Search

The paper primarily aims at providing a critical assessment of the ideas and arguments presented in a paper by Marián Zouhar that was published in Filozofia 2020/8. It shows that Zouhar's criticism of the adequacy of the definition of argumentation commonly accepted in Pragma-Dialectical Theory is not convincing and the alternative definition which he offers is at least as controversial as the definition which is the target of his critique. The paper also points out that Zouhar's ambition of providing a comprehensive analytic definition of the concept of argumentation is dubious. It also suggests that we should instead aspire to proffer specific delineations of the concept of argumentation designed to serve well within individual research projects focused on social practices involving argumentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Typically, a distinction is made between argumentation and explanation based on their different illocutionary aims. While the aim of argumentation is to provide support for the acceptability of a particular thesis by means of other statements, the aim of explanation is to provide understanding of a phenomenon, regularity, etc. Although this distinction is well-founded, it obscures certain interesting interactions between explanation and argumentation. This paper identifies a particular type of explanations that presuppose argumentation in their favor. These explanations refer, at least in part, to pieces of knowledge that had not been part of the preexisting knowledge base of science. Their epistemic status is therefore problematic and they require separate justification. The success of this justification (a speech act of argumentation) is one of the felicity conditions of (the speech act of) explanation. The paper proposes a general scheme of argumentation in favor of an explanation. It combines subordinative and coordinative argumentation whose aim is to show that the explanation satisfies the (often implicit) criteria of adequacy. The scheme is briefly illustrated on an example of empirical research in International Relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with various ways of criticizing arguments. In particular, I focus on John Pollock's theory of defeasible reasoning and show that his conception of rebutting and undercutting defeaters omits some important ways of attacking arguments. I discuss not only the tenets of Pollock's theory but I compare it also to some traditional ways of criticizing arguments occurring in philosophical logic, informal logic and argumentation theory. The paper provides some interesting kinds of counterexamples to deductive arguments which play a similar role to those of the undercutting and the rebutting defeaters occurring in case of non-deductive arguments. Finally, I point to a dilemma emerging from the analysis of Pollock's conception: Either we acknowledge that Pollock's theory is applicable only to a limited scope of defeasible arguments or we admit that we have to broaden the definition of defeasible arguments in such a way that it covers also deductive arguments. However, the latter option can lead to a conclusion that there are no nondefeasible arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accounts of analogical inference are usually categorized into four broad groups: abductive, deductive, inductive and sui generis. The pur- pose of this paper is to defend a sui generis model of analogical inference. It focuses on the sui generis account, as developed by Juthe [2005, 2009, 2015, 2016] and Botting's [2017] criticism of it. This paper uses the pragma- dialectical theory of argumentation as the methodological framework for an- alyzing and reconstructing argumentation. The paper has two main points. First, that Juthe's arguments against a deductive interpretation of prima facie analogy argumentation remain unaffected by Botting's criticism, which means that many of the reasons against deductive reformulation of analogy argumentation still stand. The additional argument, which Botting himself brings up, that a deductive interpretation cannot account for the cumula- tive effect of analogies, just provides further reason to reject deductivism. The second main point of this paper is that an inductive interpretation of analogical inference also fails. There are constitutional differences between inductive and analogical inference that cannot be bridged. The result is a firm defense of the sui generis view of analogical inference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The methods of abstraction and idealization are typically examined in connection with their applications in modeling and explanation. This paper investigates how the use of abstract and idealized models in arguments structures the process of argumentation. If a discussant uses an idealized model to justify a thesis, they also adopt an implicit or explicit attitude towards the idealizing assumptions it involves. The precise nature of this attitude determines the argumentation strategies available to the opponent. If the proponent views the assumptions as approximating the actual state of affairs, the opponent can request a de-idealization of the model. On the other hand, if the model is viewed as a non-Galilean idealization, or in a purely instrumental way, the opponent must challenge the relevance of the model with respect to the target system. However, as illustrated by the debate on minimum wage, even empirical evidence need not always provide a clear-cut resolution of the difference in opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This rhetorical analysis examines the first general election debate from the 2012 U. S. presidential campaign between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Riding a comfortable lead in the polls, expectations were that a decisive debate performance by Obama might put the election out of reach for his Republican challenger. Romney's strong debate showing, however, erased Obama's lead and helped him emerge as a stronger candidate on key issues. Using value analysis as a theoretical lens, this essay considers the ways the candidates appealed to dominant cultural values in their political arguments and contemplates the persuasive role these values may have played toward the perceived outcome of the debate. The analysis highlights commonalities, as well as unique rhetorical differences between Obama and Romney. Obama's major persuasive emphases were on the value premises of efficiency/practicality and equality of opportunity, while Romney appealed strongly to the rejection/mistrust of government authority. Implications for value analysis in political debate messaging are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ideas y Valores is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação is the property of Fundacao UNI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista FAMECOS - Mídia, Cultura e Tecnologia is the property of EDIPUCRS - Editora Universitaria da PUCRS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação is the property of Fundacao UNI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: Flexible transport systems (FTS) offer a promising approach to improving the efficiency and performance of passenger transportation services. FTS aim to provide passengers with flexibility in choosing routes, times, modes of transport, service provider and payment systems. In order to achieve this additional flexibility, a well-designed FTS integrate different modes of transport, possibly spanning multiple service providers, to provide more sophisticated, comfortable and cost-effective transport opportunities. The concept of flexible transport is not new; many existing systems, including shared taxicabs, Dial-A-Ride services, and car-clubs, contain elements of such a system. In this paper, we concentrate on FTS within rural areas, which generally suffer from lack of service availability and demand uncertainties, and for which existing FTS solutions are not well suited. We present an agent-based flexible transport systems platform developed using argumentation theory. Formal argumentation is a powerful technique borrowed from artificial intelligence, and in this context is used to weigh-up the conflicting choices available to both passengers and service providers. The resultant platform for FTS in rural areas acts as a virtual transport market place that would more effectively match existing demand and supply for transport services than existing solutions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

From an empirical point of view, this article aims at analyzing the role of the Swiss press in a language and culture policy debate regarding the changing status of Italian in quadrilingual Switzerland that took place at the beginning of 2005 following the discontinuation of two Italian chairs at Swiss universities. The issue is practically ignored in French- and German-speaking Switzerland, whereas Italian-language newspapers act as a platform for opinion leaders. The theoretical aim is to apply the framework of pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 1992, 2004) to a language and culture policy debate. The first step is an analysis of the confrontation stage of the debate in order to gain an overview of the issues and standpoints. In a second step, attention is focused on the argumentation stage, where the application of a locus analysis to single arguments of the debate allows the argument-generating mechanism to emerge. This mechanism essentially consists of two components: the topical component, which provides the argument with inferential validity, and the endoxical component, which contributes persuasive power to the argument by embedding it in the common ground shared by the arguer and the decision-maker. Moreover, the locus-analysis provides an efficient instrument for evaluating arguments by means of critical questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There seems to be an ongoing global debate over the potential benefits and risks of allowing direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products. Such advertising is legal in the United States and New Zealand but remains illegal for example in all the other countries of the Western world. It has been argued that the risks derive both from potential misinformation of consumers and inappropriate demands for prescription of these drugs. After reviewing this debate, this paper presents an exploratory study of the argumentation strategies used in US direct-to-consumer print advertising. The aim of the analysis is to understand better what the advertisement seeks to communicate beyond basic product information. In particular I am interested in the possibility that the advertising messages invite consumers to make inaccurate or inappropriate inferences and generalisations, thus affecting their health literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]