentation: Emotional Appeals and Reactions Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-21 Barbara Konat, Ewelina Gajewska, Wiktoria Rossa
-
Epidemiology of Fallacies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-03 Antonio Duarte
In this paper I apply the epidemiological model of the spread of beliefs and how they become cultural representations to the field of fallacies. The model suggests that beliefs tend to replicate as a virus does in a potential epidemic, and those strains that are dominant in a given socio-cultural sphere become cultural representations. My ultimate aim is to denounce the fact that some presumptive argumentation
-
In Defense of a Normative Concept of Argument Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-04-27 Matthew W. McKeon
Blair articulates a concept of argument that suggests, as he puts it, that argument is a normative concept (Blair, Informal Logic 24:137–151, 2004, p. 190). Put roughly, the idea is that a collection of propositions doesn’t constitute an argument unless some taken together constitute a reason for the remaining proposition and thereby support it enough to provide at least prima facie justification for
-
Framing to Make an Argument: The Case of the Genocide Hashtag in the Russia-Ukraine war Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-03-02 Elena Musi
-
The Structure of Arguments from Deontic Authority and How to Successfully Attack Them Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-02-08 Michał Araszkiewicz, Marcin Koszowy
-
Evidentiary Convincing and Evidentiary Fallacies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-02-07 Eugen Octav Popa, Alexandru I. Cârlan
-
Bootstrapping and Persuasive Argumentation Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-01-19 Guido Melchior
That bootstrapping and Moorean reasoning fail to instantiate persuasive argumentation is an often informally presented but not systematically developed view. In this paper, I will argue that this unpersuasiveness is not determined by principles of justification transmission but by two straightforward principles of rationality, understood as a concept of internal coherence. First, it is rational for
-
Some Benefits and Limitations of Modern Argument Map Representation Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2024-01-18 Charles Rathkopf
-
-
It’s not (only) about Getting the Last Word: Rhetorical Norms of Public Argumentation and the Responsibility to Keep the Conversation Going Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-11-22 Mette Bengtsson, Lisa Villadsen
-
Individual Differences in Argument Strength Discrimination Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-09-07 Annika M. Svedholm-Häkkinen, Mika Hietanen, Jonathan Baron
Being able to discriminate poorly justified from well justified arguments is necessary for informed citizenship. However, it is not known whether the ability to recognize argument strength generalizes across different types of arguments, and what cognitive factors predict this ability or these abilities. Drawing on the theory of argument schemes, we examined arguments from consequence, analogy, symptoms
-
The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-21 Frans H. van Eemeren, Ton van Haaften
-
-
A Particularist Approach to Arguments by Analogy Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-05-16 José Alhambra
-
The Dialectical Principle of Charity: A Procedure for a Critical Discussion Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-04-24 Jakub Pruś, Piotr Sikora
-
The Fallacy of Misplaced Presumption Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-04-11 James B. Freeman
One takes one’s word that p when a source vouches for p and one accepts the word of that source. If the source is reliable in this case, p is acceptable. The reliability of the source is a measure of its plausibility. If a source has the relevant competence, credibility, authority, that word is acceptable. Likewise, the word may be acceptable if accompanied by a cogent argument, but presumption may
-
Assessing Classification Reliability of Conditionals in Discourse Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-04-06 Alex Reuneker
-
Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-04-06 Alfonso Hernández
-
Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-03-22 Frank Zenker, Jan Albert van Laar, B. Cepollaro, A. Gâţă, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson, M. Lewiński, C. Lumer, S. Oswald, M. Pichlak, B. D. Scott, M. Urbański, J. H. M. Wagemans
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness
-
Teaching the Fallacies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-03-22 J. Anthony Blair
