OSSA  PROGRAMME 2009
Abstracts J-Z

Henrike Jansen (Speech Communication, University of Leiden) Legal arguments about plausible facts and their strategic presentation.

Arguments from plausibility, in which an appeal is made to customary behaviour, are often used in the legal practice. For example: Joran van der Sloot must have murdered Natalee Holloway, otherwise he would have called an ambulance when she looked dead. As in the example, such arguments are often presented with an explicit appeal to a modus tollens inference license [if he had not murdered her..]. I will address the question what motivates such a presentation.

Priyedarshi Jetli (Philosophy, University of Mumbai) Abduction as the mother of all argumentation.

Abduction (backward reasoning) is the genus of which deduction and induction are species.  Modus ponens, modus tollens and disjunctive syllogism are backward reasoning as an unknown proposition is inferred from a known proposition.  Reductio ad absurdum is abductive because the unknown conclusion is inferred by deriving a contradiction from an assumption.   Inductive reasoning from effect to cause is also backward reasoning.  The generic structure of abductive argumentation is universal among all cultures, occupations and

    disciplines.

Ralph H. Johnson (Philosophy, University of Windsor)  Revisiting the logical /dialectical/ rhetorical triumvirate.

Many argumentation theorists have adopted the view that argumentation may be approached from three different perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical—which I refer to as the Triumvirate.  According to Wenzel (1990), the conceptual foundation for this Triumvirate is the distinction between argumentation as product, as process and as procedure (the Tripartite Distinction.).  In this paper, I raise questions about the Triumvirate View and the Tripartite Distinction on which it is based.

Fred J. Kauffeld (Communication, Edgewood College) Presumptions and the efficacy of moral motivation.

This paper attempts to clarify and elaborate a conception of presumption as inferences based on the risk of resentment a person may run for failing to make a proposition true. The paper responds to criticism advanced against this view by Godden and Walton (‘A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation’) and elaborates an account of the pragmatics of presumptive inferences based on T.M. Scanlon’s view of moral motivation in What we owe to each other.

Moira Kloster (Philosophy and Politics, University College of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, British Columbia)  Reason, trust, and relationships.

If we do want reasoning to bridge cultural differences, argumentation theory has to show when and why to invoke a “disposition to co-operate”.  But it is crucial to re-interpret co-operation as a function of relationships, not as a disposition of individuals.   Seen as a relationship, co-operation can provide the vital path from individual scepticism to the mutual trust needed to work through difficult disputes.

Christian Kock (Rhetoric, University of Copenhagen) Arguing for different types of speech acts - and other acts.

Assertives have a word-to-world ’direction-of-fit’: they are validated when true, i.e., when the word fits the world. By contrast, Commissives and Directives have a world-to-word direction-of-fit: they are validated by making the world fit the word. Hence they have no truth value. In politics (and practical argumentation generally) arguments are typically about Commissives or Directives. Nevertheless, many philosophers theorize as if all arguments are about Assertives that have truth values, thereby unduly simplifying matters.

Takuzo Konishi (Communication, University of Pittsburgh) Toward history of argumentation: Canadian informal logic.

This paper attempts to trace a series of theoretical and political challenges between the early 1970s and the mid-1980s that advocates of Canadian informal logic movement had to overcome for making informal logic as a legitimate philosophical inquiry. Based on a historical narrative that reveals a trajectory of development of informal logic using oral history interviews and archival research, this paper offers proposals for research agenda for history of argumentation/informal logic.

Robert Kominar  Are there Reasonable Grounds to Eschew Argumentation in Dispute Resolution?

Rational argumentation has been the de facto social practice underlying Common Law litigation. Notwithstanding this we are currently witnessing a clear and distinct move away from litigation and towards disputing processes such as mediation. Mediation embraces the practice of argumentation in a very different way than does  litigation. This paper inquires into whether the move away from litigation also signals a move away from rational argumentation as a useful mode of dispute resolution.  

Erik C. W. Krabbe (Philosophy, University of Groningen)  Winning and losing for arguers.

