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

Philosophy Commons

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

Articles 1 - 24 of 24

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Commentary On Reed, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On Reed, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Conflict And Consultation: Strategic Manoeuvring In Response To An Antibiotic Request, Nanon Labrie, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Conflict And Consultation: Strategic Manoeuvring In Response To An Antibiotic Request, Nanon Labrie, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

In recent years, the model of shared decision-making has become increasingly promoted as the preferred standard in doctor-patient communication. As the model considers doctor and patient as coe-qual partners that negotiate their preferred treatment options in order to reach a shared decision, shared de-cision-making notably leaves room for the usage of argumentation in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of argumentative conflict in consultation is the discussion that emerges between doctors and their patients concerning antibiotics as a method of treatment for what is presumed to be a viral infec-tion. In this paper, a case of such argumentative ...


Commentary On Kauffeld, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On Kauffeld, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Commentary On F S Nielsen, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On F S Nielsen, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Commentary On: Ionana Cionea, Dale Hample, And Edward Fink's "Dialogue Types: A Scale Development Study", Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On: Ionana Cionea, Dale Hample, And Edward Fink's "Dialogue Types: A Scale Development Study", Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

N/A


Commentary On Feteris, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On Feteris, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Argumentation Schemes In Dialogue, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Argumentation Schemes In Dialogue, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their critical questions can be characterized as an extension to traditional dialectical systems. The aim is to construct a dialectical system in which (i) the set of locutions is extended to include scheme-based moves (ii) the set of structural rules describes the roles that critical questioning can play; and (iii) the set of commitment rules distinguishes between exceptions and assumptions.


Argumentation Schemes In Argument-As-Process And Argument-As-Product, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Argumentation Schemes In Argument-As-Process And Argument-As-Product, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Applications Of Argumentation Schemes, Chris Reed, Doug Walton Jul 2016

Applications Of Argumentation Schemes, Chris Reed, Doug Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


The Nature And Status Of Critical Questions In Argumentation Schemes, Douglas Walton, David M. Godden Jul 2016

The Nature And Status Of Critical Questions In Argumentation Schemes, Douglas Walton, David M. Godden

Douglas Walton

The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes


Distinctive Features Of Persuasion And Deliberation Dialogues, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Distinctive Features Of Persuasion And Deliberation Dialogues, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

The distinction between action persuasion dialogues and deliberation dialogues is not always obvious at first sight. In this paper, we provide a characterisation of both types of dialogues that draws out the distinctive features of each. It is important to recognise the distinctions since participants in both types of dialogues will have different aims, which in turn affects whether a successful outcome can be reached. Such dialogues are typically conducted by exchanging arguments for and against certain options. The moves of the dialogue are designed to facilitate such exchanges. In particular, we show how the pre- and post-conditions for the ...


Objections, Rebuttals And Refutations, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Objections, Rebuttals And Refutations, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

This paper considers how the terms ‘objection,’ ‘rebuttal,’ ‘attack,’ ‘refutation,’ ‘rebutting defeater’ and ‘undercutting defeater’ (often referred to as rebutters versus undercutters) are used in writings on argumentation and artificial intelligence. The central focus is on the term ‘rebuttal.’ A provisional classification system is proposed that provides a normative structure within which the terms can be clarified, distinguished from each other, and more precisely defined.


Modeling Critical Questions As Additional Premises, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon, Scott F. Aikin Jul 2016

Modeling Critical Questions As Additional Premises, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon, Scott F. Aikin

Douglas Walton

This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard.


How To Formalize Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon Jul 2016

How To Formalize Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon

Douglas Walton

This paper presents a formalization of informal logic using the Carneades Argumentation System, a formal, computational model of argument that consists of a formal model of argument graphs and audiences. Conflicts between pro and con arguments are resolved using proof standards, such as preponderance of the evidence. Carneades also formalizes argumentation schemes. Schemes can be used to check whether a given argument instantiates the types of argument deemed normatively appropriate for the type of dialogue.


Redefining Knowledge In A Way Suitable For Argumentation Theory, Douglas Walton, David M. Godden Jul 2016

Redefining Knowledge In A Way Suitable For Argumentation Theory, Douglas Walton, David M. Godden

Douglas Walton

Knowledge plays an important role in argumentation. Yet, recent work shows that standard conceptions of knowledge in epistemology may not be entirely suitable for argumentation. This paper explores the role of knowledge in argumentation, and proposes a notion of knowledge that promises to be more suitable for argumentation by taking account of: its dynamic nature, the defeasibility of our commitments, and the non-monotonicity of many of the inferences we use in everyday reasoning and argumentation.


Commentary On F S Nielsen, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On F S Nielsen, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Kauffeld, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On Kauffeld, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Feteris, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On Feteris, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Reed, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On Reed, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Commentary On: Ionana Cionea, Dale Hample, And Edward Fink's "Dialogue Types: A Scale Development Study", Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Commentary On: Ionana Cionea, Dale Hample, And Edward Fink's "Dialogue Types: A Scale Development Study", Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

N/A


Argumentation Schemes In Dialogue, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Argumentation Schemes In Dialogue, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their critical questions can be characterized as an extension to traditional dialectical systems. The aim is to construct a dialectical system in which (i) the set of locutions is extended to include scheme-based moves (ii) the set of structural rules describes the roles that critical questioning can play; and (iii) the set of commitment rules distinguishes between exceptions and assumptions.


Argumentation Schemes In Argument-As-Process And Argument-As-Product, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Argumentation Schemes In Argument-As-Process And Argument-As-Product, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.


Conflict And Consultation: Strategic Manoeuvring In Response To An Antibiotic Request, Nanon Labrie, Douglas Walton Jul 2016

Conflict And Consultation: Strategic Manoeuvring In Response To An Antibiotic Request, Nanon Labrie, Douglas Walton

Douglas Walton

In recent years, the model of shared decision-making has become increasingly promoted as the preferred standard in doctor-patient communication. As the model considers doctor and patient as coe-qual partners that negotiate their preferred treatment options in order to reach a shared decision, shared de-cision-making notably leaves room for the usage of argumentation in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of argumentative conflict in consultation is the discussion that emerges between doctors and their patients concerning antibiotics as a method of treatment for what is presumed to be a viral infec-tion. In this paper, a case of such argumentative ...


Applications Of Argumentation Schemes, Chris Reed, Doug Walton Jul 2016

Applications Of Argumentation Schemes, Chris Reed, Doug Walton

Douglas Walton

No abstract provided.