"Argumentation in Political Deliberation," Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, September 2, 2011.

Political deliberation, understood as a public debate aimed at forming political opinions and deciding what course of action to take, has traditionally been seen as a prime venue for public reasoning and argument. Aristotle considered political deliberation – next to forensic dispute and public oratory – as one of the three main genres of rhetoric. Today, different modes of political deliberation – from formal institutional procedures in parliaments, to public hearings, to citizens’ conferences, to televised debates, to informal online discussions among “ordinary citizens” – are at the centre of interest in argumentation theory, deliberative theory of democracy, and communication and media studies alike.
The goal of this colloquium is to bring together scholars from these interrelated disciplines to examine the role, shape and quality of argumentation in political deliberation. A theoretical and empirical focus of the presentations and discussions will be on the practices of argumentation. The questions addressed include: How can we best theorize, analyze and evaluate argumentation in the context of political deliberation? What is the impact of the contextual conditions in different deliberative activities on the shape and quality of public argument? What are the typical forms of deliberative argument and counterargument? To what extent is the “virtual public sphere” transforming the way we engage in public argument? Does it allow for inclusive participation and genuine argumentative debate between advocates of various political views? By addressing these questions, the colloquium hopes to provide a focused account of the multifaceted argumentative practices in political deliberation.

The colloquium is part of a project Argumentation, Communication and Context sponsored by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT: PTDC/FIL–FIL/10117/2009) and carried out at ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

For more details (full programme, abstracts) and updates please go to http://www.arglab.ifl.pt/ (info available soon)

Pub: INFORMAL LOGIC 31.1 (2011).

Table of Contents:

Articles:

"Functionalism, Normativity and the Concept of Argumentation" by Steven W Patterson
"Dialog Models for Persuasion Strategies of Quotation Manipulation" by Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno
"Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence" by Christopher Lee Stephens

Book Reviews:

Book Review of Is that a Fact? by David Hitchcock
Book Review of Controversy and Confrontation, Relating Controversy Analysis With Argumentation Theory by Maria Navarro

Visit: http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/366.

Cfp: ARGMAS 2011: Eighth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, May 2-3, 2011.

This workshop will focus on the concepts, theories, methodologies, and applications of computational models of argumentation in building autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. Argumentation can be abstractly defined as the formal interaction of different arguments for and against some conclusion (eg, a proposition, an action intention, a preference, etc.). An agent may use argumentation techniques to perform individual reasoning, in order to resolve conflicting evidence or to decide between conflicting goals. Multiple agents may also use dialectical argumentation in order to identify and reconcile differences between themselves, through interactions such as negotiation, persuasion, and joint deliberation.

The main goal of ArgMAS 2011 will be to bring together the community of researchers working on argumentation in multi-agent systems. The workshop has the following technical goals:
- To explore the use of argumentation in practical reasoning.
- To investigate how argumentation can be used to enable rational interaction between autonomous agents.
- To explore the applicability of argumentation for solving a variety of problems in multi-agent systems, such as information exchange, negotiation, team formation, deliberation, etc.
- To explore strategic reasoning and behavior in argumentation-based interaction.
- To understand how argumentation relates to other areas of multi-agent research, such as game theory, agent communications, and planning.
- To present and encourage implemented systems which demonstrate the use of argumentation in multi-agent systems.
- The workshop will solicit papers looking at both theory and practice.

In particular, the workshop aims at bridging the gap between the vast amount of work on argumentation theory and the practical needs of multi-agent systems research.

For more information, visit: http://www.mit.edu/~irahwan/argmas/.

Pub: INFORMAL LOGIC 30.4 (2010).

Articles:

• "Systematically Distorted Communication: an Impediment to Social and Political Change" by Alan G Gross
• "Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology" by Heather Battaly
• "The Structure and Evaluation of Planning Arguments" by Thorbjoern Mann
• "The Question of Truth" by David Botting
• "Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority" by Moti Mizrahi

Reply:

• "The Pragma-Dialectician’s Dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar" by Harvey Siegel, John Biro

Teaching Supplement:

• "Critical Thinking and Small Group Activities" by Claude Gratton

Book Reviews:

• Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs reviewed by Scott Crothers

Download the essays here: http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/360.

Cfp: "Reasoned Argument and Social Change," 17th Biennial Conference on Argumentation, National Communication Association and American Forensic Association, Alta, Utah, July 28-31, 2011.

