Browsing All posts tagged under »argumentation«

The pragmatic force of making reasons apparent

September 15, 2015

0

Goodwin, Jean & Beth Innocenti (Forthcoming, 2016). The pragmatic force of making reasons apparent. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation. Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences. But over-emphasis on effects distracts from other things that making arguments […]

How to be a better functionalist

September 13, 2015

0

Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2016). How to be a better functionalist. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation. Theorists have found it easy to derive norms for argumentation from asserted functions of argument. The work of Dima Mohammed has taken a big step forward […]

Audiences as normative roles

September 11, 2015

0

Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2016). Audiences as normative roles. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation. Palmieri and Mazzali-Lurati have it right: audiences in argumentative transactions should be defined by the normatively-grounded roles they take. Get this paper.

How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.

September 11, 2015

0

Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Comment exercer une autorité experte? Un scientifique confronté aux Sceptiques. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15. Retrieved from https://aad.revues.org/2035 [How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics. (2015). How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.] Argumetation theorists’ primary loyalty should be […]

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement.

September 11, 2015

0

Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics:  A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat. Can deep disagreement be managed by argument? This case study examines the 2010 exchange between prominent climate scientist/climate […]

Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation

April 20, 2014

0

Goodwin, Jean. (2014).  Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating.  Studies in Logic, Grammar & Rhetoric, 36 (49), 79-98. Far from being of interest only to argumentation theorists, concep- tions of speech acts play an important role in practitioners’ self-reflection on their own activities. […]

Norms of advocacy

October 16, 2013

0

In  Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013, edited by D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2013. This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law […]