Search

Critical discussions can often require conceptual engineering, a process in which speakers are engaged in revising each other's concepts. We show that the analysis of conceptual engineering can benefit from integrating argumentation theory with models of conceptual representation. Argumentation theory accounts for the argumentative moves of the discussants, allowing the detection of speakers' conceptual disagreements, for which some fallacies can be seen as cues. Models of conceptual representation, such as Conceptual spaces and the theory of meeting of minds, allow us to study the cognitive side of engineering practices. However, when this integrated framework is applied to practical scenarios, conceptual engineering faces different challenges. In particular, assuming a psychological view about concepts, revisionary strategies are significantly narrowed down, if not impossible, in practice. These criticisms lead to a kind of dilemma for conceptual engineers, highlighting the necessity of further work on the definition of concept embraced by this research program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective (2018), Professor van Eemeren suggests that it might be worthwhile for pragma-dialectics and informal logic to join forces, given that there is a "considerable amount of common ground" between the two. In this paper, we explore that common ground by considering both the ways logic is understood and incorporated in the pragma-dialectical model and the ways informal logic has developed since its inception in the 1970s. In the process of our investigation, we present a view of the landscape of argumentation in which the subject matter of informal logic is situated relative to theories of argumentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 'The Making of Pragma-Dialectics: A Synopsis' the authors give an overview of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. First they characterize the five components of the research program: critical rationalistic philosophy, pragma-dialectical theory, qualitative and quantitative empirical research, resolution-oriented reconstructive analysis, reflection-minded practical intervention. Then they explain the four metatheoretical principles underlying the pragma-dialectical research: functionalization, socialization, externalization, and dialectification. Next the various phases in the systematic development of pragma-dialectics in the past 50 years are described: (1) conceptualization of the theoretical framework, (2) validation of the theoretical proposals, (3) empiricalization of the research efforts, (4) instrumentalization of the reconstructive analysis, (5) extension of the standard theory, (6) contextualization of the extended theory. In conclusion, a further explanation is given of the pragmadialectical approach of the crucial relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How should the state justify its coercive rules? Public reason liberalism endorses a public justification requirement: Justifications offered for authoritative regulations must be acceptable to all members of the relevant public. However, as a criterion of legitimacy, the public justification requirement is epistemically unreliable: It prioritizes neither the exclusion of false beliefs nor the inclusion of true beliefs in justifications of political rules. This article presents an epistemic alternative to the public justification requirement. Employing epistemological theories of argumentation, we demonstrate how this approach enables assessing the epistemic quality of justifications of political rules, even when the truth is difficult to establish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introductory article discusses the state of the art in contemporary argumentation theory regarding the relationship between autonomy and argumentation. It introduces the contributions to the special section and discusses their relationship to each other and to the broader debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, we explore the ways in which argumentation theory can be applied to multimodal advertising. In our discussion we emphasize "auditory" advertisements: advertisements that depend on non-verbal sounds. We show how key tools developed by argumentation theorists (KC tables, argument diagrams, and argument schemes) can be used to analyze and assess advertisements of this sort. Doing so demonstrates one way in which standard methods of argument analysis and evaluation can be applied to one important multimodal genre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agencies involved in generating regulatory policies promote evidence‐based regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) to improve the predictability of regulation and develop informed policy. Here, we analyze the epistemic foundations of RIAs. We frame RIA as reasoning that connects various types of knowledge to inferences about the future. Drawing on Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation, we situate deductive and inductive reasoning steps within a schema we call the impact argument. This approach helps us identify inherent uncertainties in RIAs, and their location in different types of reasoning. We illustrate the theoretical section with impact assessments of two recent legislative proposals produced by the European Commission. We argue that the concept of "evidence‐based regulatory impact assessment" is misleading and should be based on the notion of "regulatory impact assessment as evidential reasoning," which better recognizes its processual and argumentative nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