This paper’s thesis is that the fallacies should not be taught to undergraduates. Besides some bad influences, this is not only because doing so steals time more valuably spent elsewhere, but also because the field is now so complex (overlapping concepts, theories and disciplines), that we lack knowledgeable instructors and sophisticated students. The study of theories involving fallacies, however
-
Fallacies and Their Place in the Foundations of Science Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-03-14 John Woods
It has been said that there is no scholarly consensus as to why Aristotle’s logics of proof and refutation would have borne the title Analytics. But if we consulted Tarski’s (Introduction to logic and the methodology of deductive sciences, Oxford University Press, New York, 1941) graduate-level primer, we would have the perfect title for them: Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive
-
Reconceiving Argument Schemes as Descriptive and Practically Normative Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-03-14 Brian N. Larson, David Seth Morrison
We propose a revised definition of “argument scheme” that focuses on describing argumentative performances and normative assessments that occur within an argumentative context, the social context in which the scheme arises. Our premise-and-conclusion structure identifies the typical instantiation of an argument in the argumentative context, and our critical framework describes a set of normative assessments
-
Do Arguments for Global Warming Commit a Fallacy of Composition? Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-03-03 Maurice A. Finocchiaro
This essay begins with a brief description of my approach to the study of argumentation and fallacies which is empirical, historical-textual, dialectical, and meta-argumentational. It then focuses on the fallacy of composition and elaborates a number of conceptual definitions and distinctions: argument of composition; fallacy of composition; arguments and fallacies of division; arguments that confuse
-
Epistemic Norms for Public Political Arguments Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-23 Christoph Lumer
-
Exploring TED Speakers’ Narrative Positioning from a Strategic Maneuvering Perspective: A Single Case Study from Winch’s (2014) TED Talk Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-17 Nahla Nadeem
-
High Costs and Low Benefits: Analysis and Evaluation of the “I’m Not Stupid” Argument Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-13 Henrike Jansen
-
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-13 Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen
This article explains the design and development of the pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In this approach fallacies are viewed as violations of the standards for critical discussion that are expressed in a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse. After the problem-solving validity in resolving differences of opinion of the rules of this code has been discussed, their conventional
-
The Fallacy Fallacy: From the Owl of Minerva to the Lark of Arete Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-12 Andrew Aberdein
The fallacy fallacy is either the misdiagnosis of fallacy or the supposition that the conclusion of a fallacy must be a falsehood. This paper explores the relevance of these and related errors of reasoning for the appraisal of arguments, especially within virtue theories of argumentation. In particular, the fallacy fallacy exemplifies the Owl of Minerva problem, whereby tools devised to understand
-
On Halting Meta-argument with Para-Argument Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-12 Scott Aikin, John Casey
Recourse to meta-argument is an important feature of successful argument exchanges; it is where norms are made explicit or clarified, corrections are offered, and inferences are evaluated, among much else. Sadly, it is often an avenue for abuse, as the very virtues of meta-argument are turned against it. The question as to how to manage such abuses is a vexing one. Erik Krabbe proposed that one be
-
Committing Fallacies and the Appearance Condition Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-10 Hans V. Hansen
This appearance condition of fallacies refers to the phenomenon of weak arguments, or moves in argumentation, appearing to be okay when really they aren’t. Not all theorists agree that the appearance condition should be part of the conception of fallacies but this essay explores some of the consequences of including it. In particular, the differences between committing a fallacy, causing a fallacy
-
Introduction to the Special Issue on Fallacies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-10 Hans V. Hansen
This short essay is an introduction to the essays included in this special issue of Argumentation devoted to fallacies.
