Search

This paper advocates the use of modern argumentation theories in Islamic theological discourse. While the Islamic tradition has its own argumentation theories, modern terminology and theory can aid in interpretive understanding and critical analysis. The article focuses on ʿAbd al-Jabbār’s (d. 415/1025) Tathbīt, which utilizes the rational methods of kalām and radd to counter Christianity. The author exemplarily analyzes ʿAbd al-Jabbār’s argument against the Christian claim of the divine nature of Jesus and argues for historical theological texts to be examined for their argumentativeness, as well as for the value of analytical and argumentation theories in understanding the history and development of argumentative theology.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an excess of accurate and inaccurate information (infodemic) that has prevented people from finding reliable guidance in decision-making. Non-professional but popular science communicators—some with a political agenda—supply the public with scientific knowledge regarding Covid-19. This kind of communication represents a worrisome force in societal discourses on science-related political issues. This article explores online content (N = 108 articles) of two popular German “alternative news” media (NachDenkSeiten and PI News) that present and evaluate biomedical research concerning Covid-19. Using thematic analysis, we investigated how scientific evidence was presented and questioned. Regarding the theoretical background, we drew on the concept of “evidencing practices” and ideas from argumentation theory. More specifically, we studied the use of the following three evidencing and counterevidencing practices: references to Data/Methods, references to Experts/Authorities, and Narratives. The results indicate that the studied alternative news media generally purport to report on science using the same argumentation mechanisms as those employed in science journalism in legacy media. However, a deeper analysis reveals that argumentation directions mostly follow preexisting ideologies and political agendas against Covid-19 policies, which leads to science coverage that contradicts common epistemic authorities and evidence. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of our findings for audience views and consider strategies for countering the rejection of scientific evidence.

Introduction. The paper scrutinizes abduction through the lens of the argumentation theory. Abduction is treated as an argument with a special argumentative scheme. Argumentation schemes are seen as stereotypical patterns of common types of arguments used in everyday discourse. The main issue of this publication is to specify the scheme of abductive argument and supply it with so-called critical questions. Such questions should identify, reconstruct and evaluate abduction in dialogs.Methodology and sources. At first, I analyze D. Walton and S. Yu & F. Zenker’s patterns of abductive argument, scrutiny their advantages and disadvantages. Then, based on the results of relatively new logical and philosophical investigations, I systemize the peculiarities of abduction. The role of D. Gabbay and J. Wood’s model is especially emphasized.Results and discussion. Both approaches (D. Walton and S. Yu & F. Zenker) are not free of problems. However, several recent logico-epistemological specifications of abduction can reduce them. I mean the position that abduction preserves ignorance and presumes J. Wood’s conclusionality relation. This reasoning is weak and cannot be distinguished from other arguments. These proposals and almost unknown (with interrogative conclusion) Ch. S. Peirce’s scheme of abduction produce a core of argumentative scheme.Conclusion. I provide a version of argumentative scheme of abduction with the set of critical questions. Its formal structure is defined as a move from the consequent to antecedent with the investigand mood conclusion while the material side is seen as reasoning from surprise to investigation. Modified D. Gabbay and J. Wood’s model clarifies the controversial aspects of this argumentative scheme. It also specifies critical questions functions since they lose their traditional role of evaluation.

This article investigates how political candidates in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa employed means of strategic manoeuvring during the provincial election campaigns of 2019. It assumes the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, by first reconstructing the argumentation structure, identifying the means of strategic manoeuvring, and finally, critically analysing the prototypical speech acts in the political campaign discourse. The data were collected from the isiXhosa newspaper I’solezwe LesiXhosa during the campaign from February to April 2019. The findings demonstrate commissives and assertives as the prototypical speech acts in the political argumentative discourse in the Eastern Cape Province. In addition, dissociation is manifested in multiple contexts to persuade the audience of the standpoint that the opposition parties are more visionary than the incumbent party, African National Congress.