What roles do “winning” and “losing” have to play in argumentative discussions? We say that someone has “won” a discussion or debate, but also an emphasis on “winning” is often rejected. The question is: can these concepts be so interpreted that justice is done to these antagonistic views? Starting from Aristotelian ideas, the paper purports to establish that the views mentioned above can indeed be reconciled.

Manfred Kraus (Classics, University of Tübingen) Culture sensitive arguments.

Arguments which in their premisses or warrants touch basic norms and values of a cultural community can be defined as culture sensitive. The paper will demonstrate how insensitivity to the cultural backgrounds of audiences may spoil an argument, and identify which kinds of arguments prove particularly open to cultural sensitivity. It will define the areas on which cultural communities may differ and determine how this bears on problems of globalization and political correctness.

Tone Kvernbekk (Education, University of Oslo) Theory and practice: gap or equilibrium.

It is not uncommon, in argumentation and in various professions, to diagnose a gap between theory and practice; and in the next step argue that they should be brought into line with each other. But what does this mean?  I shall argue that some version of a gap is sound, as it leaves theory with a critical, independent role in relation to practice – something that an equilibrium view does not. 

Jan Albert van Laar (Philosophy, University of Groningen)  Eristic dialogue: strategic maneuvering in polemical activity types.

The participants in an eristic and adversarial kind of conversation typically do not lower their pretence at argumentative reasonableness, even though they allow themselves more room for making quarrelsome choices. How can a contestant try to reconcile the assertiveness of his contributions with his dialectical pretence? It will be shown how he can do so by alleging to restore the conditions that are necessary for a good argumentative exchange.

Maceio I.lon Lauer (Communication, Western Illinois University) Categorizing visual argumentation processes: visual commonplaces in civic culture.

This essay argues that a theoretical framework for understanding visual argumentation should ideally account for the “etymology,” “syntax” and “field,” of visual arguments and offers an elaboration of these concepts. It defends the notion of a visual argument’s “etymology” or historical sense and advocates inquiry that accounts for how the reception of particular images has been conditioned by the production of prior visual arguments.

Michael C. Leff and Christopher Oldenburg (Communication, University of Memphis) Argument by anecdote.

Argumentation textbooks typically dismiss the anecdote as an inferior type of evidence.  We argue that it deserves more serious attention because it serves three important purposes:  (1) Anecdotes function as synecdoches capable of revealing insights unobtainable through statistical norms. (2) Their narrative form lends vivacity and presence to an argument. (3) They often enact or portray the arguer’s character. Anecdotes, then, coordinate evidentiary, representational, narrative and ethotic elements of argumentation and are not always trivial.

Marcin Lewiński (Argumentation Theory, University of Amsterdam) ‘You’re moving from irrelevant to irrational’ – critical reactions in internet discussion forums.

This paper scrutinizes some peculiarities of the culture of Internet argumentation: it is a qualitative Pragma-Dialectical study of different strategies arguers employ to question or attack argumentation of their opponents in online political discussion forums.  The basic assumption of the paper is that this particular context of argumentation—or: argumentative activity type—creates special opportunities and constraints for critical reactions regarding propositional content of arguments as well as proper use of argumentation schemes. 

Qingyin Liang & Yun Xie (Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University)  How Critical is the Dialectical Tier?

Does the presence of a dialectical tier within an argument actually show that the thesis is critically established? Is the process of manifest rationality indeed the same as the process of critical scrutiny for seeking the strongest and most appealing reasons or better arguments? This paper addresses these issues and takes the critical dimension to be a perspective to explore both similarities and differences of two argument cultures (Johnson’s Manifest Rationality and Pragma-Dialectics).

Elena Lisanyuk (Logic, St Petersburg State University)  Trial TV-show: justice, game or debate exercise?

TV-shows depicting lawsuits, both civil and criminal, have become very popular in Russia during the last decade. On the basis of a formal dialectic approach and game logic, I will argue that none of them is a persuasion dialogue. Some are eristic debates, yet others are quests, or investigation-like games, and thus the question whether the latter are dialogues, or not, remains open.

