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

Philosophy Commons

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

Conference

Argumentation

2013

Articles 1 - 22 of 22

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista May 2013

Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper, I identify two sets of practical values of argumentation from a standpoint that places a premium on maximal participatory democracy. The first set includes pedagogical values for both teachers and learners. The second set of values are transformative and include: facilitating openness as both tolerance and opportunity; facilitating understanding of one’s own positions, other’s positions, and the conceptual frameworks underlying them; and, finally, fostering motivation by encouraging action.


Dialogue Types: A Scale Development Study, Ioana A. Cionea, Dale Hample, Edward L. Fink May 2013

Dialogue Types: A Scale Development Study, Ioana A. Cionea, Dale Hample, Edward L. Fink

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper presents the results of a quantitative study in which self-report scales were developed to measure four of the six dialogue types proposed by Walton (1998): persuasion, negotiation, information-seeking, and eristic dialogues. The paper details the research design, presents the measurement instruments developed, and describes the analyses conducted to assess the dimensionality and reliability of the proposed scales.


Identifying Argumentative Acts Within The Classroom Amongst Engineering Students, Juan Fernando Barros-Martinez May 2013

Identifying Argumentative Acts Within The Classroom Amongst Engineering Students, Juan Fernando Barros-Martinez

OSSA Conference Archive

Students’ arguments surrounding a scientific topic are analyzed. This analysis comes from research developed in the classroom where dialogic interaction was promoted. The purpose of this study has not only been to identify argumentative elements used by students during the sessions but principally to the process of discussion. Three different ways have been proposed for this analysis: speech acts, acts of argumentative process and acts of learning process, with the intention of establishing relationships between them.


Virtuous Argumentation And The Challenges Of Hype, Adam Auch May 2013

Virtuous Argumentation And The Challenges Of Hype, Adam Auch

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper, I consider the virtue of proportionality in relation to reasoning in what I call ‘hype contexts’ (contexts in which otherwise perfectly temperate claims take on an outsized or inappropriate importance, simply due to their ubiquity). I conclude that a virtuous arguer is one that neither accepts nor rejects a claim based on its ubiquity alone, but who evaluates its importance with reference to the social context in which it is made.


The Practice Of Arguing And The Arguments: Examples From Mathematics, Begoῆa Carrascal May 2013

The Practice Of Arguing And The Arguments: Examples From Mathematics, Begoῆa Carrascal

OSSA Conference Archive

In argumentation studies, almost all theoretical proposals are applied, in general, to the analysis and evaluation of written argumentative texts. I will consider mathematics to illustrate some differences between argumentative practice and the products of it, to emphasize the need to address the different types of argumentative discourse and argumentative situation. Argumentative practice should be encouraged when teaching technical subjects to convey a better understanding and to improve thought and creativity.


Confucian Philosophical Argumentation Skills, Minghui Xiong May 2013

Confucian Philosophical Argumentation Skills, Minghui Xiong

OSSA Conference Archive

Becker argued Confucianism lacked of argumentation, dialogue and debate. However, Becker is wrong. First, the purpose of philosophical argumentation is to justify an arguer’s philosophical standpoints. Second, both Confucius’ Analects and Mencius’ Mencius were written in forms of dialogues. Third, the content of each book is the recorded utterance and the purpose of dialogue is to persuade its audience. Finally, after Confucius, Confucians’ works have either argued for those unjustified standpoints or re-argued about some justified viewpoints in the Analects.


Conveying Argumentation Through Multimodal Discourse, Yang Ying May 2013

Conveying Argumentation Through Multimodal Discourse, Yang Ying

OSSA Conference Archive

In order to point out that arguments could be conveyed through multimodal discourse, the paper takes three different TV news items with the same topic as corpus to make analysis on the principles of relevance and cohesion, as well as the accountability of the rhetor/protagonist, and tries to find out how different modes in the same discourse function and interact with each other to convey specific arguments.