This article investigates how political candidates in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa employed means of strategic manoeuvring during the provincial election campaigns of 2019. It assumes the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, by first reconstructing the argumentation structure, identifying the means of strategic manoeuvring, and finally, critically analysing the prototypical speech acts in the political campaign discourse. The data were collected from the isiXhosa newspaper I’solezwe LesiXhosa during the campaign from February to April 2019. The findings demonstrate commissives and assertives as the prototypical speech acts in the political argumentative discourse in the Eastern Cape Province. In addition, dissociation is manifested in multiple contexts to persuade the audience of the standpoint that the opposition parties are more visionary than the incumbent party, African National Congress.

This article investigates how political candidates in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa employed means of strategic manoeuvring during the provincial election campaigns of 2019. It assumes the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, by first reconstructing the argumentation structure, identifying the means of strategic manoeuvring, and finally, critically analysing the prototypical speech acts in the political campaign discourse. The data were collected from the isiXhosa newspaper I’solezwe LesiXhosa during the campaign from February to April 2019. The findings demonstrate commissives and assertives as the prototypical speech acts in the political argumentative discourse in the Eastern Cape Province. In addition, dissociation is manifested in multiple contexts to persuade the audience of the standpoint that the opposition parties are more visionary than the incumbent party, African National Congress.

This article investigates how political candidates in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa employed means of strategic manoeuvring during the provincial election campaigns of 2019. It assumes the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, by first reconstructing the argumentation structure, identifying the means of strategic manoeuvring, and finally, critically analysing the prototypical speech acts in the political campaign discourse. The data were collected from the isiXhosa newspaper I’solezwe LesiXhosa during the campaign from February to April 2019. The findings demonstrate commissives and assertives as the prototypical speech acts in the political argumentative discourse in the Eastern Cape Province. In addition, dissociation is manifested in multiple contexts to persuade the audience of the standpoint that the opposition parties are more visionary than the incumbent party, African National Congress.

The current legal paradigm assumes that legal decisions must be justified. Judges use arguments as tools to accomplish this justification. Thus, this research presents an analysis to explain and illustrate arguments of statutory interpretation, given that the plain language of legal rules is not always sufficient to give all the answers needed for a legal decision. The theoretical analysis presented here, based on the relevant literature, aims to review some of the main concepts necessary for legal arguments of statutory interpretation and their possible relation to argument schemes. The reviewed arguments schemes advance arguments that avoid absurd results, as well as those that reflect the legislation’s purpose and the legislator’s intention. Overall, this study demonstrates how one can present arguments or evaluate and reconstruct them in the legal field. Specifically, reviewing argument schemes for legal arguments of statutory interpretation can help refine some of the main features of legal argumentation and highlight the necessary interpretation to accomplish them.

This article explores the relationship between argumentation theory and dialogic pedagogy. Arguments made in everyday discourse tend to be enthymematic, i.e., containing implicit premises. Thus, dialogue is often necessary to uncover hidden assumptions. Furthermore, evaluating logical arguments involves dialectical and dialogic processes. We articulate the role of critical questions in this process and present the Critical Questions Model of Argument Assessment (CQMAA) as a (mostly) comprehensive framework for evaluating arguments. Students can be taught to ask and discuss these critical questions. Yet to facilitate and sustain discussion of these questions, teachers need additional tools drawn from dialogic pedagogy. We draw on Robin Alexander’s conceptual framework for this purpose as well as Michaels and O’Connor’s work on Academically Productive Talk. Alexander’s framework includes six pedagogical principles and eight repertoires of talk. We focus specifically on teacher and student talk moves and propose that critical questions should be considered an important subset of productive talk moves that can bring rigor and purpose to classroom argumentation. Other talk moves are also needed to help students construct arguments, listen and engage with one another, and help sustain discussion of the critical questions. The CQMAA provides both a theoretical and practical link between (1) logical analysis and critique and (2) dialogic teaching.

This paper examines the argumentative retort “Just Google it” in response to cases of epistemic exploitation. Critical assessments of the reply often examine the phrase from an argumentation theory standpoint, which views it as at best rude and at worst a violation of argumentative norms. However, these critiques ignore one of the functions of the term—to avoid epistemic exportation. The response may be a useful tool for Black individuals to offload some epistemic burdens concerning racial arguments, but due to racially biased search engine algorithms, the phrase has the high potential to exacerbate racial disagreements. Directing disagreeing interlocutors to “Google” anti-Black oppression and having them self-research unjust institutions runs the substantial risk of reinforcing an interlocutor’s original stance, due to the ways in which search engine algorithms utilize word embedding. Rather than using the phrase “Just Google it,” this paper concludes with a few alternative suggestions to combat epistemic exploitation.