Dima Mohammed (Argumentation Theory, University of Amsterdam) Ad hominen as a derailment of confrontational strategic manoeuvring.

In order for confrontational strategic manoeuvring, aimed at defining in a reasonable way the difference of opinion to one’s own advantage, to be sound, arguers’ attempt to arrive at a particular (favourable) definition must not prevent other (non-favourable) definitions from coming about. This paper discusses the ad hominem fallacy as an obstruction of the critical testing of the standpoints that results from failing to meet this particular soundness conditions.

Andrei Moldovan (Philosophy, University of Barcelona) Pragmatic considerations in the interpretation of denying the antecedent.

I focus on arguments that are intuitively good, although they appear to be denials of the antecedent. I argue that pragmatic considerations regarding the purpose and the context of argumentation can account for why some of these arguments are good, as well as provide us with an ‘error theory’ that explains why they seem to contain invalid inferences. Alternative strategies, such as the appeal to interpretive charity, are discussed and ultimately rejected.

Radu Neculau (Philosophy, University of Windsor) Normative validity, cultural identity, and ideology critique.

Following a reconstruction of the shift in Critical Theory from norms of validity (Habermas) to norms of identity formation (Honneth), and thus from conditions of argumentation to conditions of recognition, the paper argues that a non-foundationalist critique of ideology must be based on a theory of motivation and social mobilization. On this view, ideologies lose legitimacy when they fail to motivate agents to integrate in available or proposed forms of socio-cultural life.

Ana Laura Nettel (Law, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico) Arguing for principles in different legal cultures.

In all legal systems lawyers and judges appeal to general principles. These principles are supposed to be taken from the very grounds of Justice. Accordingly they are presented as setting forth such an argument that it should defeat the opponent's. In this paper I will be interested in the principle of legal certainty and in how it is understood in Anglo-Saxon and a Continental legal cultures.

Joseph Novak (Philosophy, University of Waterloo) Peter Ramus and a shift of logical cultures.

La Dialectique of Peter Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée) appeared first in French in 1555 (later in Latin) and had a significant impact on later argumentation theory. His departure from the abstract scholastic approach consisted in his profuse illustrations of dialectical concepts by examples drawn from ancient writers such a Virgil, Ovid, Martial, Juvenal, and Cicero.  Many of the examples portray interchanges (dramatic or rhetorical) between individuals regarding critical situations in personal or civic life.

Sergio Novani (ERGO APTA, University of Genoa) Argument-operational-conjectural approach in criminal trials.

This paper focuses on the role played by the so-called transposition fallacy.  It is really any of several fallacies of statistical reasoning often found in legal arguments.  The paper illustrates the difficulties that context-dependence poses for overcoming the fallacy. To avoid fallacious reasoning about probabilities in criminal trials it is necessary to introduce a by argument-operational approach; and a dialectic trial phase with conjectural argumentation is needed to reach a judgment beyond any reasonable doubt.

Kieran O'Halloran (Language and Communication, Open University) Arguing in reading groups.

This presentation will make a contribution to understanding the nature of debate in reading groups (i.e., people who meet to discuss books, usually novels).  I will report on the findings of The Discourse of Reading Groups - a UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) one-year, funded project (2007-2008) that aims both to gather evidence about contemporary reading practices, and to contribute to a sensitive understanding of social literary argumentation as a contemporary micro-culture.

Fabio Paglieri (ISTC-CNR Rome) Ruinous arguments: escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing.

People argue to reconcile differences of opinion, but reconciliation may fail to happen. In these cases, most theorists assume arguers are left with the same disagreement from which they started. This is too optimistic, since disagreement might instead escalate, and this happens because of the argumentative practice, not in spite of it. These dangers depend on logical, pragmatic, and cultural factors, and show why arguers should be (and are) careful in picking their dialogical fights.

