Results for 'Argumentation theories'

977 found
Order:
  1.  60
    Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Frans H. Van Eemeren - 2018 - Cham: Springer Verlag.
    The book offers a compact but comprehensive introductory overview of the crucial components of argumentation theory. In presenting this overview, argumentation is consistently approached from a pragma-dialectical perspective by viewing it pragmatically as a goal-directed communicative activity and dialectically as part of a regulated critical exchange aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. As a result, the book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which are discussed in a number of (...)
    No categories
  2.  26
    Argumentation theory and the distance to the data.Michael Agar & Peter Nosbers - 1993 - Semiotica 93 (3-4):287-302.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Wittgenstein’s Ignorance of Argumentation Theory and Toulmin’s Rehabilitation of Wittgenstein.Henrique Jales Ribeiro - 2024 - Philosophy International Journal 7 (2):1-5.
    The author- following his own research on the subject- argues that Wittgenstein ignores argumentation theory and in general, the problems of rhetoric and argumentation. From this point of view, he frames Stephen Toulmin’s reading of Wittgenstein, arguing that the British philosopher- who was a student of the Austrian- advocates precisely the same thesis. He explains that this happens in a very peculiar (rhetorical) context on Toulmin’s part; a context in which, in essence, Wittgenstein’s philosophy is being rehabilitated.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Argumentation Theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies.Fabrizio Macagno, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus & Deanna Kuhn - 2015 - Topoi 34 (2):523-537.
    This paper is aimed at combining the advances in argumentation theory with the models used in the field of education to address the issue of improving students’ argumentative behavior by interacting with an expert. The concept of deeper or more sophisticated argumentative strategy is theoretically defined and used to advance two new coding schemes, based on the advances in the argumentation studies and aimed at capturing the dialectical, or structural, behavior, and the argumentative content of each dialogue unit. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  5.  9
    Why Argumentation Theory? Realizing the Practical Objectives of Argumentation Theory as the Study of Effectiveness Through Reasonableness.Frans H. van Eemeren - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-18.
    The central question of this contribution is: Why argumentation theory? Its points of departure are: (1) argumentative discourse is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion based on the merits of the argumentative moves that are made (“effectiveness through reasonableness”); (2) argumentation theory concentrates on the problems involved in the production, analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. The comprehensive research program that needs to be carried out to tackle these problems includes philosophical, theoretical, empirical, analytical, and practical research. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  24
    Persistent questions in the theory of argument fields.Argument Fields - 1992 - In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit, Readings in argumentation. New York: Foris Publications. pp. 11--417.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7. The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View.Frans H. van Eemeren & Ton van Haaften - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (3):341-376.
    In ‘The making of argumentation theory’ van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness – the crucial issue in argumentation theory – (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8.  39
    Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions.Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):591-613.
    In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise “the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today”. I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The “presumption of veracity” is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9.  69
    Teaching argumentation theory to doctors: Why and what.Sara Rubinelli & Claudia Zanini - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):66-80.
    This paper supports the need for health professionals to be trained in argumentation theory, by illustrating the challenges that they face in interacting with patients and according to the different models of consultation that patients prefer. While there is no ideal model of consultation that can be promoted universally, the ability to construct arguments in support of health professionals’ points of view, as well as the ability to engage in critical discussion with patients, translate in essential skills for reaching (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  10. Argumentation Theory as Applied Epistemology.Cristián Santibáñez - 2012 - Cinta de Moebio 43:24-39.
    In this paper the conception of argumentation theory as applied epistemology is discussed. The point of departure is the description of four perspectives that are considered as founders of the modern theory of argumentation, in order to observe whether there was a similar concept in those theories or if they provided the patterns to go into that direction. Further on the reasons why contemporary scholars have given this emphasis to the notion of argumentation theory is discussed. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11.  21
    Review of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW]David H. Zarefsky - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (1):139-146.
    This article reviews Frans H. van Eemeren’s Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  82
    Habermas, Argumentation Theory, and Science Studies: Toward Interdisciplinary Cooperation.William Rehg - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (2):161-182.
    This article examines two approaches to the analysis and critical assessment of scientific argumentation. The first approach employs the discourse theory that Jurgen Habermas has developed on the basis of his theory of communicative action and applied to the areas of politics and law. Using his analysis of law and democracy in his Between Facts and Norms as a kind of template, I sketch the main steps in a Habermasian discourse theory of science. Difficulties in his approach motivate my (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  92
    Natural Normativity: Argumentation Theory as an Engaged Discipline.Michael A. Gilbert - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (2):149-161.