The Alta Conference invites papers, panel proposals, and paper proposals from any of the traditional perspectives on argumentation or from emerging contemporary views in the social sciences and humanities. Papers may reflect pedagogical, philosophical, theoretical, interpretive, empirical, critical, or cross disciplinary perspectives.

Visit the conference here: http://altaconference.org/Conference%202011.html.

Reasoning and Argument: Computer and Cognitive Science Perspectives, 2nd Summer Institute on Argumentation, Centre for Research on Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, May 9-27, 2011.

The institute has the dual purpose of offering a course for graduate students who have an interest in reasoning, argumentation, artificial intelligence and/or cognitive science, as well as an introduction to these topics for post-doctoral students and junior faculty who may attend as Summer Institute Fellows. The course, 'Current Issues in Argumentation Theory', (30 hours) will be a 500-level course (the University of Windsor's designation for graduate courses) and can be taken for either an Arts (Humanities) or Social Science credit. The Institute and course are under the direction of Professor Marcello Guarini (Department of Philosophy, University of Windsor) who will share the teaching duties with Professor Chris Reed, (School of Computing, University of Dundee, Scotland).

More information may be found here: http://railct.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/crrar-announcement.pdf.

Pub: INFORMAL LOGIC 30.3 (2010).

Articles:

• "Introduction: Reasoning for Change" by Phyllis Rooney, Catherine E. Hundleby
• "Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason" by Phyllis Rooney
• "Verbal Sparring and Apologetic Points: Politeness in Gendered Argumentation Contexts" by Sylvia Burrow
• "Argumentative Injustice" by Patrick Bondy
• "The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation" by Catherine Hundleby
• "Feminist Epistemologies of Situated Knowledges: Implications for Rhetorical Argumentation" by James C. Lang

Download the essays here: http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/359.

Cfp: "Thinking and Speaking a Better World," Third International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment, Department of Philosophy, University of Maribor, Slovenia, October 22-24, 2010.

The conference will welcome scholars and educators from diverse fields for vigorous dialogue and exchange. This conference will unite scholars of argumentation and rhetoric, teachers, and organizers of local, national and international debating networks to discuss critical thinking and advocacy discourse through pedagogy. We intend for the conference to welcome all who are involved in public discussions and debates about different issues.

This conference is extremely timely. A global information society which seeks reasoned solutions to problems through broad citizen involvement needs to develop and refine techniques for criticizing and validating ideas through discourse and then impart these to new generations of citizens if we are to create a better future and avoid looming crises. This conference represents a unique opportunity to share ideas, network and cross-fertilize with global critical thinkers.

The program for the conference will have three themes. Submissions are encouraged to center their work on one of the three themes and to submit proposals to the appropriate conference division. Interdisciplinary work that might fit into more than one category is very welcome.

• Argumentation and rhetoric. The use of logic and reason to criticize and analyze ideas through communication. Those interested in research on argumentation theory, criticisms of communication acts and scholarship on argumentation practice are encouraged to submit to this division.
• Debate. The use of formal argumentation forums to educate and empower citizens. Those interested in work on the practice and theory of debate competition, public debates, research on the impact of debate for participants, and theorizing about debate paradigms are encouraged to submit to this division.
• Critical thinking/pedagogy. Teaching and the methodology of teaching in the active classroom. Those interested in using debate, discussion and argumentation in classrooms, discussion of experiences and teaching lessons relating to communication and critical thinking are encouraged to submit to this division.

Contact:

• Argumentation: David Williams USA, Frans van Eemeren Netherlands, Danilo Šuster Slovenia, email: dcwill@fau.edu;
• Debate: Stephen Boyle Ireland, Maja Nenadović Hungary-Croatia, Peejay Garcia Korea-Philippines, email: stephenboyle87@GMAIL.COM;
• Pedagogy: Alfred Snider USA, Debbie Newman UK, Loke Wing Fatt Singapore, email: Alfred.Snider@uvm.edu.

Pub: INFORMAL LOGIC 30.2 (2010).

Table of Contents:

Articles

• "A Pragma-Dialectical Response to Objectivist Epistemic Challenges" by Bart Garssen, Jan Albert van Laar (122-141)
• "Truth and Argument Evaluation" by Patrick Bondy (142-158)
• "Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They Are" by Douglas Walton (159-184)
• "The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference" by Michael P Berman, Brian A Lightbody (185-193)

Download the articles here: http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/index.