Polylogical Fallacies: Are There Any?, Marcin Lewiński May 2013

Polylogical Fallacies: Are There Any?, Marcin Lewiński

OSSA Conference Archive

Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.


Argumentation, Decision And Rationality, Fabio Paglieri May 2013

Argumentation, Decision And Rationality, Fabio Paglieri

OSSA Conference Archive

From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some promising results, this approach remains underdeveloped in argumentation theories, mostly because it is assumed to be merely descriptive. This assumption is mistaken: considering arguments as the product of decisions brings into play various normative models of rational choice. The challenge is rather to reconcile strategic rationality with other normative constraints relevant for argumentation, such as inferential validity and dialectical appropriateness.


Khôra, Invention, Deconstruction And The Space Of Complete Surprise, Michael C. Souders May 2013

Khôra, Invention, Deconstruction And The Space Of Complete Surprise, Michael C. Souders

OSSA Conference Archive

Borrowing from Plato, argumentation tends to imagine that invention is at home in the khôra—the space of the ideas—because it is the space for discovering and sorting argument options. In contrast, this paper suggests we re-conceive the idea of inventio as emerging possibility. Inventio is not only the process of sorting the set of possible arguments but is the possibility of the new idea itself; the idiomatic, the absolute surprise.


What Argumentation (Theory) Can Do For Philosophy In The 21st Century, Henrique Jales Ribeiro May 2013

What Argumentation (Theory) Can Do For Philosophy In The 21st Century, Henrique Jales Ribeiro

OSSA Conference Archive

The author holds that the old theory according to which philosophy is the matrix of argumentation studies must be entirely reviewed currently. He argues that argumentation theory, as an interdisciplinary domain, may start playing, in new terms, the role which ― in the Cartesian tree ― was that of philosophy as the trunk of the different branches of human knowledge, as long as a set of requirements, which he lists, were met.


Exploring The Virtues (And Vices) Of Zero Tolerance Arguments, Sheldon Wein May 2013

Exploring The Virtues (And Vices) Of Zero Tolerance Arguments, Sheldon Wein

OSSA Conference Archive

The zero tolerance fallacy occurs when someone advocates or adopts a zero tolerance policy towards some activity or behaviour without seeing if there is evidence to support the view that such a policy is the best or most cost-effective way of preventing or reducing the unwanted behaviour. This paper explores the idea that, instead of thinking about what the zero tolerance fallacy is (or what zero tolerance fallacies are), argumentation theorists should try to characterize what features good arguments for zero tolerance policies must have.


The Language And Diagramming Of Rejection And Objection, Cathal Woods May 2013

The Language And Diagramming Of Rejection And Objection, Cathal Woods

OSSA Conference Archive

Understanding the language of rejections and objections is an important part of the analysis and practice of argument. In order to strengthen this understanding, we might turn to diagramming, as it has been shown to have the virtue of improving critical thinking skills. This paper discusses what reliable meaning can be taken from words and phrases related to rejections and objections, and then how to diagram them.


Compromise As Deep Virtue: Evolution And Some Limits Of Argumentation, Philip Rose May 2013

Compromise As Deep Virtue: Evolution And Some Limits Of Argumentation, Philip Rose

OSSA Conference Archive

If argument forms evolve then the possible existence of localized argument forms may create an interpretive impasse between locally distinct argument communities. Appeal to evolutionarily ‘deep’ argument forms may help, but might be strained in cases where emergent argument forms are not reducible to their base conditions. Overcoming such limits presupposes the virtue of compromise, suggesting that compromise may stand as ‘deep virtue’ within argumentative forms of life.


Emerging Truth And The Defeat Of Scientific Racism, Mark Weinstein May 2013

Emerging Truth And The Defeat Of Scientific Racism, Mark Weinstein

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper looks at the attack on scientific racism in the 20th century by a group of social and biological scientists. I will utilize the apparatus of my model of emerging truth to show how even in complex socially conditioned argumentation the ultimate virtue is seeking the truth through increasingly powerful logical connections and deeply embedded warrants.