Mexico is at a crossroads in terms of drug policy. The judicial route has recently positioned itself as a possible tool to dismantle a century of prohibitionism that, in its historical development, has resulted in significant grievances for the country. The purpose of this article is to understand the ruling that declared the absolute prohibition of cannabis unconstitutional in 2018. The main premises and argumentation techniques were identified through an argumentative analysis. The results reveal a display of hierarchies, facts, values, presumptions and commonplaces that lead to the liberal premise of allowing that which does not harm third parties. Despite ruling in favor of individual liberty, the judgement represents a reform of prohibitionism.

Proving the efficacy and safety of the vaccine is not the only obstacle that the international scientific community has to face: the other major obstacle is the production times and methods of distribution. The forecasts on the subject tell us that even by airing the reckless hypothesis of dedicating every resource to the vaccine against Covid-19, it would not be possible to synthesize more than five billion doses per year, to be distributed in every corner of the planet. The ethical challenge will be to establish priorities for access to vaccine administration. The reflection therefore focuses on a specific question: how are the different models of vaccine administration and distribution justified on an ethical-argumentative level? Which ones are most persuasive and effective in front of the audience? The study examines three main models, with a focus on the Fayr Priotity Model.

Death and disease, isolation and loneliness of the dying, metaphor of war, abandonment, lack of the urn and mourning without bodies: the global epidemic forced us to a violent encounter with the end of life, which in our society continues to constitute a taboo. Starting from some testimonies of doctors and nurses, we analyze the methods and representations of death at the time of Covid-19 with the aim of emphasizing the profound need to build a lay rite of mourning and a more sustainable social model. We will also question the tragedy that we have seen happen in order to understand the fundamental values ​​on which the world that will come will have to stand.

Qiyās, or “correlational inference” (often glossed as “analogy”), comprises a primary set of methodological tools recognized by a majority of premodern Sunnī jurists. Its elements, valid modes, and proper applications were the focus of continual argument and refinement. A particular area of debate was the methodology of determining or justifying the ʿilla: the legal cause (or occasioning factor, or ratio legis) giving rise to a ruling in God’s Law. This was most often discussed (and disputed) under the rubric of “the modes of causal justification” (masālik al-taʿlīl). Among these modes was the much debated test of dawarān (concomitance of presumed cause and effect). In brief, proponents of dawarān employed it to justify claims that a property (waṣf) occasioned the ruling (ḥukm) in an authoritative source-case (aṣl). In concert with other considerations, the demonstrated co-presence (ṭard) and co-absence (ʿaks) of property and ruling—that is, their concomitance “in existence” (wujūdan) and “in nonexistence” (ʿadaman)— was taken as an indication that the property was the ruling’s ʿilla. Delving further into dawarān and causation (ʿilliyya), the current study interprets “in existence” and “in nonexistence” not as a kind of metaphor for true and false (within the framework of a classical truth-functional formal semantics), but as an accurate terminology vis-à-vis the meaning of causality statements, fully compatible with dominant Islamicate views on causal agency. In brief, a deeper logical and linguistic analysis of the different existential modes of dawarān strongly suggests that we should distinguish property (or phenomenon) and ruling (or effect) as types (concepts or propositions linguistically expressed by a sentence) as opposed to tokens (instantiations of the type; the real, ontological events that verify the proposition). Our reading of dawarān as shaped by a finer-grained structure not only allows us to identify the efficient occasioning process as a function which takes some particular token of the ʿilla (arguably, the property or properties which provide the ruling’s material cause) and renders a token of the general ruling type, but it allows us to elucidate the role of taʿlīl (causal justification) in shaping an epistemological theory of argument to the best explanation: a sophisticated, premodern manifestation of abductive reasoning.