Second International Conference on Logic, Argumentation, and Critical Thinking, Centre for the Study of Argumentation and Reasoning, Faculty of Psychology, Diego Portalés University, Santiago, October 7-9, 2010.

Keynote Speakers:

Eveline Feteris, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Chris Reed, University of Dundee, Scotland
Luis Vega, UNED, Spain
Michael A. Gilbert, York University, Canada

The International Conference Logic, Argumentation and Critical Thinking II is a new academic effort of our Centre to continue what was started with the first Conference in January 2008. Just as with the first Conference, in which we were together with researchers from Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Spain, The Netherlands, United States, and Uruguay, in this second conference we are not only trying to deepen and update the production of knowledge in the fields that this conference covers, but we are also trying to contribute to a positive valuation of different proposals that develop critical thinking and promote social debate with a standard of reasonableness.

This Conference, organized by the Centre for the Study of Argumentation and Reasoning (CEAR) of the Faculty of Psychology at Diego Portales University, would like to generate tools, approaches and solutions to apply in those fields in which the uses of reason is fundamental: communication, law, education, etc.

We do not have an official theoretical position, but rather we value the diversity of angles and proposals. We invite the scientific international community, which works in the topics of the Conference, to participate and share its knowledge, experience and current challenges.

ABSTRACTS prepared for blind refereeing must be submitted electronically no later than August 16, 2010, to Cristián Santibáñez: cristian.santibanez@udp.cl. Abstracts should be between 200 and 250 words long, in APA format.

Further information is here: http://railct.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/cear-second-international-conference-on-logic-argumentation-and-critical-thinking/.

Pub: Tindale, Christopher W. REASON'S DARK CHAMPIONS.

Tindale, Christopher W. Reason's Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 2010.

Recent decades have witnessed a major restoration of the Sophists' reputation, revising the Platonic and Aristotelian "orthodoxies" that have dominated the tradition. Still lacking is a full appraisal of the Sophists' strategies of argumentation. Christopher W. Tindale corrects that omission in Reason's Dark Champions. Viewing the Sophists as a group linked by shared strategies rather than by common epistemological beliefs, Tindale illustrates that the Sophists engaged in a range of argumentative practices in manners wholly different from the principal ways in which Plato and Aristotle employed reason. By examining extant fifth-century texts and the ways in which Sophistic reasoning is mirrored by historians, playwrights, and philosophers of the classical world, Tindale builds a robust understanding of Sophistic argument with relevance to contemporary studies of rhetoric and communication. Beginning with the reception of the Sophists in their own culture, Tindale explores depictions of the Sophists in Plato's dialogues and the argumentative strategies attributed to them as a means of understanding the threat Sophism posed to Platonic philosophical ambitions of truth seeking. He also considers the nature of the "sophistical refutation" and its place in the tradition of fallacy. In the second half of the book, Tindale turns to specific argumentative practices, mapping how Sophists employed the argument from likelihood, reversal arguments, arguments on each side of a position, and commonplace reasoning. In each instance Tindale grounds the discussion in specific textual examples. What emerges is a complex and complete picture of the theory, practice, and reception of Sophistic strategies that reorients criticism of this mode of argumentation, expands understanding of Sophistic contributions to classical rhetoric, and opens avenues for further scholarship.

Further information may be found here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570038783/ref=pe_5050_14556830_snp_dp.

"Where's Your Argument? Informal Logic, Critical Thinking and Argumentation," Manchester Metropolitan University, April 12-13, 2010.

DAY ONE: issues in the study of Informal Logic and Argumentation

• what is the difference between a good argument and a bad argument?; what's the difference between rhetoric and argument?; is there a difference between legitimate persuasion and propaganda?
• an opportunity to participate in discussion with some of the leading authors writing on these crucial questions.

DAY TWO: the role of argument and rhetoric in policy and politics

• do you have a right to your own opinion?; is the Spin Doctor's art a noble one?
• an opportunity to inoculate yourself against political rhetoric, in time for the General Election!