-
Textbook Treatments of Fallacies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-09 David Hitchcock
In his Fallacies, Hamblin (1970) castigated what he called the “standard treatment” of fallacies in introductory textbooks of his day as debased, worn-out, dogmatic, and unconnected to anything else in modern logic. A bit more than 50 years later, I investigate the treatment of fallacies in six English-language introductory textbooks with a section on fallacies that have gone into 10 or more editions
-
Social Justice, Fallacies of Argument, and Persistent Bias Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-02 Catherine Hundleby
The fallacies approach to argument evaluation can exacerbate problems it aims to address when it comes to social bias, perpetuating social injustice. A diagnosis that an argument commits a fallacy may flag the irrelevance of stereotypical characterizations to the line of reasoning without directly challenging the stereotypes. This becomes most apparent when personal bias is part of the subject matter
-
Locke and “ad” Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-02-01 Richard Davies
In IV, xvii, 19–22 of his Essay, Locke employs Latin labels for four kinds of argument, of which one (ad hominem) was already in circulation and one (ad judicium) has never had much currency. The present proposal seeks to locate and clarify what Locke was aiming to describe, and to contrast what he says with some subsequent uses that have been made of these labels as if they named fallacies. Though
-
What Do We Mean by ‘That’s a Fallacious Narrative’? Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-01-27 Paula Olmos
This paper tries to offer a descriptive account of the normative workings of evaluative fallacy charges directed to narratives. In order to do that, I first defend the continuity and mutual dependence, as based on a dynamical conception of argument, between the ‘belief conception’ and the ‘argumentative conception’ of fallacy. Then, I construe a catalogue of ‘fallacy charges’ based on both such a continuity
-
Free Speech Fallacies as Meta-Argumentative Errors Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2023-01-27 Scott F. Aikin, John Casey
Free speech fallacies are errors of meta-argument. One commits a free speech fallacy when one argues that since there are apparent restrictions on one’s rights of free expression, procedural rules of critical exchange have been broken, and consequently, one’s preferred view is dialectically better off than it may otherwise seem. Free speech fallacies are meta-argumentative, since they occur at the
-
-
Argumentation and Identity: A Normative Evaluation of the Arguments of Delegates to the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-12-28 Martin Hinton
-
Analysis of Argumentation in the Discussion Sections of Published Articles in ESP Journal: A Diachronic Corpus-Based Approach Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-11-18 Saleh Arizavi, Alireza Jalilifar, A. Mehdi Riazi
Argumentation has remained under-researched in studies analyzing academic journal publications despite its importance in academic writing. This paper reports a study in which we investigated stereotypical argumentative trends, lexico-grammatical features, and interactional metadiscourse markers in 354 research article free-standing discussion sections from the journal of ESP over forty years. The field
-
-
Logic Diagrams as Argument Maps in Eristic Dialectics Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-10-20 Jens Lemanski
-
Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-30 Frank Zenker, Shiyang Yu
-
-
Is Natural Selection in Trouble? When Emotions Run High in a Philosophical Debate Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-21 Fernando Leal
This paper deals in detail with a fairly recent philosophical debate centered around the ability of the theory of natural selection to account for those phenotypical changes which can be argued to make organisms better adapted to their environments. The philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor started the debate by claiming that natural selection cannot do the job. He follows two main lines
-
Two Types of Refutation in Philosophical Argumentation Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-12 Catarina Dutilh Novaes
In this paper, I highlight the significance of practices of refutation in philosophical inquiry, that is, practices of showing that a claim, person or theory is wrong. I present and contrast two prominent approaches to philosophical refutation: refutation in ancient Greek dialectic (elenchus), in its Socratic variant as described in Plato’s dialogues, and as described in Aristotle’s logical texts;
-
Argumentation in Philosophical Controversies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-09 Fernando Leal, Hubert Marraud
Anyone interested in philosophical argumentation should be prepared to study philosophical debates and controversies because it is an intensely dialogical, and even contentious, genre of argumentation. There is hardly any other way to do them justice. This is the reason why the present special issue addresses philosophical argumentation within philosophical debates. Of the six articles in this special
-
The Persistent Interlocutor Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-07 Job de Grefte
A Persistent Interlocutor (PI) is someone who, in argumentative contexts, does not cease to question her opponent’s premises. The epistemic relevance of the PI has been debated throughout the history of philosophy. Pyrrhonians famously claim that our inability to dialectically vindicate our claims against a PI implies scepticism. Adam Leite disagrees (2005). Michael Resorla argues that the debate is
-
An Unconscious Universal in the Mind is Like an Immaterial Dinner in the Stomach. A Debate on Logical Generalism (1914–1919) Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-08 Hubert Marraud
-
Twitter Activists’ Argumentation Through Subdiscussions: Theory, Method and Illustration of the Controversy Surrounding Sustainable Fashion Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-06 Sara Greco
-
Bramhall Versus Hobbes: The Rhetoric of Religion vs. the Rhetoric of Philosophy Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-09-06 Shai Fogel
The paper uses the controversy about liberty between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and Archbishop John Bramhall to illustrate the conflict between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of religion. The first part of the paper introduces initial definitions of these two types of rhetoric. The following three parts deal with three distinct parts of the controversy, as Hobbes and Bramhall define
-
Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Nanon Labrie: argumentation between doctors and patients: understanding clinical argumentative discourse Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-04 Lei ZHU, Wei WANG
The latest book is a timely application of the Pragma-Dialectical argumentative approach to medical consultation. The book consists of six chapters, which are concerned with topics pertaining to resolving differences of the opinion in doctor-patient interaction. With the publication of the book, the authors have made new contributions to the field of doctor-patient argumentative discourse.