So far, fake news has been mostly associated with fabricated content that intends to manipulate or shape opinions. In this manuscript, we aim to establish that the perception of information as fake news is influenced by not only fabricated content but also by the rhetorical device used (i.e., how news authors phrase the message). Based on argumentation theory, we advance that fallacies – a subset of well-known deceptive rhetorical devices – share a conceptual overlap with fake news and are therefore suitable for shedding light on the issue's grey areas. In a first two-by-two, between-subject, best-worst scaling experiment (case 1), we empirically test whether fallacies are related to the perception of information as fake news and to what extent a reader can identify them. In a second two-by-two experiment, we presume that a reader believes that some of a sender's messages contain fake news and investigate recipients' subsequent reactions. We find that users distinguish nuances based on the applied fallacies; however, they will not immediately recognise some fallacies as fake news while overemphasising others. Regarding users' reactions, we observe a more severe reaction when the message identified as fake news comes from a company instead of an acquaintance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency, the currently available languages for argumentation do not allow to explicitly model this type of interaction. In this paper we introduce a concurrent language for handling agents arguing and communicating using a shared argumentation space. We also show how to perform high-level operations like persuasion and negotiation through basic belief revision constructs, and present a working implementation of the language and the associated web interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to discuss a well-known concept from argumentation theory, namely the principle of charity. It will show that this principle, especially in its contemporary version as formulated by Donald Davidson, meets with some serious problems. Since we need the principle of charity in any kind of critical discussion, we propose the way of modifying it according to the presupponendum—the rule written in the sixteenth century by Ignatius Loyola. While also corresponding with pragma-dialectical rules, it also provides additional content. This will be termed the dialectical principle of charity, and it offers a few steps to be performed during an argument in order to make sure that the participants understand each other well and are not deceived by any cognitive bias. The meaning of these results could be of great significance for argumentation theory, pragma-dialectics and the practice of public discourse as it enhances the principle of charity and makes it easier to apply in argumentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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 – van Eemeren and van Haaften explain the positions taken by representatives from the approaches discussed and indicate where they differ from the pragma-dialectical approach. It transpires that approaches focusing on dialectical reasonableness are, next to pragma-dialectics, formal dialectics and informal logic; approaches focusing on rhetorical effectiveness are, next to pragma-dialectics, rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, and the informal logician Tindale. When it comes to the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, some interest in it is shown in rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, but only in pragma-dialectics and in Tindale's work is it a real focus. The main difference between Tindale's view and the pragma-dialectical view is that in pragma-dialectics the decisive role in deciding about reasonableness is assigned to a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse and in Tindale's approach this role is assigned to Tindale's interpretation of the Perelmanian universal audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue represents some of the recent developments within argumentation studies. The following overview provides some historical context for the five papers which constitute this special issue. The Aristotelian roots of modern argumentation studies are briefly presented, as well as some further developments within Greek and Roman rhetoric. Furthermore, the most important developments in argumentation studies during the last few decades are sketched. Several modern approaches to argumentation theory are introduced, among them Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca's New Rhetoric, Toulmin's model of argumentation, formal dialectics, fallacy theory, informal logic, the Argumentum Model and Pragma-Dialectics. Finally, the thematic focus of the five papers is described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The timed concurrent language for argumentation (tcla) is a framework to model concurrent interactions between communicating agents that reason and take decisions through argumentation processes, also taking into account the temporal duration of the performed actions. Time is a crucial factor when dealing with dynamic environments in real-world applications, where agents must act in a coordinated fashion to reach their own goals. However, modelling complex interactions and concurrent processes may be challenging without the help of proper languages and tools. In this paper, we discuss the use of tcla for practical purposes and provide a working implementation of the language, endowed with a user interface available online, that serves the dual purpose