Speakers:

• Frans van Eemeren, "The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argument"
• Lars Hertzberg, "The Grammar of Inference"
• Don S. Levi, "The Informality of Logic"
• Michael Loughlin, "The 'Evidence Based Medicine' Debate"
• Steven Poole, "Unspeak"
• John Powell, "Criteria for Good Argument"
• Rupert Read, "'Reframing' and 'Unspeak' or Politics Without Propaganda?"
• Jamie Whyte, "Bad Thoughts and Worse Policies"

Visit the conference website here: http://www.cheshire.mmu.ac.uk/ids/home/news/whereisyourargument.php.

"Argumentation: Cognition and Community," Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, University of Windsor, May 18-21, 2010.

Keynote Speakers: David Hitchock, Department of Philosophy, 
McMaster University Paul Thagard, Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo Karen Tracy, Communication Department, 
University of Colorado Submission Information: The Organizing Committee invites proposals for papers which deal with argumentation, especially as it intersects with cognition and/or community. Abstracts prepared for blind refereeing must be submitted electronically no later than SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 to (write ‘[your last name] OSSA abstract’ in the subject line). They should be between 200 and 250 words long. Additional information on how to prepare proposals is available on the conference website: http://web2.uwindsor.ca/cpa/OSSA/index.htm.

"Persuasion and Argumentation," Centre de Recherches sur les Arts et le Langage, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, September 7–9, 2010.

Persuasion has long been opposed to argumentation. From this standpoint, conviction would pertain only to argumentation because it is based on reason, whereas persuasion would rest on techniques of manipulation aimed at producing an effect on the audience. Perelman, for instance, even though he put emphasis on the importance of the audience, nevertheless defended a universally valid conception of rationality whose goal is to convince a universal audience, whereas persuasion is oriented toward a particular audience. Yet this opposition has been qualified by what is called, since Hamblin’s seminal work, the “pragmatic turn” of argumentation, as argumentation always occurs in a given context, limiting its scope to the context in which it occurs. Nowadays, many distinct and even conflicting conceptions are held in the field of argumentation, among which persuasion is one of the most debated. For the epistemic trend (John Biro and Harvey Siegel), persuasion and argumentation remain quite distinct, for even if it is allowed that persuasion may sometimes be the aim of argumentation, proponents of this position nevertheless consider that the validity of an argument must be evaluated through epistemic criteria only. Based on a different analysis, Marc Angenot arrived at the same conclusion in his latest book (Dialogue de sourds, 2008): for him, argumentation rarely leads to persuasion, so that they should be radically separated. At the other end of the spectrum stands Douglas Walton’s position, as he considers persuasion to be one of the different kinds of dialogue that constitute argumentation as a whole. Between these extreme positions there is room for many intermediary ones. The pragma-dialectical approach, for instance, evolved. In 2004, it insisted on the opposition between, on the one hand, the process of persuasion, centered on the effect to be produced and therefore on the rhetorical categories aimed at influencing effectively a given audience and, on the other, on the process of convincing which rests on how an arguer can resolve a difference of opinion by means of an argumentative discourse. Van Eemeren and his coauthors consider now that these two elements are always present to some degree in every argumentation. Their concept of “strategic maneuvering” is intended to take these two complementary but different aims of argumentation into account: both the dialectical objective of reasonableness and the rhetorical objective of effectiveness. Strategic maneuvering is also directed at reducing, within argumentative practice, the potential tension resulting from these opposed aims. On the other hand, according to the informal logic approach (Tony Blair and Ralph Johnson), persuasion and argumentation are not really opposed. Hence Johnson’s definition of the aim of argumentation as that of a “rational persuasion.” The objective of this conference is to review the controversial relationship between persuasion and argumentation within the different theories of argumentation. Several lines of research might be explored, among which:

• examining the importance of context in persuasive practices, when they are considered context-dependent;
• understanding how these practices appear in different disciplines, in so far as there are also forms of persuasion in scientific argumentation, for instance, so that persuasion would not be the prerogative only of the literary and the visual arts; a comparative study of different persuasive practices would be particularly fruitful;
• articulating persuasion and argumentation more in detail instead of considering them as opposed. While it is clear that all persuasion processes do not fall within the province of argumentation, some could match the epistemological and cognitive criteria governing argumentation as a rational enterprise;
• from this point of view, integrating some persuasive techniques into the field of argumentation would make it possible to take into account different kinds of discourse which are still too often excluded from the field of argumentation precisely because they would be more persuasive than argumentative: literature, advertising, political propaganda, visual argumentation.

