Subscribe:
RSS feed
Browsing All posts tagged under »argumentation«
Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates.
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. (Forthcoming, 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. In the public sphere, standpoints often seem to be locked into pro/con constellations. This essay documents the strategies of “pointing out,” narrative and metaphor used in The Hartwell Paper […]
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.
February 19, 2019
0