of aiding the research in this field and facilitating the development of multi-agent systems based applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Following and extending Searle's speech act theory, both Pragma-Dialectics and the Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation characterize argumentation as an illocutionary act. In these models, the successful performance of an illocutionary act of arguing depends on the securing of uptake, an illocutionary effect that, according to the Searlean account, characterizes the successful performance of any illocutionary act. However, in my view, there is another kind of illocutionary effect involved in the successful performance of an illocutionary act of arguing, which affects both the speaker's and the hearer's set of rights, obligations, and entitlements. In order to give an account of this second type of effect, I will argue that it is necessary to distinguish two levels in the analysis of the illocutionary act of arguing. The first one is related to the illocutionary effect of securing of uptake and thus to the speech act performed by the speaker, while the second one allows us to account for the changes produced by the performance of the illocutionary act of arguing in the deontic modal competence of both the speaker and the hearer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses a hitherto unknown technique of using logic diagrams to create argument maps in eristic dialectics. The method was invented in the 1810s and -20s by Arthur Schopenhauer, who is considered the originator of modern eristic. This technique of Schopenhauer could be interesting for several branches of research in the field of argumentation: Firstly, for the field of argument mapping, since here a hitherto unknown diagrammatic technique is shown in order to visualise possible situations of arguments in a dialogical controversy. Secondly, the art of controversy or eristic, since the diagrams do not analyse the truth of judgements and the validity of inferences, but the persuasiveness of arguments in a dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dealing with uncertain, contradicting, and ambiguous information is still a central issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI). As a result, many formalisms have been proposed or adapted so as to consider non-monotonicity. A non-monotonic formalism is one that allows the retraction of previous conclusions or claims, from premises, in light of new evidence, offering some desirable flexibility when dealing with uncertainty. Among possible options, knowledge-base, non-monotonic reasoning approaches have seen their use being increased in practice. Nonetheless, only a limited number of works and researchers have performed any sort of comparison among them. This research article focuses on evaluating the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, a formalism particularly envisioned for modelling non-monotonic reasoning. In addition to this, fuzzy reasoning and expert systems, extended for handling non-monotonicity of reasoning, are selected and employed as baselines, due to their vast and accepted use within the AI community. Computational trust was selected as the domain of application of such models. Trust is an ill-defined construct, hence, reasoning applied to the inference of trust can be seen as non-monotonic. Inference models were designed to assign trust scalars to editors of the Wikipedia project. Scalars assigned to recognised trustworthy editors provided the basis for the analysis of the models' inferential capacity according to evaluation metrics from the domain of computational trust. In particular, argument-based models demonstrated more robustness than those built upon the baselines despite the knowledge bases or datasets employed. This study contributes to the body of knowledge through the exploitation of defeasible argumentation and its comparison to similar approaches. It provides publicly implementations for the designed models of inference, which might be a useful aid to scholars interested in performing non-monotonic reasoning activities. It adds to previous works, empirically enhancing the generalisability of defeasible argumentation as a compelling approach to reason with quantitative data and uncertain knowledge. • Replicable comparison of non-monotonic reasoning approaches using quantitative data. • Inference of the ill-defined construct of computational trust using real-world data. • Defeasible argumentation presented more robust inferences. • Literature review on knowledge-based systems and non-monotonic extensions. • Robust results analysed with two large real-world datasets and two knowledge-bases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interpretation of religious texts is an area of research in which rhetoric and the use of arguments play a central role. The analysis of the persuasive message expressed in many biblical passages, the reconstruction of the implicit messages conveyed by the texts, and the justification of an interpretation are questions that concern directly argumentation studies. The pragmatic dimension of arguments, the instruments developed for bringing to light implicit assumptions and conclusions, and the methods for justifying an interpretative claim can be important resources for biblical studies and applications that can open new research paths. This introduction outlines the crossroad between the two fields and the possible directions of future inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Requirements Engineering (RE) process starts with initial requirements elicited from