Subscribe:
RSS feed
Browsing All posts tagged under »argumentation«
Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level
August 1, 2020
Goodwin, Jean. (2020). Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level. Informal Logic, 40(2), 157-203.
Norms of advocacy
June 1, 2020
Goodwin, Jean. (2020). Norms of advocacy. In J.A. Blair & C. Tindale (Eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen (pp. 111-142). Windsor, ONT: WIndsor Studies in Argumentation.
Radically reframing the climate debate: The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper
November 1, 2019
Goodwin, Jean. (2019). Radically reframing the climate debate: The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, Argumentation in actual practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context (pp. 157-72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
The pragmatic force of making an argument
October 1, 2019
Goodwin, Jean, & Innocenti, Beth (2019). The pragmatic force of making an argument. Topoi 4, 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8
Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates.
February 19, 2019
Goodwin, Jean. (2019). Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1, 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo A case study of a short televised debate between a climate scientist and an advocate for climate skepticism provides the basis for developing a contemporary conception of sophistry. The sophist has a high degree of argumentative content […]
Re-framing climate controversy: The strategies of The Hartwell Paper
October 8, 2018
Goodwin, Jean. (2019) Re-framing climate controversy: The strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation.
The pragmatic force of making reasons apparent
September 15, 2015
Goodwin Pragmatic ForceGoodwin, J., & Innocenti, B. (2016). The Pragmatic Force of Making Reasons Apparent. InD. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action (Vol. 2, pp. 449–462). College Publications. Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences. But over-emphasis on effects distracts from other things that making arguments accomplishes and thus […]
How to be a better functionalist
September 13, 2015
Goodwin, J. (2016). How to Be a Better Functionalist. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action (Vol. 1, pp. 515–519). College Publications. 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 in making function theories […]
Audiences as normative roles
September 11, 2015
Goodwin, J. (2016). Audiences as Normative Roles. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action (Vol. 1, pp. 589–592). London: College Publications. Palmieri and Mazzali-Lurati have it right: audiences in argumentative transactions should be defined by the normatively-grounded roles they take. Get this paper.
On the blog
- But you haven’t told me how to persuade!
- Should climate scientists fly? 2. Argumentative bad faith
- Should climate scientists fly? 1. The skeptics’ hypocrisy argument
- Should climate scientists fly? An analysis of the arguments
- Stop looking for specks of climate skepticism
- Should the existence of an “anti-vax” movement change what scientists can say in publications?
- Morano v. Bauman
- Why do people (scientists) think there is a “war on science”?–Bibliography
- Post & Ramirez (2018): Scientists’ (mis)perceptions of press bias induce advocacy in response
- Responsibility for polar bear arguments
Jean Goodwin 
June 14, 2021
0