The post-classical (or post-Avicennan, post-Rāzian) genre of the “protocols for dialectical inquiry and disputation” (ādāb al-baḥth wa-l-munāẓara) has its more proximate origins in the famed Risāla of Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 722/1322). The greater part of his conceptions and methodology, however, consists in a streamlining and universalizing of the more strictly juristic dialectic (jadal / khilāf) of his teacher Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī (d. 687/1288); and this in turn draws on the highly logicized dialectic of Rukn al-Dīn al-ʿAmīdī (d. 615/1218) and his teacher Raḍī al-Dīn al-Nīsābūrī (d. 617/1220). At the heart of methods in this lineage, and carried forward by al-Samarqandī into the universal ādāb al-baḥth, are three truth-preserving logical relationships critical to the truth-seeking enterprise of dialectic: entailment (talāzum / mulāzama), mutual negation or exclusion (tanāfin / munāfā), and causal concomitance (dawarān). The practical elaboration of these relations reveals a logic in action—a premodern dialogical logic for living disputation praxis. In fact, so critical were these to the dialectical enterprise that al-Samarqandī devoted a specialized treatise entirely to summarizing their defining features and rules, aptly naming it the ʿAyn al-Naẓar, or “Wellspring of Rational Investigation.” In this article, and drawing upon a recently published digital critical edition, I will present an analytical outline of these core logical relations as presented in the ʿAyn al-Naẓar. Then I will address a number of points of interest in this text, grouped under six themes: the potential for cross-disciplinary advancement; notions in discursive development; significant or uniquely contributive formulations; peculiarities of content; signs of an evolving, universalist agenda; and evidence that the ʿAyn al-Naẓar was designed as an aide-mémoire for the active disputant.

The paper focuses on the issue of developing essay writing skills in the context of IELTS preparation and explores the issue of whether academic debate can enhance STEM students’ ability to structure their essays, develop a smooth progression of ideas, and provide supported and extended arguments, which, in turn, may result in higher scores for the IELTS Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion categories. To answer this, a study was undertaken in the academic years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 among STEM undergraduate students in the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. The study involved two groups of students (36 students in each): the group that attended regular IELTS preparation classes and the other that, in addition to regular classes, attended debate classes where among other things Toulmin’s argument structure was taught. At the beginning and end of the experiment both groups submitted essays that were analysed according to IELTS rubrics for Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion, and the presence or absence of the elements of Toulmin’s argument structure. In addition, the essays were assessed by an independent IELTS teacher. An independent-samples t-test and Levene’s test were utilised to determine the significance of the collected data. The findings revealed that, on average, the students of the experimental group scored well in Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion, yet some results were inconsistent, which requires further research.

The history of the rhetoric of contagion reveals the existence of a shared imagination in which it is formed as a negotiation between fear and knowledge, between knowledge and hope, between truths that society can tolerate and how this truth is communicated. Are there rational methods to prefer happiness to health, health at work, safety of the social body to the individual one? Among the historical sources, literature and news, the ethical problem of the agreement of values ​​emerges which must help to find with the community in order to link action to the dimension of persuasion. In argumentation theory, the contagion argument is used when, from an initial phenomenon considered harmful, it is warned against its transmission. How to stop the fear of contagion? In Boccaccio, the plague of 1348, like the breakdown of the social pact between the one and the whole, is at the basis of Pampinea's proposal of “honestly going”: not safety but the possibility of finding a mental ecology. Lucrezia Borgia's letters on the initiatives undertaken during the Modena plague of 1505 show that quarantine is justified in common opinion by the pragmatic argument: the persuasive effect coincides with the decline in the epidemic curve. Manzoni, writing about the plague of the 17th century, moves from the pars destruens of the guilty authority “to indulge in credulity” towards that construction in praise of the service rendered in the hospital, a new form of sociality, “from men to men”.

One often speaks of “dialogues of the deaf” whose origin would be the too great difference between modes of thought, especially in ethics or in politics. In order to clarify this issue, I suggest to distinguish between three notions: modes of thought in a strict sense, modes of beliefs and modes of argumentation. I explain these notions at length by taking examples chosen either at the local level (e.g. social conflicts within companies) or at the global level (in particular religious and political conflicts involving references to Islamic doctrines). By adopting a critical rationalist viewpoint in social epistemology, I try to identify the conditions that would make agreements possible without restricting them to mere compromises.