    Natural normativity describes the means whereby social and cultural controls are placed on argumentative behaviour. The three main components of this are Goals, Context, and Ethos, which combine to form a dynamic and situational framework. Natural normativity is explained in light of Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, and Rhetoric. Finally, the theory is applied to the Biro-Siegel challenge.
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  14.  46
    (1 other version)Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2017 - Informal Logic 37 (4):322-350.
    To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  34
    Argumentation Theory for Mathematical Argument.Joseph Corneli, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Gabriela Rino Nesin & Alison Pease - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (2):173-214.
    To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been used to analyse mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  16.  43
    Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Ralph H. Johnson, Christian Plantin & Charles A. Willard - 1996 - Routledge.
    Argumentation theory is a distinctly multidisciplinary field of inquiry. It draws its data, assumptions, and methods from disciplines as disparate as formal logic and discourse analysis, linguistics and forensic science, philosophy and psychology, political science and education, sociology and law, and rhetoric and artificial intelligence. This presents the growing group of interested scholars and students with a problem of access, since it is even for those active in the field not common to have acquired a familiarity with relevant aspects (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  17.  36
    Argumentation Theory and the Recent Philosophy of Science.William Rehg - unknown
    The thesis of my paper is that argumentation theory provides a promising heuristic framework for addressing issues raised by the rationality debates in the philosophy of science, in particular the issues connected with scientific controversies over the appraisal and choice of competing theories. The first part of the paper grounds this thesis historically. In criticizing the logical empiricists, Thomas Kuhn set the stage for the subsequent opposition between a normative, anti-sociological philosophy of science and a descriptive, anti-philosophical sociology (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  28
    Revisiting Accounts of Narrative Explanation in the Sciences: Some Clarifications from Contemporary Argumentation Theory.Paula Olmos - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):449-465.
    The topic of the presence, legitimacy and epistemic worth of narrative explanations in different kinds of scientific discourse has already enjoyed several revivals within related discussions in contemporary philosophy of science. In fact, we have recently witnessed a more extensive, more unprejudiced and ambitious attention to narrative modes of making science. I think we need a systematic theoretical framework in order to categorize these different functions of narratives and understand their role in scientific explanatory and justificatory practice. My claim is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  73
    What Virtue Argumentation Theory Misses: The Case of Compathetic Argumentation.Daniel H. Cohen & George Miller - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):451-460.
    While deductive validity provides the limiting upper bound for evaluating the strength and quality of inferences, by itself it is an inadequate tool for evaluating arguments, arguing, and argumentation. Similar remarks can be made about rhetorical success and dialectical closure. Then what would count as ideal argumentation? In this paper we introduce the concept of cognitive compathy to point in the direction of one way to answer that question. It is a feature of our argumentation rather than (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  20.  66
    The argumentative theory of reasoning applies to scientists and philosophers, too.John A. Johnson - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):81-82.
    Logical consistency demands that Mercier and Sperber's (M&S's) argumentative theory of reasoning apply to their own reasoning in the target article. Although they hint that their argument applies to professional reasoners such as scientists and philosophers, they do not develop this idea. In this commentary, I discuss the applicability of argumentative theory to science and philosophy, emphasizing the perils of moral reasoning.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. Some Clarifications about the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. A Reply to Santibáñez Yañez (2012).Hugo Mercier - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):259-268.
    In “Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: From Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies” (2012) Santibáñez Yañez offers constructive comments and criticisms of the argumentative theory of reasoning. The purpose of this reply is twofold. First, it seeks to clarify two points broached by Yanez: (1) the relation between reasoning (in this specific theory) and dual process accounts in general and (2) the benefits that can be derived from reasoning and argumentation (again, in this specific theory). Second, (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  22.  79
    Bogency and Goodacies: On Argument Quality in Virtue Argumentation Theory.Fabio Paglieri - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (4):65-87.
    Virtue argumentation theory has been charged of being incomplete, given its alleged inability to account for argument cogency in virtue-theoretical terms. Instead of defending VAT against that challenge, I suggest it is misplaced, since it is based on a premise VAT does not endorse, and raises an issue that most versions of VAT need not consider problematic. This in turn allows distinguishing several varieties of VAT, and clarifying what really matters for them.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  23.  93
    Bridging the gap between argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematics.Alison Pease, Alan Smaill, Simon Colton & John Lee - 2009 - Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):111-135.