stakeholders—however conflicting, unattainable, incomplete and ambiguous—and successively refines them until a consistent, complete, valid, and unambiguous specification is reached. This is achieved by balancing stakeholders' viewpoints and preferences to reach compromises through negotiation. Several frameworks have been developed to support this process in a structured way, such as KAOS, i*, and RationalGLR. However, none provides the means to model the dialectic negotiation inherent to the RE process, so that the derivation of specifications from requirements is fully explicit and traceable. To address this gap, we propose CaRE, a refinement calculus for requirements engineering based on argumentation theory. CaRE casts the RE refinement problem as an iterative argument between all relevant stakeholders, who point out defects (ambiguity, incompleteness, etc.) of existing requirements, and then propose suitable refinements to address them, thereby leading to the construction of a refinement graph. This graph is then a conceptual model of the RE process. The semantics of refinement graphs is provided using Argumentation Theory, enabling reasoning over the RE process and the automatic computation of software specifications. An alternate semantics is also presented based on abduction and using Horn Theory. The application of CaRE is showcased with an extensive example from the railway domain, and a prototype tool for identifying specifications in a refinement graph is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study leverages argumentation theory to combat the growing threat of health disinformation by enhancing public competency in evaluating health-related information., Methods: We systematically analyzed common persuasive tactics used in health disinformation, categorizing them into thematic groups linked to specific argument types. Based on these analyses, we developed critical questions to test the validity and strength of these arguments, resulting in an assessment tool., Results: The assessment tool, formatted as a flowchart, guides users through targeted critical questions to assess the credibility of health information. It addresses tactics like data misuse, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation, effectively improving users' ability to identify and resist misleading health claims., Conclusion: Utilizing argumentation theory offers a structured framework to dissect and counteract persuasive disinformation techniques, thereby boosting public health literacy and empowering informed health decisions. The assessment tool serves as both an immediate practical tool and a long-term educational resource for building cognitive resilience., Practice Implications: Our findings suggest that health institutions should regularly conduct workshops to strengthen public argumentation skills. Accessible online resources and the integration of argumentation theory into educational curricula are recommended to foster critical thinking and discernment of health information, promoting a more informed and engaged public., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sara Rubinelli reports financial support was provided by Swiss National Science Foundation. Nicola Diviani reports financial support was provided by Swiss National Science Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aims to examine the type of involvement of patient companions in the argumentative exchanges in consultations and explore when their contributions should be taken into account in shared decision-making (SDM)., Methods: A qualitative analysis was carried out using transcribed medical consultations (N = 10) between health professionals (doctors at a regional Dutch hospital), adult patients and informal patient companions. Insights from argumentation theory were used to develop an inventory of twelve theoretically distinct discussion situations involving patient companions, distinguishing possible discussion roles, disagreement types and coalition formations., Results: Consultations contained on average 4.3 discussion situations. In most discussions (37.21 %) the health professional adopted a standpoint, and the patient and their companion only expressed doubt. More complex cases occurred when one of the three parties, including the companion, opposed opinions of the other parties (in 34.88 % of the situations found) and when coalitions were formed (possible in 18.60 % of the situations found). We found that disagreements occurred or were anticipated by all three parties and involved standpoints about the diagnosis as well as treatment options., Conclusion: Using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory as an analytical framework reveals that patient companions can substantially influence treatment decision-making during medical consultation. This influence is contingent upon the specific role they assume in the discussion, the type of disagreement with the health professional and patient, and the formation of coalitions with these parties., Practice Implications: The contributions by patient companions should be considered in SDM if the companion forms a coalition with the patient. If the companion does not form a coalition, the contributions might have a bearing on SDM as well, but their acceptability and relevance for the treatment decision should be checked by the health professional. In general, it is desirable to explicitly establish the role of patient companions in consultations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