Participants are welcome to deliver their papers in French or in English. Abstracts (c. 300 words) and provisional titles should be submitted, together with a brief résumé (one page) in Word format, to Georges Roque (grgsroque@gmail.com) no later than February 15, 2010. The final decision of the selection committee will be communicated by February 28, 2010.

Thirteenth Biennial Argumentation Conference, Wake Forest University, March 19-21, 2010.

Keynote Speakers: Carole Blair and William Balthrop, University of North Carolina; Lenore Langsdorf, Southern Illinois University; Frans van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, and Carol Winkler, Georgia State University. Workshops: Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Argumentative Discourse Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam This workshop consists of a series of four sessions. The aim of the workshop is to provide insight in pragma-dialectical argumentation analysis and evaluation. For this purpose, the workshop concentrates in the first place on the reconstruction of argumentative discourse and the identification of fallacies, not only in everyday discourse, but also in political and academic discourse. First, the basic principles are explained that are instrumental in analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. In the process, methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, argumentation structures and argument schemes in oral and written discourse. Next, the problems are discussed of critically evaluating various types of discourse from a dialectical perspective. Finally, it is made clear how combining dialectical and rhetorical insight enables the analyst to identify the strategic maneuvering by which arguers try to see through their own standpoints in argumentative discours while at the same time upholding a commitment to reasonableness. The fallacies are then viewed as derailments of such strategic maneuvering. How to Study Interpersonal Arguing Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea, Department of Communication, University of Maryland The bulk of research on argumentation has been conducted from rhetorical or philosophical perspectives, which both make use of humanistic methodologies. Since about 1980, however, social science methods have also been applied, particularly to interpersonal arguing. This approach makes use of self-report scales, coding systems, and quantitative analysis. The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants with an introduction to the general project of studying interpersonal arguing, and to explore many of the leading instruments used in the community project. The workshop will be oriented to people who are not primarily social scientists in their approach to argumentation studies. We will begin with a general meta-theoretical overview of interpersonal arguing. We will briefly explain that interpersonal arguing can be seen as occurring in three phases: argument production, the public argument, and argument reception. This overview intends to establish a context for the various instruments and methods covered in the bulk of the workshop. Argument production methodologies include self-report measures of various personality traits, cognitive abilities, and cognitive processes. The public argument will be approached from the viewpoint of conversation/discourse analysis and pragma-dialectics, as well as some self-report and behavioral measures of emotional and other experiences. Argument reception, perhaps the least studied of the three phases, will be covered in reference to argumentative competence and some standard persuasion measures. Cultural assessment instruments and some others do not fall neatly into one of the three phases, but these instruments and some other techniques will also be covered. Argumentation, Intervention, and Democratic Invention: Rethinking the Ends of Rhetorical Scholarship Cindy Spurlock and Scott Welsh, Department of Communication, Appalachian State University Democratic deliberation and the politics of everyday life call the art of rhetoric into being. Yet, prevailing modes of rhetorical scholarship largely end in the production of personal works of academic criticism rather than in the production of publicly useable rhetorical resources. This workshop aims to collaboratively pursue new or revised approaches to the study of rhetoric that might promote the invention of the rhetorical moves and maneuvers necessary to sustaining and advancing democracy in the face of anti-democratic argumentative commonplaces. Put simply, the motivating question is: How can a critical study of rhetoric be reconnected to the art of rhetoric? More specifically, participants in this workshop will explore the question of whether and/or how an interventionist orientation toward theory and criticism may enable, constrain, or otherwise affect the development of argumentative strategies and resources for rhetorical invention that are accessible to (and able to address) publics. The Relationship between Argument and Culture: What do we know about differences and similarities across cultures and what do we need to know? Michael David Hazen, Department of Communication, Wake Forest University Information to be provided. Visit the conference website here: http://www.wfu.edu/communication/argumentation/index.php.

Roth, Michael S. "Beyond Critical Thinking." CHRONICLE REVIEW January 3, 2010.

