Browsing All posts tagged under »normative pragmatic approach«

Norms of advocacy

June 1, 2020

0

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.

The pragmatic force of making an argument

October 1, 2019

0

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

Audiences as normative roles

September 11, 2015

0

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.

Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation

April 20, 2014

0

Goodwin, Jean. (2014).  Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating.  Studies in Logic, Grammar & Rhetoric, 36 (49), 79-98. Far from being of interest only to argumentation theorists, concep- tions of speech acts play an important role in practitioners’ self-reflection on their own activities. […]

Norms of advocacy

October 16, 2013

0

In  Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013, edited by D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2013. This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law […]

L’autorità di Wikipedia/The Authority of Wikipedia

July 4, 2013

1

Sistemi Intelligenti 25 (2013) 9-38; very kindly translated by Fabio Paglieri from the original. Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I propose instead that […]

What is ‘responsible advocacy’ in science? Good advice.

July 14, 2012

0

"Responsible" advocacy is still advocacy. To be good, it should be zealous. But zeal undermines scientific authority. So advising, not advocating, should be the speech act of choice.

Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts

July 14, 2012

0

Experts have methods for earning the trust of lay audiences--but using their authority is costly. I explain how.

Institutions for argument: Cultivating the formation of collective intent

July 13, 2012

0

Argumentation, while it seldom resolves issues, does create conditions under which collective intentions can more securely be ascribed.

Designing premises

July 13, 2012

0

But how do people who disagree--often deeply--manage to locate the shared premises they need in order to have an argument?

Blog at WordPress.com.