The environment around general-purpose service robots has a dynamic nature. Accordingly, even the robot’s programmer cannot predict all the possible external failures which the robot may confront. This research proposes an online incremental learning method that can be further used to autonomously handle external failures originating from a change in the environment. Existing research typically offers special-purpose solutions. Furthermore, the current incremental online learning algorithms cannot generalize well with just a few observations. In contrast, our method extracts a set of hypotheses, which can then be used for finding the best recovery behavior at each failure state. The proposed argumentation-based online incremental learning approach uses an abstract and bipolar argumentation framework to extract the most relevant hypotheses and model the defeasibility relation between them. This leads to a novel online incremental learning approach that overcomes the addressed problems and can be used in different domains including robotic applications. We have compared our proposed approach with state-of-the-art online incremental learning approaches, an approximation-based reinforcement learning method, and several online contextual bandit algorithms. The experimental results show that our approach learns more quickly with a lower number of observations and also has higher final precision than the other methods. Note to Practitioners—This work proposes an online incremental learning method that learns faster by using a lower number of failure states than other state-of-the-art approaches. The resulting technique also has higher final learning precision than other methods. Argumentation-based online incremental learning generates an explainable set of rules which can be further used for human-robot interaction. Moreover, testing the proposed method using a publicly available dataset suggests wider applicability of the proposed incremental learning method outside the robotics field wherever an online incremental learner is required. The limitation of the proposed method is that it aims for handling discrete feature values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article tackles the question: can the Presumption of Innocence (PoI) be a presumption? Whereas many criminal law theorists rejection such a notion, I draw inspiration from argumentation theorists and philosophers—in particular, Petar Bodlović and Edna Ullmann-Margalit—and argue in favour of it; indeed, argumentation theory often holds the PoI out as a paradigmatic presumption. My argument proceeds in three sections. I first show that criminal law theorists writing on the PoI have understood presumptions as evidentiary devices in the form of a modus ponens. On that understanding, the PoI cannot be a presumption. Attention is then drawn to the field of argumentation theory, which teaches us that there are other types of presumptions that are non-evidentiary, not in the form of a modus ponens, require a tentative commitment to q, and require an agent to proceed (act) as if q ; viz practical presumptions. The PoI can be understood as such. Finally, it is argued that the PoI, insofar as it requires a tentative commitment to q (here, 'the defendant is innocent'), can be thought of as a propositional imagining of q (ie, an agent presuming innocence is to propositionally imagine the defendant's innocence). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of IUG Journal of Humanitarian Research is the property of Islamic University of Gaza 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.)

Wittgenstein did not claim that the ordinary language concept ‘game’ cannot be defined: he claimed that there are multiple definitions that can be adopted for special purposes, but no single definition applicable to all games. I will defend this interpretation of Wittgenstein’s position by showing its compatibility with a pragmatic argumentative view of definitions, and how this view accounts for the diversity of disagreeing game definitions in definitional disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

This work analyses the speech-act of arguing as proposed by Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation (LNMA) with the help of diagrams, examples and basic formalization techniques. The focus is set on one of the most novel issues of LNMA, modal qualification, and the distinction between epistemic and ontological modals. The first conclusion is that employing LNMA in order to analyse and evaluate actual argumentation as it is proposed is too complex to be applied as is. The second conclusion, at a theoretical level, is that the distinction between ontological and epistemic modals is highly problematic in LNMA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the reasoning lines in PM Alexis Tsipras' political discourse in critical moments of SYRIZA's tenure as the ruling party in Greece. Adopting a CDS perspective, we zoom in on the patterns that underlie the (de)legitimization of the crisis-ridden EU in three seminal speeches by PM Tsipras during the Greek/EU financial crisis. To this end, we integrate systemic-functional and cognitive linguistic tools with a view to scrutinizing representational meaning, before turning to employ the notions of endoxon and topos/locus as a means of studying the particular argumentative inferences, triggered by the respective discursive representations. Through this lens, we show how the overall argumentation can be seen as supporting the (de-)legitimation of dominant EU austerity perspectives while transforming SYRIZA into a pro-austerity voice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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”.