Although critical thinking first gained its current significance as a mode of interpretation and evaluation to guide beliefs and actions in the 1940s, the term took off in education circles after Robert H. Ennis published "A Concept of Critical Thinking" in the Harvard Educational Review in 1962. Ennis was interested in how we teach the "correct assessment of statements," and he offered an analysis of 12 aspects of this process. Ennis and countless educational theorists who have come after him have sung the praises of critical thinking. There is now a Foundation for Critical Thinking and an industry of consultants to help you enhance this capacity in your teachers, students, or yourself. A common way to show that one has sharpened one's critical thinking is to display an ability to see through or undermine statements made by (or beliefs held by) others. Thus, our best students are really good at one aspect of critical thinking­—being critical. For many students today, being smart means being critical. To be able to show that Hegel's concept of narrative foreclosed the non-European, or that Butler's stance on vulnerability contradicts her conception of performativity, or that a tenured professor has failed to account for his own "privilege"—these are marks of sophistication, signs of one's ability to participate fully in the academic tribe. But this participation, being entirely negative, is not only seriously unsatisfying; it is ultimately counterproductive. The skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not completely without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of self-satisfied debunkers or, to use a currently fashionable word on campuses, people who like to "trouble" ideas. In overdeveloping the capacity to show how texts, institutions, or people fail to accomplish what they set out to do, we may be depriving students of the capacity to learn as much as possible from what they study. In a humanities culture in which being smart often means being a critical unmasker, our students may become too good at showing how things don't make sense. That very skill may diminish their capacity to find or create meaning and direction in the books they read and the world in which they live. Once outside the university, our students continue to score points by displaying the critical prowess for which they were rewarded in school. They wind up contributing to a cultural climate that has little tolerance for finding or making meaning, whose intellectuals and cultural commentators delight in being able to show that somebody else is not to be believed. Read the rest here: http://chronicle.com/article/Beyond-Critical-Thinking/63288/.

Pub: INFORMAL LOGIC 29.4 (2009).

Articles:

• "Argumentative Thinking: an Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychology and Argumentation" Abstract PDF by Lance J. Rips 327-336
• "Argument Content and Argument Source: an Exploration" Abstract PDF by Ulrike Hahn, Adam J.L. Harris, Adam Corner 337-367
• "Belief-Overkill in Political Judgments" Abstract PDF by Jonathan Baron 368-378
• "What Constitutes Skilled Argumentation and How Does it Develop?" Abstract PDF by Marion Goldstein, Amanda Crowell, Deanna Kuhn 379-395
• "Differentiating Theories from Evidence: the Development of Argument Evaluation Abilities in Adolescence and Early Adulthood" Abstract PDF by Petra Barchfeld, Beate Sodian 396-416
• "Deliberation versus Dispute: the Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom" Abstract PDF by Mark Felton, Merce Garcia-Mila, Sandra Gilabert 417-446

Critical Reviews:

• "Eemeren & Garssen's Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory" PDF by Frank Zenker 447-475

Book Reviews:

• Zenker's Ceteris Paribus in Conservative Belief Revision: On the Role of Minimal Change in Rational Theory Development" PDF by Pierre Boulos 476-478

Visit the Informal Logic wesite here: http://www.informallogic.ca/.

Pub: INFORMAL LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION THEORY. STUDIES IN LOGIC, GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC 16 (2009).

• Koszowy Marcin ''Preface: the Variety of Research Perspectives in the Study of Argumentation'' (PDF)

The Origins of Informal Logic and Pragma-Dialectics:

• Johnson Ralph H. "Some Reflections on the Informal Logic Initiative" (PDF)
• Blair J. Anthony ''Informal Logic and Logic'' (PDF)
• Eemeren Frans H. van "Strategic Manoeuvring Between Rhetorical Effectiveness and Dialectical Reasonableness" (PDF)

Formal Tools in Analysis of Argumentation:

• Dębowska Kamila, Łoziński Paweł, Reed Chris "Building Bridges Between Everyday Argument and Formal Representations of Reasoning" (PDF)
• Hitchcock David ''Non-logical Consequence'' (PDF)
• Budzyńska Katarzyna, Kacprzak Magdalena ''Formal Models for Persuasive Aspects of Argumentation'' (PDF)
• Jacquette Dale ''Deductivism in Formal and Informal Logic'' (PDF)
• Dziśko Mary, Schumann Andrew ''Cyclic Proofs in Argumentation: the Case of Excluding Boris Pasternak from the Association of Writers of the USSR'' (PDF)

Definitions in Argumentation:

• Kublikowski Robert "Definition Within the Structure of Argumentation'' (PDF)
• Walton Douglas, Macagno Fabrizio ''Classification and Ambiguity: the Role of Definition in a Conceptual System'' (PDF)

Stephen Toulmin's Model of Argumentation:

• Zarębski Tomasz ''Toulmin's Model of Argument and the 'Logic' of Scientific Discovery'' (PDF)
• Bermejo-Luque Lilian ''Argumentation Theory and the Conception of Epistemic Justification'' (PDF)

Ethical and Legal Argumentation:

• Feteris Eveline, Kloosterhuis Harm ''The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation: Approaches from Legal Theory and Argumentation Theory'' (PDF)
• Yaskevich Yadviga ''Biomedical Investigations in the Context of Interdisciplinary Strategies: Moral and Legal Arguments'' (PDF)

Comment:

• Marciszewski Witold ''On the Power and Glory of Deductivism'' (PDF)

Download the essays here: http://logika.uwb.edu.pl/studies/vol29.html.

New Blog: RAIL: Reasoning, Argumentation and Informal Logic.

This is a blog for scholars engaged in the study of reasoning, argumentation theory, informal logic, rhetoric, and critical thinking. It is intended to be as inclusive and interdisciplinary as is the field of argumentation theory itself. . . . Visit the blog here: http://railct.wordpress.com/.

Roth, Paul A. Review of William Rehg, COGENT SCIENCE IN CONTEXT. NDPR (OCTOBER 2009).

Rehg, William. Cogent Science in Context: the Science Wars, Argumentation Theory and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.

Books can easily be found that offer to examine and account for the "science wars", understood as the ongoing turf battle between philosophers and sociologists. The focus of the conflict concerns how to explain what considerations actually determine what comes to be accepted as the received views in any one of the natural sciences. The main contenders consist of two apparently opposed explanatory strategies. On the one hand, some advocate the primacy of contextual factors in order to explain why a scientific community settles on a particular view. On such accounts, the norms of scientific inquiry represent only the contingent products of historical circumstance. On the other hand, "internalist" accounts typically seek to establish that evidence can be and is rationally determinative. Evaluative procedures can have validity that transcend their context. On this view, use of proper rational procedure explains what prevails and why within a scientific community. The former view denies and the latter affirms that standards of rationality simpliciter can and do explain accepted scientific views. Unfortunately, authors of such books all too typically begin by assuming the correctness of one of the usual suspects with regard to accounts of scientific rationality. William Rehg's book proceeds by urging that resources can be located for an account of rationality that embraces neither of these views and yet incorporates core contentions of each. Specifically, Rehg argues for the relevance of "argumentation theory", an area of inquiry that straddles several disciplines and with which most philosophers of science will probably be unfamiliar. The "argumentation theory" as Rehg portrays it refers to studies of argument that represent "an interdisciplinary endeavor that provides a set of categories -- drawn from logic, linguistics, dialectic, rhetoric, and so on -- for the description and evaluation of arguments" (4). Rehg offers a straightforward rationale for taking this approach: "Like other areas of human endeavor, the sciences exist and develop as social practices -- exercises in embodied social rationality . . . This trend challenged defenders of science to develop more realistic conceptions of scientific rationality" (3). Argumentation theory as Rehg conceives of it holds the promise of providing a general normative framework for the evaluation of scientific claims that is superior in specific ways to the alternatives scouted above. His book promises a sustained and detailed account of how to construct this framework. Rehg employs the term 'cogency' to connote the joint process of assessing both the psychological effect and the rational strength of an argument. The appeal to cogency arises inasmuch as no one set of factors -- logical, rhetorical, or sociological -- typically suffices to make the case in favor of one view over another. The question that Rehg poses, and the litmus test for the approach of his book, concerns whether or not Rehg's contextualist version of argumentation theory offers a more robust normative framework than any of the alternatives that Rehg finds inadequate to the task of adjudicating disputes on the cogency of scientific claims. The primary challenge to the cogency of scientific argument consists in the need to bridge what Rehg terms "Kuhn's gap", understood as "a gap between logical and social-institutional perspectives, a gap that rhetorics of science attempt to bridge" (33). More specifically, in order to close Kuhn's gap, an argumentation theory must reveal "how persuasion occurs within the transitional phase itself -- the microprocesses that generate agreement on the new paradigm" (47). Kuhn's work poses the question but provides no answer. The gap will only be closed, however, in a philosophically satisfactory way by providing an account of cogency that demonstrates that scientists were persuaded to shift theoretical allegiances for the "right" reasons, i.e., that no group made a weaker argument appear the stronger. . . .

Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=17905.