Roosmaryn Pilgram (Argumentation Theory, University of Amsterdam) A Pragma-Dialectical reconstruction of doctor-patient consultations.

In doctor-patient consultations, it is the doctor’s task to evaluate the problems the patient seeks advice about. The outcome of the evaluation is not always desired by the patient. He might, for instance, have to drastically change his behaviour. The doctor can nonetheless make his advice acceptable by providing argumentation. This paper will show that the consultation can then be reconstructed as an argumentative discussion and will specifically discuss what this means for argument evaluation.

José Plug (Argumentation Theory, University of Amsterdam) The strategic use of examples in European parliamentary debates.

Examples or exemplary cases may perform an important role in parliamentary debates. Members of Parliament make use of examples, not only to elucidate complex policies or to illustrate proposed legislation, but also to justify policies and legislation. As a framework for the analysis of the strategic use of examples in the institutional setting of the European parliament, I shall make use of van Eemeren and Houtlosser’s concept of strategic manoeuvring.

Lotte van Poppel (Argumentation Theory, University of Amsterdam) Pragmatic argumentation in health brochures from a Pragma-Dialectical perspective.

Health brochures are meant to convince readers to do something that is beneficial for their health. Pragmatic argumentation seems to be particularly suitable for this end. In this paper, I intend to show how pragmatic argumentation is used in a strategic way in the specific institutional context of health brochures, by using the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst and the concept of strategic manoeuvring due to van Eemeren and Houtlosser.

William Rehg (Philosophy, St. Louis University)  Snow’s argument cultures: from clashing contexts to heterogeneous solidarity.

Understood as an analysis of clashing argument cultures, C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” illuminates challenges to interdisciplinarity. Argument cultures involve not only distinct styles of argumentation and background assumptions, but also emotional attitudes and prejudices (including disdain for other argument cultures) that rest on ideals of inquiry and society. Case studies suggest that fruitful interdisciplinary work across such cultures requires institutionalized “boundary contexts” in which heterogeneous solidarity can develop. 

John J. Rief (Communication, University of Pittsburgh)  A good death: dignity-based argumentation at the end of life.

Patients, doctors, and families faced with end of life decision-making face a myriad of interpretations about what constitutes a good, dignified death.  For this reason, I argue that argumentation theorists can and should enter this fray in an effort to map the axiological (ethical and aesthetic) modes of argumentation at play and offer a means for the creation of commonplaces that might make decision-making in this vein more productive and fulfilling for those involved.

M. Louise Ripley (Marketing and Women’s Studies, York University ) Reframing emotional arguments in the culture of informal logic.

This paper will examine processing of emotional arguments in studies utilizing Gilbert’s Multimodal Argumentation Model, which, due to Western Society’s bias, have tended toward a logical analysis, even for emotional arguments. It will explore reframing the analysis in the culture of Informal Logic, with particular reference to issues of the alethic status of premises, the ethics of claims, the context of assumptions, and the question of what constitutes truth in the context of emotions.

Juho Ritola (Philosophy, University of Turku) The objective and the subjective account of begging the question.

This essay discusses the two epistemic accounts of the fallacy of begging the question: the objective (or the structural) account proposed by John Biro, and the subjective (or the situational) account, proposed by David Sanford. It is argued that both the objective and subjective accounts address important aspects of this quintessential fallacy and should be accepted as accounts of argumentative failures.

Georges Roque (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris) What is visual in visual argumentation?

My contention in this paper is that some of the most general kinds of argument (argument by analogy, pragmatic argument, and so on) are not intrinsically linguistic, but are more general operations that can be expressed linguistically as well as visually. As a consequence, what is properly visual in these arguments is not the argument itself, but the way it is displayed, which entails a closer look at the syntactic layout of visual images.

Phil Rose (Philosophy, University of Windsor) The universe as an argument: argumentative function—a Peircean orientation.

