Anyone Who Has a View

This volume of the Argumentation Library contains a collection of twenty-six theor etical contributions to the study of argumentation. Together they provide an over view of recent developments in the theory of argumentation which does justice to the theoretical variety in the field. InAnyone Who Has a View, the subject of argu mentation is approached from different angles. Both the formal and informal logical approaches and the rhetorical and communicative approaches arc represented in various ways. We arc convinced that the collection of essays as a whole will be of interest not only to those engaged directly in the study of argumentation, but also to scholars from a variety of disciplines who arc interested in the recent developments in this field. The book opens with an essay by the informal logician Robert C. Pinto. For all the differences between them, James B. Freeman, Harvey Siegel, Ralph H. Johnson, Hans V. Hansen, and J. Anthony Blair are also prominent members of that move ment. Some informal logicians either eschew or simply do not use formal methods in their approach to argumentation, while others, such as David Hitchcock, use both formal and informal methods. Erik C.W. Krabbe is a logician who proudly defends a formal dialectical approach to argumentation. Daniel H. Cohen, Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Fred J. Kauffeld, C. Scott Jacobs, Christian Kock, Christian Plantin, Sorin Stati, Chris Reed, Douglas N.

Auteur
J. A. Blair is a prominent international figure in argumentation studies. He is among the originators of informal logic, an author of textbooks on the informal logic approach to argument analysis and evaluation and on critical thinking, and a founder and editor of the journal Informal Logic. Blair is widely recognized among the leaders in the field for contributing formative ideas to the argumentation literature of the last few decades. This selection of key works provides insights into the history of the field of argumentation theory and various related disciplines. It illuminates the central debates and presents core ideas in four main areas: Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, Argument Theory and Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric.

Texte du rabat

This volume contains a selection of papers from the International Conference on Argumentation (Amsterdam, 2002) by prominent international scholars of argumentation theory. It provides an insightful cross-section of the current state of affairs in argumentation research. It will be of interest to all those working in the field of argumentation theory and to all scholars who are interested in recent developments in this field.

Contenu

1. Reasons.- 2. The Pragmatic Dimension of Premise Acceptability.- 3. Rationality and Judgment.- 4. The Dialectical Tier Revisited.- 5. The Rabbit in the Hat: The Internal Relations of the Pragma-Dialectical Rules.- 6. Toulmin's Warrants.- 7. Metadialogues.- 8. Relationships Among Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric.- 9. Logical Fallacies, Dialectical Transgressions, Rhetorical Sins, and Other Failures of Rationality In Argumentation.- 10. A Pragmatic View of the Burden of Proof.- 11. The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption With Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden Of Proof.- 12. Two Conceptions of Openness in Argumentation Theory.- 13. Multidimensionality and Non-Deductiveness in Deliberative Argumentation.- 14. Argumentation Studies in France: A New Legitimacy.- 15. Discourse Correspondence Between Argumentative and Grammatical Sequences.- 16. Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions.- 17. Legal Argumentation Theory and the Concept of Law.- 18. Arguer'sObligations: Another Perspective.- 19. Charles S. Peirce's Theory of Abduction and the Aristotelian Enthymeme From Signs.- 20. Rhetoric and Dialectic in Martin Luther King's 'Letter From Birmingham Jail'.- 21. On the Argumentative Quality of Explanatory Narratives.- 22. The Wiles of Argument: Protodeliberation and Heroic Prudence in Homer's 'Odyssey'.- 23. Felicity Conditions for the Circumstantial ad Hominem: The Case of 'Bush V. Gore'.- 24. The Potential Conflict Between Normatively-Good Argumentative Practice and Persuasive Success: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research.- 25. The Concept of Argument Quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Normative and Empirical Approach to Petty and Cacioppo's 'Strong' and 'Weak' Arguments.- 26. How Narrative Argumentation Works: An Analysis of Argumentation Aimed at Reconsidering Goals.- 347.