Medieval Muslim scholars wrote substantial apologetic and polemical treatises to present and defend the truth of their religion and to invite people of different faiths to Islam. These texts belong to the so-called radd ('refutation') literature. It is still interesting today in so far as many radd authors avoided rhetorical polemics and sought serious rational arguments that provide deep insights in the dogmatic differences and peculiarities of various religions. An outstanding, because strongly argumentational, example is Kitāb al-radd ʿalā al-Naṣārā ('Book of refutation of the Christians') by Ṣāliḥ ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Jaʿfarī (d. 668/1270). This article introduces al-Jaʿfarī's life and work, outlines methodological premises for a critical analysis of radd arguments, gives an overview of al-Jaʿfarī's most important arguments and an example of the analysis of such arguments, and indicates what the examination of these old texts can contribute to today's interreligious discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regelmatig nemen patiënten een begeleider mee naar medische consulten. Het verloop van shared decision making (SDM) in consulten met drie partijen heeft tot nu toe echter weinig aandacht gekregen. In deze studie wordt nagegaan welke invloed de derde partij kan hebben op het beslisproces. Daartoe specificeren we de rollen die deze partij op zich kan nemen en bespreken we, vanuit een pragma-dialectisch perspectief, hoe deze rollen zich vertalen naar rollen binnen een discussie. Tot slot zetten we op basis van voorbeelden uiteen hoe deze rollen tot uiting kunnen komen in het besluitvormingsproces. In een consult met drie partijen blijken vanuit argumentatief oogpunt twaalf complexe discussiesituaties te kunnen ontstaan, afhankelijk van de aard van het geschil, eventuele coalitievorming en de rollen die de partijen op zich nemen. In een aantal discussiesituaties kan de derde partij een actieve rol spelen en zodoende deelnemen aan het besluitvormingsproces. Alle drie partijen kunnen daarnaast anderen bij de discussie betrekken (bijvoorbeeld door hun mening te vragen) of een coalitie suggereren (bijvoorbeeld door in de wij-vorm te spreken). Indien een derde partij een coalitie suggereert, kan dit enerzijds SDM ten goede komen, doordat de begeleider de patiënt in het besluitvormingsproces steunt. Anderzijds kan dit ook het besluitvormingsproces bemoeilijken wanneer de derde partij (bewust of onbewust) ten onrechte namens de patiënt spreekt. Op eenzelfde wijze kan een derde partij meer of minder constructieve bijdragen leveren aan de besluitvorming door standpunten of argumenten te baseren op de eigen (vermeende) expertise. Abstract The third party in shared decision making. The role of extra participants in discussions between health professionals and patients Patients often bring along a companion to medical consultations, which ideally involve shared decision making (SDM). The way in which SDM proceeds in consultations with three parties has, nonetheless, so far received little attention. In this study, we analyse how the presence of a third party can affect the decision making process. To do so, we specify the roles that this party can fulfil, and discuss, using the pragma-dialectical framework, how these roles relate to discussion roles. Lastly, based on a qualitative analysis of a number of examples we illustrate how the roles that a third party could fulfil can be expressed in actual medical decision making. From an argumentative perspective, twelve complex discussion situations could arise from the presence of three parties, depending on the nature of the disagreement, possible coalition building, and the roles that the parties fulfil. In a number of discussion situations, the third party can play an active role and thus take part in the decision making process itself. All three parties could additionally invite others to participate in the discussion (for instance, by asking for their opinion) or suggest that a coalition has been formed (for instance, by using inclusive 'we'). A third party suggesting that a coalition exists can further SDM, as the companion could thereby support the patient in the decision making process. However, this could also hinder the decision making process if the third party (consciously or unconsciously) unjustifiably speaks on behalf of the patient. In a similar vein, a third party could contribute in a more constructive or less constructive manner to the decision making process by basing standpoints or arguments on their own (supposed) expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]