Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 1249

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Commentary On: “Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy Of Appeal To Sex”, Maureen Linker May 2016

Commentary On: “Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy Of Appeal To Sex”, Maureen Linker

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Rania El Nakkouzi: “Legitimizing Past Actions Through Appeals To Moral Values”, Jeff Noonan May 2016

Commentary On Rania El Nakkouzi: “Legitimizing Past Actions Through Appeals To Moral Values”, Jeff Noonan

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Trudy Govier’S “Some Outstanding Questions About Analogies”, Marcello Guarini May 2016

Commentary On Trudy Govier’S “Some Outstanding Questions About Analogies”, Marcello Guarini

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Visser On Computer Support For Pragma-Dialectic Argumentation Analysis, Ami Mamolo May 2016

Commentary On Visser On Computer Support For Pragma-Dialectic Argumentation Analysis, Ami Mamolo

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On "Two-Wise And Three-Wise Similarity, And Non-Deductive Analogical Arguments", Ian Dove May 2016

Commentary On "Two-Wise And Three-Wise Similarity, And Non-Deductive Analogical Arguments", Ian Dove

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On “The Method Of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, And Bias”, Andrei Moldovan May 2016

Commentary On “The Method Of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, And Bias”, Andrei Moldovan

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Yun Xie May 2016

Commentary On Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Yun Xie

OSSA Conference Archive

This is the Commentary on Wagemans' paper "Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments".


Commentary On Emotional Arguments: What Would Neuroscientists And Psychologists Say? By Linda Carozza, Ioana A. Cionea May 2016

Commentary On Emotional Arguments: What Would Neuroscientists And Psychologists Say? By Linda Carozza, Ioana A. Cionea

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On "Mapping Objectivity And Bias In Relation To Argument", Justine M. Kingsbury May 2016

Commentary On "Mapping Objectivity And Bias In Relation To Argument", Justine M. Kingsbury

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On G. Thomas Goodnight’S “Blind Spots, Moral Hazards & Wounded Narratives”, Christopher W. Tindale, Christopher W. Tindale May 2016

Commentary On G. Thomas Goodnight’S “Blind Spots, Moral Hazards & Wounded Narratives”, Christopher W. Tindale, Christopher W. Tindale

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Jean H.M. Wagemans May 2016

Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Jean H.M. Wagemans

OSSA Conference Archive

The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.


Where Is The Reasonable? Objectivity And Bias Of Practical Argument, Marcin Lewinski May 2016

Where Is The Reasonable? Objectivity And Bias Of Practical Argument, Marcin Lewinski

OSSA Conference Archive

The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed.


Commentary To David Hitchcock's "Transsubjectivity", Harald R. Wohlrapp May 2016

Commentary To David Hitchcock's "Transsubjectivity", Harald R. Wohlrapp

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis With Bearing On Key Concepts, Robert H. Ennis Phd May 2016

Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis With Bearing On Key Concepts, Robert H. Ennis Phd

OSSA Conference Archive

This essay presents a three-dimensional analysis of definition (form, stance, and content) with application to making and evaluating definitions; teaching how to define; avoiding equivocation with "argument" and "bias"; and, using the concept-conception distinction, avoiding being deterred by the many definitions of "critical thinking", and seeing the usefulness of objectivity in everyday arguments in spite of existing conflict and confusion about aspects of objectivity.


Commentary On ‘Approaching Logos Among Reason, Rationality And Reasonable’, Ralph Johnson May 2016

Commentary On ‘Approaching Logos Among Reason, Rationality And Reasonable’, Ralph Johnson

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On John R. Welch’S “Conclusions As Hedged Hypotheses”, Frank Zenker May 2016

Commentary On John R. Welch’S “Conclusions As Hedged Hypotheses”, Frank Zenker

OSSA Conference Archive

without abstract


Commentary On Michael Hoppmann’S On The Objectivity Of Norms Of Argumentation, Bart Garssen May 2016

Commentary On Michael Hoppmann’S On The Objectivity Of Norms Of Argumentation, Bart Garssen

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Reply To Commentary On "Ethical Argumentation, Objectivity, And Bias", Derek Allen May 2016

Reply To Commentary On "Ethical Argumentation, Objectivity, And Bias", Derek Allen

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On “The Strategic Formulation Of Abductive Arguments In Everyday Reasoning”, John R. Welch May 2016

Commentary On “The Strategic Formulation Of Abductive Arguments In Everyday Reasoning”, John R. Welch

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Reply To “Macpherson’ Commentary On Santibanez’S “Strategically Wrong: Bias And Argumentation”, Cristian Santibanez Yanez May 2016

Reply To “Macpherson’ Commentary On Santibanez’S “Strategically Wrong: Bias And Argumentation”, Cristian Santibanez Yanez

OSSA Conference Archive

Macpherson highlights that: “Santibanez does not take the further step of saying this explicitly. At the same time, the language used by the author throughout the paper suggests that he may assent to the claim that such lies are morally wrong: For example, even when discussing more benign forms of deception such as deceiving oneself into believing that they are a very good professor or a soccer player’s deceiving their opponents about their intent, there is reference to ‘damage’ and to the ‘victim’ of the deception.


