Subscribe:
RSS feed
Browsing All posts tagged under »critiques«
The pragmatic force of making reasons apparent
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 […]
Theoretical pieties, Johnstone’s impiety, and ordinary views of argumentation
July 14, 2012
We teachers of argument have nothing to apologize for.
Argument has no function
July 14, 2012
Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice.
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.
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.
The noncooperative pragmatics of arguing
July 13, 2012
As seen in the OJ Simpson criminal trial, arguing can be both noncooperative and normatively good.
Johnstone’s still-unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory
July 13, 2012
Given the pragmatic turn recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product.
Comments on Scott Jacobs’ ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics’
July 13, 2012
I lay out the basic working principles of a normative pragmatic approach to argumentation.
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 
September 15, 2015
0