Argumentation will mean the resolution function of thought contingently situated.   Argument will mean any structure or process which can serve as a real, compelling constraint upon thought in general.  While the particular function of argumentation may be managing the resolution of disagreement, within a Peircean-styled realism argumentation will tend in the long run toward the Truth.  The real measure and normative standard of argumentation is not resolution, however, but growth (epistemic, political and otherwise).

Juhani Rudanko (English, University of Tampere, Finland) Reinstating ad socordiam: on an aspect of deceptive political rhetoric.

The paper sheds light on important procedural debates in the U.S. House of Representatives on the American Federal Bill of Rights in the summer of 1789. To study arguments in the debates, it is proposed that it is useful to draw on the informal fallacy of ad socordiam, and illustrations are provided, with attention paid to the question of how to identify and analyze the fallacy.

Cristian Santibáñez (Centre for the Study of Argumentation, Diego Portales University, Chile) Relevance, Argumentation and Presentational devices.

This paper presents the concept of relevance in argumentation theory analyzed from a pragma-rhetorical angle. Special attention will be given to examples in which relevance is determined by the extended social context of the use of presentational devices in controversies. The analysis of examples will include the rhetorical concept of decorum, maintaining that a different emphasis should be given to the role of the speaker in the determination of relevance. 

Menashe Schwed (Philosophy, Ashkalon College, Israel) A Wittgensteinian approach to rationality in argumentation.

‘Rationality’ is neither a normative concept that satisfy epistemological requirement as universalizability or enforceability, nor a concept that is devoid of any practical meaning in argumentation. Following some Wittgensteinian ideas, I argue that (i) rationality is a cultural and language laden concept and (ii) that rationality is not a monolithic concept but rather a cluster of concepts that stand in a derivative and unidirectional relation to culture and language.

Nima Shirali (Political Science, Concordia University, Montreal) Plato, Aristotle, and generative logos in democratic deliberation.

There exists an organic parallel between rhetoric and democratic governance. This parallel can best be called  “generative logos."  This helps explain why emotional motivation can, in democratic arrangements, help create stability. In this sense, it is generative logos that unites Plato and Aristotle on the instructive potential of rhetoric in the context of direct democracy—a political arrangement both philosophers, much like they did rhetoric, viewed as being amorphous.

Noriaki Tajima (Communication, Wayne State University) What network analysis offers to critical rhetoric.

From a viewpoint of critical new media studies, especially network analysis, I revisit critical rhetoric and try to offer what is more appropriate in rhetorical manifestations in the post-911 neoliberalist society. Through the discussion about current trends of network theory, I try to argue that theories that feature web architectures and designs to think about power politics/logic can be effectively applied to the scholarship of critical rhetoric.

Yvon Tonnard (Argumentation Theory, University of Amsterdam) The soundness of presentational choices in parliamentary debates.

Politicians often steer the discussion towards a different topic that is more convenient to them. In this paper I will examine how politicians accomplish such a shift of topic by using specific figures of speech within the institutional framework of a parliamentary debate. Next, I will evaluate whether or not using these specific figures leads to a move that violates the Pragma-Dialectical rules for critical discussion and can thus be considered fallacious.

Dale Turner (Philosophy, Californai State University, Ponoma) You're not evil or an idiot, you're just wrong.

Sosa argues that in cases of great controversy reasonable disagreement is possible because in these cases it might be legitimate to appeal to the substance of the disagreement itself as a basis for downgrading one’s opponent. I will argue that not only is Sosa’s rejection of what he calls the Equal Weight View (EWV) misguided, but that the way Sosa argues for the rejection of EWV actually undermines his claim that reasonable disagreements are possible.

Douglas Walton (CRRAR, University of Windsor) Objections, rebuttals and refutations.

This paper considers how the terms ‘objection’, ‘rebuttal’, ‘refutation’, ‘rebutting defeater’ and ‘undercutting defeater’ (often referred to as rebutters versus undercutters) are used in writings on argumentation and artificial intelligence. Also offered is a dialogical model (incorporating argumentation schemes) that provides a normative structure within which the terms can be clarified, distinguished from each other, and more precisely defined.