Mental workload (MWL) is an imprecise construct, with distinct definitions and no predominant measurement technique. It can be intuitively seen as the amount of mental activity devoted to a certain task over time. Several approaches have been proposed in the literature for the modelling and assessment of MWL. In this paper, data related to two sets of tasks performed by participants under different conditions is reported. This data was gathered from different sets of questionnaires answered by these participants. These questionnaires were aimed at assessing the features believed by domain experts to influence overall mental workload. In total, 872 records are reported, each representing the answers given by a user after performing a task. On the one hand, collected data might support machine learning researchers interested in using predictive analytics for the assessment of mental workload. On the other hand, data, if exploited by a set of rules/arguments (as in [3]), may serve as knowledge-bases for researchers in the field of knowledge-based systems and automated reasoning. Lastly, data might serve as a source of information for mental workload designers interested in investigating the features reported here for mental workload modelling. This article was co-submitted from a research journal “An empirical evaluation of the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning and expert systems” [3]. The reader is referred to it for the interpretation of the data.

People always talk, discuss, argue, criticize or contradict each other. Have you ever thought of how do we do this? What language means do we use? What kind of elements do we use in verbal interaction? It is undoubtfully the use of arguments, part of a well-organized logic. Spontaneously people argue about different issues, trying to answer every question, trying to be persuasive in what we say. In the same way, we comment and express our opinion according to our point of view if something happens. This occurs naturally and no one stops to think how we argue and how many forms of argumentation exist. Different linguists and philosophers treated argumentation from ancient times up to now. We can mention Aristotle and his rhetoric, Perelman and Toulmin with The new Rhetoric or the Theory of Argumentation. Thanks to these studies, these theories are applied and used in Linguistic, Applicable Linguistic, and Text Linguistic. In this paper, we will have a look at different types of argumentation from theory to practice.

This paper is a case study. After formulating three norms for critical assessment of argumentation (section 1), I give a brief overview of Galileo’s argumentative strategy in his Dialogue and present his argument for the cause of the tides, which appears as an argument by analogy (section 2). I then discuss possible reconstructions of this argumentation, with one particular suggestion in detail. These arguments seem to fall short, given the aforementioned set of norms (section 3). This leads to my own proposal of Galileo’s argument. I defend this proposal and it’s general idea - that is, the argument’s pattern. It will be classified as ‘interventionist’ and useful regarding the goals of critical assessment (section 4). Finally, I suggest that the pattern of argument is applicable to other cases and useful for applied theory of science (section 5).

In this paper we use Hansson’s concept of formalized philosophy and the linked categories of simplified idealization and perfectionist idealization, aiming to metaanalyze three theoretical approaches to human argumentation: van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragmadialectics, Walton’s argumentative schemes, and Jacobs and Jackson’s conversational angle, in relation to their treatment of fallacies as a type of transgression of pragmatics rules. We conclude that while the two first theories are anchored in a centralized conception of the fallacious, the third theory abandons any possibility of normativity.

This article examines how free movement and mobility are represented in Finnish upper secondary level EU textbooks. There were three such books in use at the time of writing, published in 2007, 2010 and 2014. My methodology is based on the discourse-historical approach outlined by Ruth Wodak, focusing particularly on the various discursive strategies present in the books. I have divided the groups addressed into four levels of mobility thus; ‘EU movers’, ‘restricted EU movers’, ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’. The EU movers were the most positively viewed group; their mobility was often related to work and studies. ‘Restricted EU movers’ refers to citizens of the countries that joined the EU in the twenty-first century, whose ‘invasion’ was allegedly feared by the older member states. Migrants outside the EU were described, inter alia, as a ‘flow of millions of poor people’ eager to enter Europe. Refugees, in turn, were conflated with people applying for asylum without valid grounds, creating a ‘refugee flow’ dealing with which member states needed to assist each other. Overall, this article concurs with the findings of previous studies: school books tend to present those moving within Europe as more agreeable, with less acceptable stereotypical characteristics being attached to extra-EU migrants and minority groups such as the Roma.