    We argue that there are mutually beneficial connections to be made between ideas in argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematics, and that these connections can be suggested via the process of producing computational models of theories in these domains. We discuss Lakatos’s work (Proofs and Refutations, 1976) in which he championed the informal nature of mathematics, and our computational representation of his theory. In particular, we outline our representation of Cauchy’s proof of Euler’s conjecture, in which we (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24.  71
    Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  25.  70
    Critical Argumentation Theory and Democracy: Lessons of Past Debates over Technoscience.William Rehg - 2003 - Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 59 (1):113 - 138.
    Contemporary critical theorists working in the Frankfurt School tradition have focused considerable attention on theories of deliberative democracy, which in general attempt to show how public argumentation can be both democratic and reasonable. In this context, political questions that involve or depend on science present an acute challenge, inasmuch as deliberation must meet especially demanding epistemic requirements. In this article, the author examines two past responses to the challenge, each of which failed to reconcile reasonableness and democracy: that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26.  47
    Argumentation theory and GM foods.Miltos Ladikas & Doris Schroeder - 2005 - Poiesis and Praxis 3 (3):216-225.
    The European debate around genetically modified foods was one of the most sustained and ardent public discussions in the late 1990s. Concerns about risks to human health and the environment were voiced alongside claims that healthier foods can be produced more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly manner using the new technology. The aims of this paper are to test the usefulness of Stephen Toulmin’s argumentation model for the analysis of public debates almost 50 years after it was (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  86
    Informal Logic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence.Michael A. Gilbert - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (3).
    Informal Logic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28.  73
    Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent.Lenore Langsdorf - 1994 - Informal Logic 16 (3).
  29.  38
    Argumentations Theorie: Scholastische Forschungen Zu Den Logischen Und Semantischen Regeln Korrekten Folgerns.Klaus Jacobi (ed.) - 1950 - New York: Brill.
    The papers in this volume - written by well-known experts in the field - examine the rules for valid argument discovered and formulated in the works of medieval scholasticism and show their significance to modern discussions in logic and the philosophy of language. The editor's introductions make the papers interesting and comprehensible even to non-specialists.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  30. Forms and Norms of Indecision in Argumentation Theory.Daniela Schuster - 2021 - Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, 15th International Conference, DEON 2020/2021.
    One main goal of argumentation theory is to evaluate arguments and to determine whether they should be accepted or rejected. When there is no clear answer, a third option, being undecided, has to be taken into account. Indecision is often not considered explicitly, but rather taken to be a collection of all unclear or troubling cases. However, current philosophy makes a strong point for taking indecision itself to be a proper object of consideration. This paper aims at revealing parallels (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31.  88
    Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: From Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies.Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):132-159.
    Mercier and Sperber (2011a, 2011b; Mercier, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, and 2011d) have presented a stimulating and provocative new theory of reasoning: the argumentative theory of reasoning. They maintain that argumentation is a meta-representational module. In their evolutionary view of argumentation, the function of this module would be to regulate the flow of information between interlocutors through persuasiveness on the side of the communicator and epistemic vigilance on the side of the audience. The aim of this paper is to (...)
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  32.  84
    Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice.Sally Jackson - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):243-263.
    This essay proposes a design perspective on argumentation, intended as complementary to empirical and critical scholarship. In any substantive domain, design can provide insights that differ from those provided by scientific or humanistic perspectives. For argumentation, the key advantage of a design perspective is the recognition that humanity’s natural capacity for reason and reasonableness can be extended through inventions that improve on unaided human intellect. Historically, these inventions have fallen into three broad classes: logical systems, scientific methods, and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  33. Argumentation Theory and the Philosophy of Science Since Kuhn.William Rehg - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34. Argumentation theory and knowledge representation.DrsP A. Smit - 1988 - In Jakob Hoepelman, Representation and reasoning: proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference Workshop on Discourse Representation, Dialogue Tableaux, and Logic Programming. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer Verlag.
  35. Critical Argumentation Theory and Democracy.William Regh - 2003 - Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 59 (1):113-138.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Argumentation Theory as a Discipline.Frans van Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2018 - In Frans H. Van Eemeren, Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer Verlag.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  52
    Critical Legal Studies and argumentation theory.Dale A. Herbeck - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):719-729.
    Critical Legal Studies poses a direct and expressed challenge to the basic tenets of American legal education and scholarship. Critical Legal Studies postulates that law is not a scientific exercise involving the application of objective principles, but rather a creative process involving the selection of conflicting rules which has the effect of reinforcing the existing political order. In an effort to explain the contribution of Critical Legal Studies to argumentation theory, this essay briefly discusses the role of legal reasoning (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  38.  25
    Discussing discourse modalities in argument theory: Reconsidering a paradigm.Paul van den Hoven - 2018 - Semiotica 2018 (220):19-40.
    Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 19-40.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  72
    Virtue Epistemology and Argumentation Theory.Daniel H. Cohen - 2007 - In David Hitchcock, Dissensus and the search for common ground. OSSA.
    Virtue epistemology was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about by argumentation.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  40. Logical Cornestones of Judaic Argumentation Theory.Andrew Schumann - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):305-326.
    In this paper, the four Judaic inference rules: qal wa- ḥ omer, gezerah š awah, heqe š, binyan ’av are considered from the logical point of view and the pragmatic limits of applying these rules are symbolic-logically explicated. According to the Talmudic sages, on the one hand, after applying some inference rules we cannot apply other inference rules. These rules are weak. On the other hand, there are rules after which we can apply any other. These rules are strong. This (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
    Short abstract (98 words). Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given humans’ exceptional dependence on communication and vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   429 citations  
  42.  30
    Some axioms underlying argumentation theory.George Boger - unknown
    This paper examines whether philosophers of argument, in spite of their disavowing ‘timeless principles’, nevertheless embrace a set of principles, or axioms, to underlie argumentation theory. First, it reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument; second, it extracts some principles common to their philosophies; and third, it draws out possible consequences for argumentation theory and asks whether such theory has an underlying political posture.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43. The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory.Paula Olmos & Luis Vega - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):415-426.
    In recent times, there have been different attempts to make an interesting use of the concept of script (as inherited from the fields of psychology and cognitive sciences) within argumentation theory. Although, in many cases, what we find under this label are computerized routines mainly used in e-learning collaborative proceses involving argumentation, either as an educational means or an educational goal, there are also other studies in which the concept of script plays a more theoretical role as the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  44.  33
    Critical Science Studies as Argumentation Theory: Who’s Afraid of SSK?William Rehg - 2000 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (1):33-48.
    This article asks whether an interdisciplinary "critical science studies" (CSS) is possible between a critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition, with its commitment to universal standards of reason, and relativistic sociologies of scientific knowledge (e.g., David Bloor's strong programme). It is argued that CSS is possible if its practitioners adopt the epistemological equivalent of Rawls's method of avoidance. A discriminating, public policy–relevant critique of science can then proceed on the basis of an argumentation theory that employs an immanent (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45.  71
    In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):49-70.
    According to van Eemeren, argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline, because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary approach, combining descriptive and normative insights. He points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  46.  45
    Rhetoric Meets Rational Argumentation Theory.Mirjami Paso - 2014 - Ratio Juris 27 (2):236-251.
    The theory of rhetoric is recognised and widely used in a number of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. It is therefore slightly surprising that it has not gained an important footing in jurisprudence. It is often argued that rhetoric and argumentative justification are clearly different issues. However, the present paper argues that they are in fact two aspects of argumentation and that the theory of rhetoric may be used also in the context of legal reasoning.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  25
    Some empirical qualifications to the arguments for an argumentative theory.Christopher R. Wolfe - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):92-93.
    The empirical research on the psychology of argumentation suggests that people are prone to fallacies and suboptimal performance in generating, comprehending, and evaluating arguments. Reasoning and argumentation are interrelated skills that use many of the same cognitive processes. The processes we use to convince others are also used to convince ourselves. Argumentation would be ineffective if we couldn't reason for ourselves.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1998 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (1):71-74.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  49.  37
    Review essay: William Rehg, Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas.John H. Zammito - 2011 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (3):359-365.
    William Rehg believes that the ‘science wars’ of recent times make it acutely necessary that ‘reasonable’ or ‘cogent’ standards for the assessment of scientific claims find acceptance among the various constituencies of the debate. He see ‘Kuhn’s gap’ — the mutual estrangement of philosophy of science from empirical science studies — as lamentable and seeks to bridge these disciplines via ‘argumentation theory’ inspired by the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas. While the use of argumentation theory helps illuminate the complexities (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  67
    The CDF collaboration and argumentation theory: The role of process in objective knowledge.William Rehg & Kent Staley - 2008 - Perspectives on Science 16 (1):1-25.
    : For philosophers of science interested in elucidating the social character of science, an important question concerns the manner in which and degree to which the objectivity of scientific knowledge is socially constituted. We address this broad question by focusing specifically on philosophical theories of evidence. To get at the social character of evidence, we take an interdisciplinary approach informed by categories from argumentation studies. We then test these categories by exploring their applicability to a case study from (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
1 — 50 / 977