{"title":"Review of van Eemeren, Garssen & Labrie (2021): Argumentation between doctors and patients: Understanding critical argumentative discourse","authors":"S. Rubinelli","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21017.rub","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21017.rub","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43113275","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}
Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.
{"title":"Be reasonable!","authors":"E. Krabbe, Jan Albert Van Laar","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.19021.KRA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.19021.KRA","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"197 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79852708","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}
This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political, environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand, topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in the national energy production.
{"title":"Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues","authors":"Dorottya Egres","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.20003.EGR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.20003.EGR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that\u0000 links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political,\u0000 environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand,\u0000 topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a\u0000 spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed\u0000 a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in\u0000 the national energy production.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43325223","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 (2018): Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective","authors":"M. Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.00013.KIE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.00013.KIE","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48110778","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}
One of the most intractable, but significant problems in the theory of legal evidence concerns circumstantial evidence. The diversity and complexity of criminal cases cause some bottlenecks and difficulties in developing reasonable methods to prove the criminal issue by means of circumstantial evidence. The main purpose of this paper is to present more effective methods of fact-finding just by means of a system of circumstantial evidence (SCE). On the basis of analysis of the nature of circumstantial evidence, we find it necessary for the prosecution to construct a SCE in order to make a judge or jury accept the prosecution’s conclusion as the best explanation. We also present a reasonable logical structure of such a system and address some legal and logical problems in introducing it.
{"title":"A system of circumstantial evidence for fact-finding in criminal trial","authors":"Yong-Sok Ri, Yong-Min Kwon, Wi-Song Pang","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.20009.RI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.20009.RI","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 One of the most intractable, but significant problems in the theory of legal evidence concerns circumstantial\u0000 evidence. The diversity and complexity of criminal cases cause some bottlenecks and difficulties in developing reasonable methods\u0000 to prove the criminal issue by means of circumstantial evidence. The main purpose of this paper is to present more effective\u0000 methods of fact-finding just by means of a system of circumstantial evidence (SCE). On the basis of analysis of the nature of\u0000 circumstantial evidence, we find it necessary for the prosecution to construct a SCE in order to make a judge or jury accept the\u0000 prosecution’s conclusion as the best explanation. We also present a reasonable logical structure of such a system and address some\u0000 legal and logical problems in introducing it.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48120881","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 Omar (2019): Strategic Maneuvering for Political Change. A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Egyptian Anti-Regime Columns","authors":"C. Degano","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.19008.DEG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.19008.DEG","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45782604","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":"Call for papers 10th ISSA conference on argumentation in 2022","authors":"","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00014.cfp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00014.cfp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43886770","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}
Cristián Santibáñez, Dale Hample, Jessica M. Hample
This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors (N = 243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors’ responses to survey items indexing argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N = 80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments, a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.
{"title":"How do Chilean seniors think about arguing?","authors":"Cristián Santibáñez, Dale Hample, Jessica M. Hample","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.20002.SAN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.20002.SAN","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors\u0000 (N = 243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing\u0000 literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors’ responses to survey items indexing\u0000 argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work\u0000 involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N = 80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the\u0000 seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less\u0000 cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for\u0000 Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is\u0000 considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments,\u0000 a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46122183","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 central metaphor in cognitive science is the computer metaphor of the brain. In previous work, we reconstructed the metaphor in a novel way, guided by the assumption that it functions as an explanatory hypothesis. We developed an argumentative pattern for justifying scientific explanations in which this metaphor functions as a standpoint supported by argumentation containing abduction and analogy. In this paper, we use the argumentative pattern as a heuristic to reconstruct recent scientific criticisms against the computer metaphor. The pattern generates expectations about the nature of these criticisms, and we show those expectations to be met in most respects. We then discuss the extent to which our findings render the reconstruction offered by the argumentative pattern feasible. A central question emerging from our analysis is whether the computer metaphor can be adequately characterized as an explanatory hypothesis based on abduction. We suggest some possibilities for future lines of inquiry in this respect.
{"title":"How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?","authors":"Andreas Bilstrup Finsen, G. Steen, J. Wagemans","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.19018.BIL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.19018.BIL","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The central metaphor in cognitive science is the computer metaphor of the brain. In previous work, we\u0000 reconstructed the metaphor in a novel way, guided by the assumption that it functions as an explanatory hypothesis. We developed\u0000 an argumentative pattern for justifying scientific explanations in which this metaphor functions as a standpoint supported by\u0000 argumentation containing abduction and analogy. In this paper, we use the argumentative pattern as a heuristic to reconstruct\u0000 recent scientific criticisms against the computer metaphor. The pattern generates expectations about the nature of these\u0000 criticisms, and we show those expectations to be met in most respects. We then discuss the extent to which our findings render the\u0000 reconstruction offered by the argumentative pattern feasible. A central question emerging from our analysis is whether the\u0000 computer metaphor can be adequately characterized as an explanatory hypothesis based on abduction. We suggest some possibilities\u0000 for future lines of inquiry in this respect.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46284290","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}
In this theoretical expose, it is argued that the notion of argumentative style is more encompassing and at the same time more specific than the more familiar notion of linguistic style. According to van Eemeren, argumentative styles always have three dimensions: the selection of standpoints, starting-points, arguments or other argumentative moves (topical choice dimension), the adjustment of argumentative moves to the frame of reference and preferences of the listeners or readers (audience demand dimension), and the choice of verbal or non-verbal means for advancing argumentative moves (presentational dimension). In argumentative discourse, the three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves in the argumentative moves made in trying to resolve a difference of opinion (analytic overview), the dialectical routes chosen in making these argumentative moves (argumentative pattern) and the strategic considerations brought to bear in this endeavour (strategic design). Van Eemeren explains what this means in practice by discussing the distinctive features of the three dimensions of two general categories of argumentative styles that can be regularly encountered, in one variant or other, in argumentative discourse: detached argumentative styles and engaged argumentative styles.
{"title":"Examining argumentative style","authors":"F. H. Eemeren","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20022.eem","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20022.eem","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this theoretical expose, it is argued that the notion of argumentative style is more encompassing and at the same time\u0000 more specific than the more familiar notion of linguistic style. According to van Eemeren, argumentative styles always have three\u0000 dimensions: the selection of standpoints, starting-points, arguments or other argumentative moves (topical choice dimension), the adjustment\u0000 of argumentative moves to the frame of reference and preferences of the listeners or readers (audience demand dimension), and the choice of\u0000 verbal or non-verbal means for advancing argumentative moves (presentational dimension). In argumentative discourse, the three dimensions of\u0000 argumentative style manifest themselves in the argumentative moves made in trying to resolve a difference of opinion (analytic overview),\u0000 the dialectical routes chosen in making these argumentative moves (argumentative pattern) and the strategic considerations brought to bear\u0000 in this endeavour (strategic design). Van Eemeren explains what this means in practice by discussing the distinctive features of the three\u0000 dimensions of two general categories of argumentative styles that can be regularly encountered, in one variant or other, in argumentative\u0000 discourse: detached argumentative styles and engaged argumentative styles.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42553348","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：