The overall goal of this paper is to show that computational modelling of argumentation theories is a useful tool to deepen them. Specifically, it provides a basic computational formalization of part of Pragma-dialectics’ model of a critical discussion, which serves as a basis for analyzing this influential theory of argumentation. Such analysis reveals some weaknesses and leaves some questions opened for Pragma-dialectics. Particularly, it shows that the model of a critical discussion is not independent of the model of reasoning/inference chosen, because, while it performs differently with different models of reasoning, it does not work well with some of them.

Este estudo tem como objetivos identificar os principais argumentos utilizados durante as discussões públicas sobre o Programa Mais Médicos e analisar a estrutura das argumentações e sua adequação às regras de uma discussão crítica. São analisados debates veiculados na televisão e na internet envolvendo agentes públicos e da sociedade civil. A análise foi realizada a partir da abordagem pragma-dialética de Van Eemeren e Grootendorst e seu modelo de discussão crítica. Em todos os debates são observadas falácias nas argumentações, o que dificulta o avanço no sentido de se chegar à resolução das diferenças de opiniões. Esses entraves no diálogo acabam por dificultar também a resolução de problemas concretos que poderia fazer avançar o Programa Mais Médicos e, assim, melhorar as condições de acesso à saúde da população.

This article studies the emotive and expressive function of rhetorical questions in the structure of argumentative statements used in scientific and academic texts. The rhetorical question in this type of texts has a pragmatic function of attracting attention, activating the perception of information and persuading. Argumentation in scientific and academic texts is characterized by its appeal not only to the rational, but also to the emotional structures of the human consciousness. Therefore, argumentation in this type of texts is axiological by nature.

In this paper I develop and defend a form of argumentative normativity that is not based on fundamental principles. I first argue that research agendas that aim to discover (or claimed to have discovered) fundamental principles of ‘good’ argumentative discourse share one crucial weak spot, viz. circularity. I then argue that this weak spot can be avoided in a pancritical (Bartley, 1984) view of normativity.

Los argumentos son parte de un proceso comunicativo con el cual se trata de incidir en la acción de otros. Gilbert (1994) identifica cuatro modos de argumentación: el modo lógico, el modo emocional, el modo visceral y el modo kisceral. Siguiendo la línea de investigación en psicología computacional marcada por Ortony, Clore y Collins (1988) y el modelo de resolución de conflictos usando negociaciones basadas en argumentos propuesto por Jung y Tambe (2001), este trabajo presenta un modelo lógico-formal para el estudio de un modo concreto de argumentos emocionales dentro del contexto de formación de consensos enmarcado en un proceso de negociación/coordinación. Se discuten sus implicaciones en los modelos cognitivos emocionales basados en el proceso de apreciación/evaluación de la emoción.

In Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic-approach to Argumentation Theory (Springer, 2011), I provide a new model for the semantic and pragmatic appraisal of argumentation. This model is based on a characterization of argumentation as a second order speech-act complex. I explain the advantages of this model respecting other proposals within Argumentation Theory, such as Pragma-dialectics, Informal Logic, the New Rhetoric or the Epistemic Approach.

The overall goal of this paper is to show that computational modelling of argumentation theories is a useful tool to deepen them. Specifically, it provides a basic computational formalization of part of Pragma-dialectics’ model of a critical discussion, which serves as a basis for analyzing this influential theory of argumentation. Such analysis reveals some weaknesses and leaves some questions opened for Pragma-dialectics. Particularly, it shows that the model of a critical discussion is not independent of the model of reasoning/inference chosen, because, while it performs differently with different models of reasoning, it does not work well with some of them.