Kristine Warrenburg (Communication, University of Denver)  The invisible argument:  recognizing race in visceral reasoning.

This project works to define a visceral mode of reasoning in relation to Gilbert’s (1997) system of argumentation and evaluates whether or not the body is always implicated in discourse.  Kennedy’s announcement of King’s assassination will illustrate how a transgression of subjectivity was met by a momentary suspension of racialized terms of the day.  The racialized body allows examination into the excess of the argument or that which lies beyond the words.

Ying Wei (Communication, University of Maryland) Arguing-related Chinese proverbs and

Chinese argumentation: do Chinese value arguing?

Chinese culture has been labelled as a society of conflict / arguing avoidance. But whether the existing observed national characteristics are truly cultural and consistent seldom attracts attention. As another approach to enduring socio-logic regarding arguing in China, arguing-related Mandarin Chinese proverbs were investigated. The purposes of this paper are (a) to categorize these proverbs, and (b) to hypothesize Chinese social-logic of arguing. A schema of Chinese behavior and value regarding argument is generated.

Sheldon Wein (Philosophy, St. Mary’s University, Halifax) Legal reasoning in legal cultures without the doctrine of precedent.

Some legal systems include constitutional provisions protecting lower court judges from a strict adherence to the doctrine of precedence. This paper examines legal reasoning by non-corrupt judges working in such a legal system during periods when those judges believed that their Supreme Court was corrupt. Seeing legal reasoning as a shared cooperative activity allows us to best understand how legal decision making can remain consistent when it contains corrupt elements at the highest level.

Mark Weinstein (Philosophy, Montclair State University) Two Contrasting Cultures

I have argued that argumentation theorists should concern themselves with scientific argument as a source for images of epistemic virtue in argument. In this paper I will contrast the lessons learned from this endeavor with their counterpart in the evaluation of political arguments. Despite obvious differences, fundamental symmetries between the two argumentation cultures point to the need for a more serious engagement with rigorous disciplinary arguments in argument theory.

Joe Wofford (English, Meredith College)  Radical interpretation of metaphor in rhetorical discourse: a pragmatic account.

This study builds upon the ideas of Classical Pragmatists (Peirce, Dewey, James) and Neo-pragmatists (Popper, Quine, Davidson) to suggest that metaphors can best be understood in terms of what they are used to do.  What metaphors do, according to Davidson, is redirect our notice so as to effect new understandings.   Davidson’s account, thus understood, appears to contradict the conclusions of structuralist  accounts in which metaphorical meanings are derived from the supposed cognitive contents of utterances.

 
John Woods (University of British Columbia and King’s College, London) Knowledge by telling: reflections on the ad verecundiam.

It is widely accepted by fallacy theorists that a condition on the rationality of accepting the sayso of another is that the teller’s bona fides admit of independent confirmation, at least in principle. However, this seems an empirically unmeetable condition. These and other tensions will be explored here, with special reference to the ad verecundiam fallacy.

Igor Z. Zagar (Educational Research Institute, University of Primorska, Ljubljana)  The use of topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

The paper examines the central role that topoi play in Critical Discourse Analysis (pioneered by N. Fairclough and R. Wodak). Starting with definitions from Aristotle and Cicero, contrasting them with new conceptualisations by Perelman and Toulmin, and examining their superficial use in everyday conversation, I try to show that CDA relies mostly on simplified, spontaneous and unreflected use of topoi in everyday use, thus neglecting the (much more productive) theoretical foundations of the concept.

Frank Zenker (Philosophy, University of Lund, Sweden)  Reconstructive charity, soundness and the RSA-criteria of good argumentation.

Comparing two reconstructions of an argumentative text from the human embryonic stem cell research debate in Germany, it is argued that reconstructive charity remains implicit on a traditional understanding of good argument (sound premises, valid scheme). With charity explicated, however, relevance, sufficiency and acceptability can better be motivated as alternative criteria. I will discuss, if the two sets of criteria can be projected into each other.