-
Arguing with Children: Exploring Problems of Charity and Strawmanning Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-06-04 Swagatanjali Bauri
This paper will highlight how the existing approaches to the Strawman Fallacy and the Principle of Charity are unable to fully accommodate the problems of interpreting children’s arguments. A lack of charity is as problematic as an excess of charity when arguing with children, and can contribute to misinterpretation of arguments. An application of moderate charity avoids the pitfalls of misrepresenting
-
“Agreement Builds and Disagreement Destroys:” How Polish Undergraduates and Graduates Understand Interpersonal Arguing Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-04-14 Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska, Dale Hample
This is a descriptive study (N = 243) of how Polish undergraduates and graduates perceive face to face arguing. We had some reasons to suppose that they would not be especially aggressive. The Polish culture has a number of proverbs warning against combative arguing, with “agreement builds and disagreement destroys” being illustrative. In addition, up until 1989 public dissent and open disagreements
-
Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-03-28 Diego Castro
When parties attempt to persuade their opponents of the tenability of a certain standpoint using reasons, they will often find that the circumstances of the dialogue hinder their chances of resolution. Power imbalances, cognitive biases, lack of time or hidden interests are some of the circumstances they need to face. I will label these circumstances as suboptimal settings for argumentation. According
-
Questions, Presuppositions and Fallacies Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-03-28 Andrei Moldovan
In this paper I focus on the fallacy known as Complex Question or Many Questions. After a brief introduction, in Sect. 2 I highlight its pragmatic dimension, and in Sect. 3 its dialectical dimension. In Sect. 4 I present two accounts of this fallacy developed in argumentation theory, Douglas Walton’s and the Pragma-Dialectics’, which have resources to capture both its pragmatic and its dialectical
-
Demanding a halt to metadiscussions Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-03-25 Beth Innocenti
How do social actors get addressees to stop retreating to metadiscussions that derail ground-level discussions, and why do they expect the strategies to work? The question is of both theoretical and practical interest, especially with regard to ground-level discussions of systemic sexism and racism derailed by qualifying “not all men” and “not all white people” perform the sexist or racist actions
-
Secundum Quid and the Pragmatics of Arguments. The Challenges of the Dialectical Tradition Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-03-05 Fabrizio Macagno
The phrase secundum quid et simpliciter is the Latin expression translating and labelling the sophism described by Aristotle as connected with the use of some particular expression “absolutely or in a certain respect and not in its proper sense.” This paper presents an overview of the analysis of this fallacy in the history of dialectics, reconstructing the different explanations provided in the Aristotelian
-
Internal Deliberation Defending Climate-Harmful Behavior Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-02-04 Maria Wolrath Söderberg, Nina Wormbs
Most people in countries with the highest climate impact per capita are well aware of the climate crisis and do not deny the science. They worry about climate and have climate engaged attitudes. Still, their greenhouse-gas emissions are often high. How can we understand acting contrary to our knowledge? A simple answer is that we do not want to give up on benefits or compromise our quality of life
-
Charles Arthur Willard (1945–2021): In Memoriam Argumentation (IF 1.0) Pub Date : 2022-02-02 Barbara J. O’Keefe,Daniel J. O’Keefe