Subscribe:
RSS feed
Browsing All posts tagged under »argumentation«
Institutions for argument: Cultivating the formation of collective intent
Argumentation, while it seldom resolves issues, does create conditions under which collective intentions can more securely be ascribed.
What if arguing is central?
July 13, 2012
What Smith taught, what Smith said he was teaching, and what my students want to learn: they all line up.
The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument
July 13, 2012
Papers by Asen and Rehg get us halfway to an understanding of the activity of arguing in the public sphere.
What does arguing look like?
July 13, 2012
At first glance, arguing does look angry and futile. But on second view, it's more complicated.
Designing premises
July 13, 2012
But how do people who disagree--often deeply--manage to locate the shared premises they need in order to have an argument?
Students’ perspectives on debate exercises in content area classes
July 13, 2012
A report on students' attitudes towards debates used primarily to promote learning of a subject.
Manifestly adequate premises
July 13, 2012
What practical means do arguers who have little motivation to cooperate with each other nevertheless manage to force each other to make some propositions the unchallenged starting points or premises of arguments?
Designing issues
July 13, 2012
"Issue" is a central regulatory concept within argumentative practice; the issues are what we argue about. In this paper, I develop a theory of issues, and in particular, the practical means arguers have for forcing others to attend to their issues.
We should be studying the norms of debate
July 13, 2012
Argumentation theorists and scholars in the forensic debate community should start talking again--about the norms of debate.
One question, two answers
July 13, 2012
I lay out the basics of "design theory"--a/k/a the normative pragmatics of arguing, particularly in contrast to other approaches.
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 
July 13, 2012
0