Titlebook: Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory; Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen Book 2015 Springer International Publishing S

ineptitude

一起平行

Identifying the Warrant of an Argumentroblematic. We then extend his procedure by indicating how symbolization in a formal language addresses the problems. We indicate the richness required of such a language and then present an expanded procedure for identifying the warrant of an argument.

Archipelago

Prosaic

Ubiquity, Ambiguity, and Metarationality: Searching for the Fallacy of Compositioncolleges. The idea was to enable everyone to attend for two years free of tuition charges, subject only to some requirements about good grades and progress toward graduation. The proposal was applauded by some, but criticized by others.

essential-fats

審問

Arguments by Analogy (and What We Can Learn about Them from Aristotle)stion how such arguments can be ‘deductive’, yet nonetheless defeasible. It claims that ‘deductive’ and ‘inductive’ are structural, not normative categories, and should not be used to designate argument validity. Based on Aristotle’s analysis of enthymemes, examples, and metaphors, it argues that ar

MENT

Autobiography

Receive

Conductive Argumentation, Degrees of Confidence, and the Communication of Uncertaintyan epistemic responsibility to do so. As an illustration, we discuss the case of the Italian scientists tried for failing to convey to the public appropriate warnings of the risks of the earthquake in L’Aquila.

Ventricle

A Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemese schemes are grouped according to an end-means principle, which is strictly bound to the ontological structure of the conclusion and the premises. On this view, a scheme can be selected according to the intended or reconstructed purpose of an argument and the possible strategies that can be used to achieve it.