Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories are introduced.
{"title":"The epistemological orientation of Ottoman argumentation theory and its relation to kalām","authors":"Serkan Ince","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22021.inc","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22021.inc","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by\u0000 Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām\u0000 (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each\u0000 other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories\u0000 are introduced.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"35 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138997659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Controversial “gain-of-function” research (GoFR) aims to improve understanding of human health by studying behavior of genetically altered viruses in laboratory experiments. GoFR proponents tout its potential to support public health disease surveillance, drug development and vaccine innovation, while skeptics warn that unplanned laboratory release of genetically altered pathogens could harm millions in pandemics caused by science. Public interest in GoFR grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, as theories circulated that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of GoFR conducted at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. Analysis of a 2015 public debate on GoFR research, reconstructed according to pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, sheds light on the increasingly salient scientific controversy and contributes to the growing literature on argumentation and health.
{"title":"Covid-19 and public debate over gain-of-function research on\u0000 potentially pandemic pathogens","authors":"Gordon R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00020.mit","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00020.mit","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Controversial “gain-of-function” research (GoFR) aims to improve\u0000 understanding of human health by studying behavior of genetically altered\u0000 viruses in laboratory experiments. GoFR proponents tout its potential to support\u0000 public health disease surveillance, drug development and vaccine innovation,\u0000 while skeptics warn that unplanned laboratory release of genetically altered\u0000 pathogens could harm millions in pandemics caused by science. Public interest in\u0000 GoFR grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, as theories circulated that SARS-CoV-2\u0000 was the result of GoFR conducted at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.\u0000 Analysis of a 2015 public debate on GoFR research, reconstructed according to\u0000 pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, sheds light on the increasingly salient\u0000 scientific controversy and contributes to the growing literature on\u0000 argumentation and health.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"2 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139000637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.
{"title":"Tweeting fallacies","authors":"José Ángel Gascón","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22023.gas","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22023.gas","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"5 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138996412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Serafis (2023): Authoritarianism on the front page: Multimodal discourse and argumentation in times of multiple crises in Greece","authors":"A. Tseronis","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00021.tse","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00021.tse","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"18 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139000023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Wu (2023): Responding to questions at press conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons","authors":"Menno H. Reijven","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00022.rei","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00022.rei","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"109 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138999588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study examines the relations between oral and written argumentation in two contexts: written assignments and structured interviews among Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish students in Israeli higher education. The segregated education system for Haredi students focuses on dyadic oral discussions about religious texts. When Haredi men start their way in academia, they move from an oral to a written culture. To understand this complex process, I compared forty argumentative essays and structured interviews of Ultra-Orthodox students. I identified which argumentative patterns recurred or differed across the two contexts. The comparison elicited complex findings: whereas dialectic patterns of weighing supporting and opposing arguments and counterarguments were prominent in both contexts, sweeping generalizations and firm arguments were found mainly in the essays. The similarity of the argumentative patterns in writing and in the interviews may be explained by the stability of argument schemata across different contexts. The findings expand on previous theoretical and empirical findings and demonstrate how the dialectic process of examining different perspectives leads to complex positions. Finally, I present educational implications for teaching argumentation, such as careful activity design and choosing discussion topics that elicit weighing and sophisticated arguments.
{"title":"Comparison of oral and written argumentation by Ultra-OrthodoxJewish students","authors":"Ehud Tsemach","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22013.tse","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examines the relations between oral and written argumentation in two contexts: written assignments and structured interviews among Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish students in Israeli higher education. The segregated education system for Haredi students focuses on dyadic oral discussions about religious texts. When Haredi men start their way in academia, they move from an oral to a written culture. To understand this complex process, I compared forty argumentative essays and structured interviews of Ultra-Orthodox students. I identified which argumentative patterns recurred or differed across the two contexts. The comparison elicited complex findings: whereas dialectic patterns of weighing supporting and opposing arguments and counterarguments were prominent in both contexts, sweeping generalizations and firm arguments were found mainly in the essays. The similarity of the argumentative patterns in writing and in the interviews may be explained by the stability of argument schemata across different contexts. The findings expand on previous theoretical and empirical findings and demonstrate how the dialectic process of examining different perspectives leads to complex positions. Finally, I present educational implications for teaching argumentation, such as careful activity design and choosing discussion topics that elicit weighing and sophisticated arguments.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity. This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory ( van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ; Feteris, 2005 ; van Eemeren, 2007 ; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009 ) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor ( Lakoff & Turner, 1989 ; Sopory & Dillard, 2002 ; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers ( Vande Kopple, 1985 ; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003 ) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.
{"title":"A repugnant possibility","authors":"Diana Giner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22004.gin","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22004.gin","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity. This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory ( van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ; Feteris, 2005 ; van Eemeren, 2007 ; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009 ) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor ( Lakoff & Turner, 1989 ; Sopory & Dillard, 2002 ; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers ( Vande Kopple, 1985 ; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003 ) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The institute of legality for traders, including business contracts, business correspondence, and legal proceedings concerning economic cases, appeared in Mesopotamia first since the early dynastic period (ca. 2900–2350 B.C.). This institute became well organized for the period of the third dynasty of Ur (from the 22nd to the 21st century B.C.). This tradition was continued in the Babylonian as well as other Mesopotamian dynasties. As a consequence, Akkadian speaking traders preferred logical tools in their business correspondences, too. Therefore, the business contracts and business correspondence satisfied the main argumentative stages of legal proceedings. In late antiquity since the 2nd century A.D. Greek, Bactrian, and Sogdian were one of the most important languages for traders of Silk Road with very high standards of argumentation as main tools of dispute resolutions taken from the Babylonians. In this paper, I analyze some general features of these standards.
{"title":"Argumentation tradition of traders in late antiquity","authors":"Andrew Schumann","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22003.sch","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22003.sch","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The institute of legality for traders, including business contracts, business correspondence, and legal proceedings concerning economic cases, appeared in Mesopotamia first since the early dynastic period (ca. 2900–2350 B.C.). This institute became well organized for the period of the third dynasty of Ur (from the 22nd to the 21st century B.C.). This tradition was continued in the Babylonian as well as other Mesopotamian dynasties. As a consequence, Akkadian speaking traders preferred logical tools in their business correspondences, too. Therefore, the business contracts and business correspondence satisfied the main argumentative stages of legal proceedings. In late antiquity since the 2nd century A.D. Greek, Bactrian, and Sogdian were one of the most important languages for traders of Silk Road with very high standards of argumentation as main tools of dispute resolutions taken from the Babylonians. In this paper, I analyze some general features of these standards.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of van Eemeren, Garssen, Greco, van Haaften, Labrie, Leal & Wu (2022): Argumentative Style","authors":"Manfred Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22025.kie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22025.kie","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article reviews How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate
本文回顾了哲学家是如何争论的:罗素-考普斯顿辩论的对抗性合作
{"title":"Review of Leal & Marraud (2022): How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate","authors":"José Ángel Gascón","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22014.gas","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22014.gas","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reviews How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：