Argumentation is a crucial component of our lives. Although in the absence of rational debate our legal, political, and scientific systems would not be possible, there is still no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Furthermore, classical theories of argumentation are normative (i.e. the acceptability of an argument is determined by a set of norms or logical rules), which sometimes creates a dissociation between the theories and people’s behavior. We think the current challenge for psychology is to bring together the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation. In this Perspective, we exemplify this point by analyzing two cases of argumentative structures experimentally studied in the context of cognitive psychology. Specifically, we focus on the slippery slope argument and the ad hominem argument under the frameworks of Bayesian and pragma-dialectics approaches, respectively. We think employing more descriptive and experimental accounts of argumentation would help Psychology to bring closer the cognitive and normative accounts of argumentation with the final goal of establishing an integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation.

Taking Blair’s recent contribution to the debate about the triad as its starting point, the article discusses and challenges attempts to reduce the intricate relationship between rhetoric, dialectic and logic to a trichotomy with watertight compartments or to separate them with a single clear-cut criterion. I argue that efforts to pinpoint an essential difference, among the various typical differences partly grounded in disciplinary traditions, obscure the complexities within the fields. As a consequence, crosscutting properties of the fields as well as the possibilities for theoretical bridging between them are neglected.

Focused on the issue of discursive identities, this paper investigates how the CRIF reacted to the Palestinian Authority’s request for recognition as a Member state of the UN, on September 23rd, 2011. Caught between its allegiance to France as well as its institutional status of privileged interlocutor of the public authorities on one side - and its emotional attachment and strong solidarity with Israel on the other, the CRIF chose in this case to distance itself from the official policy of the French government by aligning itself globally with the stance of the Hebrew State. The paper is based on a micro-analysis of two texts published on the CRIF web site on the day of the request to the UN. Grounded in a theory of argumentation embedded in the new rhetoric (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1970 [1958 ]; Maingueneau 1999; Amossy 2010), it investigates how the CRIF negotiates its discursive ethos both with the French public opinion and with the community which it represents; how it ensures the consistency of its argumentation indexed simultaneously on two contradictory official political discourses, and which rhetoric and argumentative strategies it adopts to build two antithetical images of the Hebrew State and of the future Palestinian State within the legitimacy war between them.

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.

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.

The paper calls for argumentation theory to learn from moral and political philosophy. Several thinkers in these fields help understand the occurrence of what we may call legitimate dissensus: enduring disagreement even between reasonable people arguing reasonably. It inevitably occurs over practical issues, e.g., issues of action rather than truth, because there will normally be legitimate arguments on both sides, and these will be incommensurable, i.e., they cannot be objectively weighed against each other. Accordingly, ‘inference,’ ‘validity,’ and ‘sufficiency’ are inapplicable notions. Further distinctive features of pro and con arguments in practical argumentation are explored, and some corollaries are drawn regarding evaluative norms of legitimate dissensus. Examples from immigrationrelated public debates in Denmark are given.

In this overview article, we first explain what we take informal logic to be, discussing misconceptions and distinguishing our conception of it from competing ones; second, we briefly catalogue recent informal logic research, under 14 headings; third, we suggest four broad areas of problems and questions for future research; fourth, we describe current scholarly resources for informal logic; fifth, we discuss three implications of informal logic for philosophy in particular, and take note ofpractical consequences of a more general sort.

Most infonnallogic texts and articles assume a verbal account of reasoning which defines "argument" as a set of sentences. The present paper broadens this definition in order to account for "visual arguments" which are communicated with nonverbal visual images. Standard approaches to verbal arguments are extended in a way that allows them to explain and evaluate visual argumentation.

To find the place of Argumentation (argumentation theory) in education one must sort out its relationship to Logic. The key point is that the two stand in different relations to reasoning. Logic is the normative study of reasoning, and provides the standards for correct reasoning. Argumentation studies the activity of arguing, and is related to reasoning only in that arguing involves the attempt to get an audience to reason in a certain way; correctness is not essential. Reasoning is here understood as the process of organizing one's thoughts into a structure here called a reckoning. This may be done privately by an individual, or several people may collaborate on a reasoning project, in which case there occurs the social activity of dialogue. Confusion between dialogue and arguing is a source of confusion between Logic and Argumentation. Reasoning and dialogue on the one hand, and arguing on the other, are both worthwhile, and education in Logic and Argumentation can help people to do them better. But the educating should be done in a way that maintains the distinction between them.