Virtue Reversed: Principal Argumentative Vices In Political Debate, Christian Kock May 2013

Virtue Reversed: Principal Argumentative Vices In Political Debate, Christian Kock

OSSA Conference Archive

Contributing to an understanding of the true virtues of argumentation, this paper sketches and exemplifies a theoretically reasoned but simple typology of argumentative vices or ‘malpractices’ that are rampant in political debate in modern democracies. The typology reflects, in negative, a set of argumentative norms, thus making a bid for something that civic instruction might profitably teach students at all levels about deliberative democracy.


Integrating Natural Language Processing And Pragmatic Argumentation Theories For Argumentation Support, Mark Aaknus, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder May 2013

Integrating Natural Language Processing And Pragmatic Argumentation Theories For Argumentation Support, Mark Aaknus, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder

OSSA Conference Archive

Natural language processing (NLP) research and design that aims to model and detect opposition in text for the purpose of opinion classification, sentiment analysis, and meeting tracking, generally excludes the interactional, pragmatic aspects of online text. We propose that a promising direction for NLP is to incorporate the insights of pragmatic, dialectical theories of argumentation to more fully exploit the potential of NLP to offer sound, robust systems for various kinds of argumentation support.


Does Happiness Increase The Objectivity Of Arguers?, Moira Howes May 2013

Does Happiness Increase The Objectivity Of Arguers?, Moira Howes

OSSA Conference Archive

At first glance, happiness and objectivity seem to have little in common. I claim, however, that subjective and eudaimonic happiness promotes arguer objectivity. To support my claim, I focus on connections between happiness, social intelligence, and intellectual virtue. After addressing objections concerning unhappy objective and happy unobjective arguers, I conclude that communities should value happiness in argumentative contexts and use happiness as an indicator of their capacity for objective argumentation.


The Virtue Of Restraint: Rebalancing Power In Arguments, Moira Kloster May 2013

The Virtue Of Restraint: Rebalancing Power In Arguments, Moira Kloster

OSSA Conference Archive

Is argument a game everyone should be able to play? If it is, current argument practices do not yet level the playing field enough for a fair game. We may build in subtle imbalances that work against people who cannot easily adapt to the most common patterns of argumentative interaction. We need better ways to build trust, to create safety, and adapt goals in order to bring everyone into the game.


The Incompleteness Problem For A Virtue-Based Theory Of Argumentation, Brian Macpherson May 2013

The Incompleteness Problem For A Virtue-Based Theory Of Argumentation, Brian Macpherson

OSSA Conference Archive

The incompleteness problem for virtue ethics is inherited by a virtue-based theory of argumentation as developed by Daniel Cohen (2007). A complete normative theory of argumentation should be able to provide reasons for why argumentative virtues such as open-mindedness are worthwhile, along with being able to resolve conflicts of such virtues. Adumbrating virtue-based argumentation theory with a pragmatic utilitarian approach constitutes a more complete theory that can account for why argumentative virtues are worthwhile.


Virtue, In Context, Daniel H. Cohen May 2013

Virtue, In Context, Daniel H. Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

Virtue argumentation theory provides the best framework for accommodating the notion of an argument that is “fully satisfying” in a robust and integrated sense. The process of explicating the notion of fully satisfying arguments requires expanding the concept of arguers to include all of an argument’s participants, including judges, juries, and interested spectators. And that, in turn, requires expanding the concept of an argument itself to include its entire context.


Norms Of Advocacy, Jean Goodwin May 2013

Norms Of Advocacy, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law and public relations show that advocates are not just out to persuade. Instead, they undertake obligations to make the best case for their positions while also maintaining the integrity of the communication systems within which they operate. While not offering full justifications, advocates nevertheless help auditors by making conspicuous the outer bounds of the arguable.