Subscribe:
RSS feed
Browsing All posts tagged under »critiques«
Good argumentation without resolution
A case study of the debate over US entry into the first Gulf War shows that there can be good argumentation that does not aim at resolution.
Pereman, adhering and conviction
July 13, 2012
Cite: Goodwin, Jean. “Perelman, Adhering and Convictions.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 28 (1995): 215-33. Abstract: Perelman’s theory of argumentation is based on a one-dimensional psychology of adherence: people stick to propositions, with various degrees of strength. This is inadequate to account for the rhetorical force of the convictions people commit themselves to–which become an aspect of their […]
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