Commentary On Khameiel Al Tamimi's "Evaluating Narrative Arguments", Paula Olmos May 2016

Commentary On Khameiel Al Tamimi's "Evaluating Narrative Arguments", Paula Olmos

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Ami Mamolo On Argumentation And Infinity, Daniel H. Cohen May 2016

Commentary On Ami Mamolo On Argumentation And Infinity, Daniel H. Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

There is more to mathematics than proofs; there are also arguments, which means that mathematicians are human arguers complete with their biases. Among those biases is a preference for beauty, It is a bias insofar as it is a deaprture from objectivity, but it is benign, accounting for the popularity of Cantor's "Paradise" of non-denumerable infinities as a travel destination for mathematicians and the relatively little interest in Robinson's infinitesimals.


Walton’S Argumentation Schemes, Christoph Lumer May 2016

Walton’S Argumentation Schemes, Christoph Lumer

OSSA Conference Archive

The contribution critically discusses Walton's (and Reed’s and Macagno’s) argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.


Commentary On Michael Yong-Set's Ludological Approach To Argumentation, Daniel H. Cohen May 2016

Commentary On Michael Yong-Set's Ludological Approach To Argumentation, Daniel H. Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

Although Michael Yong-Set's proposal to approach argumentation theory from a ludological perspective is not yet sufficiently developed to warrant adopting it, there is enough to warrant exploring it further – which is all the reception it needs at this point.


Commentary On Scott Aikin, “A Modest Defense Of Fallacy Theory”, Harald R. Wohlrapp May 2016

Commentary On Scott Aikin, “A Modest Defense Of Fallacy Theory”, Harald R. Wohlrapp

OSSA Conference Archive

Fallacy theory has not been my particular concern until now – even if I spoke here and there about fallacies; mainly about the two specimens which I consider to be of the highest importance for argumentation theory. I mean “Ad baculum” and “Begging the question”. In fact I was not aware that a defense of fallacy theory was necessary because I had taken the criticisms of late to be mainly relying on a lack of clarity, confusion and exaggeration. Despite this estimation I will begin with stating that I agree with most of Aikin’s well minded proposals and solutions. Nevertheless ...


Explicating And Negotiating Bias In Interdisciplinary Argumentation Using Abductive Tools: Paper, Bethany K. Laursen May 2016

Explicating And Negotiating Bias In Interdisciplinary Argumentation Using Abductive Tools: Paper, Bethany K. Laursen

OSSA Conference Archive

Interdisciplinary inquiry hinges upon abductive arguments that integrate various kinds of information to identify explanations worthy of future study or use. Integrative abduction poses unique challenges, including different kinds of data, too many patterns, too many explanations, mistaken meanings across disciplinary lines, and cognitive, pragmatic, and social biases. Argumentation tools can help explicate and negotiate bias as interdisciplinary investigators sift and winnow candidate patterns and processes in search of the best explanation.


Commentary On “Conspiracy And Bias: Argumentative Features And Persuasiveness Of Conspiracy Theories”, Scott Jacobs May 2016

Commentary On “Conspiracy And Bias: Argumentative Features And Persuasiveness Of Conspiracy Theories”, Scott Jacobs

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Evaluating Narrative Arguments, Khameiel Al Tamimi May 2016

Evaluating Narrative Arguments, Khameiel Al Tamimi

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper addresses the question of how to evaluate narrative arguments. I will be discussing how to evaluate narrative arguments as process as opposed to arguments as product, as with dominant accounts of argument appraisal such as informal logic. The first part of this paper will show that dominant accounts of argument evaluation are not fit for narrative arguments because they focus on the product of argument. The second part of the paper will develop an account of argument evaluation for arguments as process, that is the virtuous audience, which will combine the rhetorical understanding of audience with virtue argumentation


Reply To Commentary On Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Jean H.M. Wagemans May 2016

Reply To Commentary On Constructing A Periodic Table Of Arguments, Jean H.M. Wagemans

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Sheldon Wein's "Biases, Bumps, Nudges, Query Lists, And Zero Tolerance Policies", Derek Allen May 2016

Commentary On Sheldon Wein's "Biases, Bumps, Nudges, Query Lists, And Zero Tolerance Policies", Derek Allen

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.