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

Philosophy Commons

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

Conference

Argumentation

2011

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Fallacy Identification In A Dialectical Approach To Teaching Critical Thinking, Mark Battersby, Sharon Bailin, Jan Albert Van Laar May 2011

Fallacy Identification In A Dialectical Approach To Teaching Critical Thinking, Mark Battersby, Sharon Bailin, Jan Albert Van Laar

OSSA Conference Archive

The dialectical approach to teaching critical thinking is centred on a comparative evaluation of contending arguments, so that generally the strength of an argument for a position can only be assessed in the context of this dialectic. The identification of fallacies, though important, plays only a preliminary role in the evaluation to individual arguments. Our approach to fallacy identification and analysis sees fal-lacies as argument patterns whose persuasive power is disproportionate to their probative value.


‘Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization’ In Public Argumentation And Controversies, Marcelo Dascal, Amnon Knoll, Daniel Cohen May 2011

‘Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization’ In Public Argumentation And Controversies, Marcelo Dascal, Amnon Knoll, Daniel Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

We describe and analyze an important cognitive obstacle in inter- and intra-community ar-gumentation processes, which we propose to call 'Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization' (CSD). This social phenomenon consists in the collective use of shared cognitive patterns based upon dichotomous schemati-zation of knowledge, values, and affection. We discuss the formative role of CSD on a community’s collec-tive cognition, identity, and public discourse, as well as the challenges it raises to reasoned argumentation, and how different approaches to argumentation undertake to face this obstacle to the reasonable debate of issues of public concern.


Evolution, Cognition And Argumentation, Cristian Santibanez Yanez, Michael A. Gilbert May 2011

Evolution, Cognition And Argumentation, Cristian Santibanez Yanez, Michael A. Gilbert

OSSA Conference Archive

Sperber and Mercier (2009, 2010) maintain that argumentation is a meta-representational module. In their evolutionary view of argumentation, the function of this module would be to regulate the flow of information between interlocutors through persuasiveness on the side of the communicator and epistemic vigilance on the side of the audience. The aim of this paper is to discuss this definition of argumen-tation by analyzing what they mean by “communicator’s persuasiveness” and “audience epistemic vigilance”


Conductive Arguments And The ‘Inference To The Best Explanation’, Dean Goorden, Thomas Fischer May 2011

Conductive Arguments And The ‘Inference To The Best Explanation’, Dean Goorden, Thomas Fischer

OSSA Conference Archive

I will demonstrate that conductive arguments are found in the inference to the best explana-tion as it is used in science. Conductive arguments, I argue, operate on two levels: the first is in the con-struction of hypotheses; the second is through the competition of hypotheses. By constructing arguments based on observations of facts, all possible (conceivable) factors are taken into account and a judgment is made based on our weighing of considerations: conductive argumentation.


Reason In The Balance: Teaching Critical Thinking As Dialectical, Sharon Bailin, Mark Battersby, Patrick Clauss May 2011

Reason In The Balance: Teaching Critical Thinking As Dialectical, Sharon Bailin, Mark Battersby, Patrick Clauss

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper we describe the approach to critical thinking pedagogy used in our new text, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking. In this text we concentrate on develop-ing students’ ability to analyze and assess competing arguments in a dialectical context. This approach shifts the emphasis from the more common and traditional approach of evaluating individual arguments and fallacy identification. Our focus is on teaching students to analyze and assess competing arguments sur-rounding an issue with the goal of achieving a reasoned and justifiable judgment (an enterprise we refer to as inquiry).


Whose Toulmin, And Which Logic? A Response To Van Benthem, Yun Xie, Minghui Xiong, Hans V. Hansen May 2011

Whose Toulmin, And Which Logic? A Response To Van Benthem, Yun Xie, Minghui Xiong, Hans V. Hansen

OSSA Conference Archive

In a recent paper, “One Logician’s Perspective on Argumentation”, van Benthem expressed his reservations on Toulmin’s diagnosis and abandonment of formal logic, and argued that Toulmin was wrong for leading the study of argumentation apart from formal approach. In this paper we will try to reveal two se-rious misunderstandings of Toulmin’s ideas in his discussions, and thereby make an apology for Toulmin.


The Formal Failure And Social Success Of Logic, William Brooke, Andrew Aberdein May 2011

The Formal Failure And Social Success Of Logic, William Brooke, Andrew Aberdein

OSSA Conference Archive

Is formal logic a failure? It may be, if we accept the context-independent limits imposed by Russell, Frege, and others. In response to difficulties arising from such limitations I present a Toulmin-esque social recontextualization of formal logic. The results of my project provide a positive view of formal logic as a success while simultaneously reaffirming the social and contextual concerns of argumentation theorists, critical thinking scholars, and rhetoricians.


Fallacies: Do We “Use” Them Or “Commit” Them? Or: Is All Our Life Just A Collection Of Fallacies?, Igor Zagar, Dima Mohammed May 2011

Fallacies: Do We “Use” Them Or “Commit” Them? Or: Is All Our Life Just A Collection Of Fallacies?, Igor Zagar, Dima Mohammed

OSSA Conference Archive

After C. L. Hamblin's groundbreaking work Fallacies (1970), re-interpreting what used to be known as "mistakes in reasoning" or "bad arguments" since Aristotle (On Sophistical Refutations), the study of fallacies started to bloom, coming up with ever new perspectives and conceptualizations of what should count as a mistake in reasoning and argumentation, and why a certain kind of reasoning should at all be considered a mistake (Woods & Walton 1989, van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1992, etc.). This paper will be concerned with two questions. First, an epistemological one: do we (unintentionally) commit fallacies, or do we (intentionally) use them? Secondly, a ...


Argumentation And Emotional Cognition In Advertisements, M Ripley, Maureen P. Gowing May 2011

Argumentation And Emotional Cognition In Advertisements, M Ripley, Maureen P. Gowing

OSSA Conference Archive

From Spinoza to today, it has been noted that human beings respond to what is unusual in our lives. The advertising community knows this and struggles to find ways to be unusual in the face of an estimated 3,500 ads per day. One way is through emotion. This paper examines arguments made in advertisements where emotional cognition is appealed to and how they differ from ads that appeal to rational cognition.