
Lilian Bermejo-LuqueUniversity of Granada | UGR · Faculty of Philosophy and Letters
Lilian Bermejo-Luque
About
38
Publications
5,838
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
252
Citations
Introduction
Skills and Expertise
Publications
Publications (38)
Resumen: El término "cosmopolitismo" se usa para referirse a diversas ideas, vagamente conectadas, en ámbitos como la ética, la política, la economía y la cultura. En este artículo defendemos que el cosmopolitismo debe entenderse como un tipo de propuesta política; en concreto, como una ideología (y no como una tesis ética, metaética o metapolítica...
The main goal of this paper is to show that politics constitutes a normative domain of its own. To this, a concept of political value that explains why the politically good provides reasons for actions is indispensable. I shape this concept by adopting the framework of political minimalism and developing one of its central tenets, namely, that poli...
El objetivo de este trabajo es, por un lado, explicar por qué el discurso sobre los Derechos Humanos permite cierto tipo de estrategias políticas insidiosas recientemente denunciadas por autores críticos con la noción de derecho humano y, por otro lado, justificar una apreciación más positiva de su función política. La tesis principal es que el dis...
According to political minimalism, a debate is considered political when it revolves around the question “What shall we do?” This account suggests that certain issues related to human enhancement technologies (HETs), which have traditionally been addressed in the realm of applied ethics, could be better approached from a political standpoint. Howev...
Our aim is to defend the Precautionary Principle (PP) against the main theoretical and practical criticisms that it has raised by proposing a novel conception and a specific formulation of the principle. We first address the theoretical concerns against the idea of there being a principle of precaution by arguing for a distinctively political conce...
This special issue of Topoi encompasses a collection of articles developed from nine selected contributions to the international conference Argumentation and Politics, held at the University of Granada, Spain, in April 2022. The participants in that conference, scholars from disciplines such as Argumentation Theory, Philosophy of Language, Communic...
Preprint. The published version is available here: https://rdcu.be/b9awz
How should automated vehicles (AVs) react in emergency circumstances? Most research projects and scientific literature deal with this question from a moral perspective. In particular, it is customary to treat emergencies involving AVs as instances of moral dilemmas and to use...
Devemos considerar a obra de Aristóteles como a origem da Teoria da Argumentação ou como um obstáculo que explicaria parcialmente o desenvolvimento tardio desta teoria? Neste artigo, tento mostrar que existem boas razões para defender ambas as posições. Com isso, pretendo ilustrar certa forma de conceber as relações entre Lógica, Dialética e Retóri...
In “Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy: A Reply to Groarke’s Defense of Reconstructive Deductivism,” David Godden (2005) distinguished two notions of deductivism. On the one hand, as an interpretative thesis, deductivism is the view that all-natural language argumentation must be interpreted as being deductive. On the other hand, as an evalu...
I argue that conductions are a special type of inference indeed, but that this does not mean that we need to develop novel standards of inference goodness or specific argument schemes for properly assessing them. Following LNMA’s theoretical framework, I provide a semantic account of conductions and explain the interesting pragmatic properties of a...
Featuring multidisciplinary and transcultural investigations, this volume showcases state-of-the-art scholarship about the impact of argumentation-based discourses and field-specific argumentation practices in a wide range of communities of practice belonging to the media, social, legal and political spheres. The investigations make use of integrat...
From 26th to 28th of April 2016, it took place in the University of Granada a conference on presumptions, presumptive inferences and burdens of proof that, joint with other ongoing initiatives, has contributed to renew the interest of the argumentation community in analysing these notions and the relationships between them. This special volume of A...
The main objective of this article is to show the convenience of adopting a pragmatic-linguistic approach for the development of normative models of argumentation. In addition, I will present a proposal, the only one currently, within this approach: the Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation (Bermejo-Luque, 2011) and I will explain its advanta...
Presuming that p is not the same as maintaining that presumably p. I argue that, in presuming that p, we make a presumption, whereas in maintaining that presumably p, we draw the conclusion of a presumptive inference. I provide an account of the correctness conditions for presumptions and presumptive inferences by characterizing presumptions as a t...
Both because of the vagueness of the word ‘give’ when speaking about giving reasons, and because we lack an adequate definition of ‘reasons’, there is a harmful ambiguity in the expression ‘giving reasons’. Particularly, straightforwardly identifying argumentation with reasons giving would make of virtually any interplay a piece of argumentation. B...
In a recent paper, Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013) proposes a defence of Waller's deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation. This defence has several flaws, the most important of them being that many good analogical arguments would be deemed bad or deficient. Additionally, Shecaira misrepresents my alternative account as something in betwee...
This paper analyzes different types of similarity judgments, including a distinction between quantitative and qualitative analogies. Then, a survey of the most frequent uses of both types of analogical judgments. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the variety of criteria that we should employ in determining the value of a similarity judgme...
Following a Toulmian account of argument analysis and evaluation, I offer a general unitary schema for, so called, deductive and inductive types of analogical arguments. This schema is able to explain why certain analogical arguments can be said to be deductive, and yet, also defeasible.
In Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic-approach to Argumentation Theory (Springer, 2011), I provide a new
model for the semantic and pragmatic appraisal of argumentation. This model is based on a characterization
of argumentation as a second order speech-act complex. I explain the advantages of this model respecting other proposals within Argume...
I provide responses to what I take to be the most salient aspects of John Biro, James Freeman, David Hitchcock, Robert Pinto, Harvey Siegel and Luis Vega’s criticisms to the normative model for argumentation that I have developed in Giving Reasons. Each response is articulated on a main question, i.e., the distinction between regulative and constit...
As explained in Chapter 4 regarding the logical normativity of argumentation, in dealing with the dialectical dimension of argumentation, I will also have to fulfill two tasks: on the one hand, showing that any type of argumentation, whether dialogical or monological, involves such a dialectical dimension; but on the other hand, showing that dialec...
This chapter has two sections: the first one is devoted to a characterization of argumentation as an everyday activity, inextricably linked to the specifics of linguistic communication. In addition, it is meant to show in which ways the activity of arguing is particularly akin to humans as rational and social beings: on the one hand, it is a tool t...
This chapter is devoted to some meta-theoretical questions aimed to show why do we need a new theory of argumentation.
Section 2.1 constitutes a defense of Argumentation Theory as the project of developing a normative model for natural language
argumentation able to overcome the difficulties of the traditional deductivist conception of argumentat...
Given my defense, in Chapter 2, of the idea that the regulative conditions for argumentation have to be specified in terms
of its constitutive conditions, it follows that, if argumentation is a complex of logical, dialectical and rhetorical properties,
as contended in Chapter 3, then good argumentation will be argumentation satisfying logical, dial...
In this final chapter, I summarize the guidelines for the normative model of argumentation that follow from our linguistic approach to Argumentation Theory. Consequently, I deal with the logical, dialectical and rhetorical conditions that determine whether an act of arguing succeeds at its constitutive goal of showing a target claim to be correct....
This chapter deals with the rhetorical dimension of argumentation and the role that Rhetoric is to play for developing normative models shaping the concept of argumentative value. In order to show the specifics of this proposal, I outline current strategies for dealing with the rhetorical within Argumentation Theory. This task is partly carried out...
Following Chapter 2’s thesis that the only way to overcome the justification problem of Argumentation Theory’s normative models is to deal with the concept of argumentative value as the constitutive goal of the activity of arguing, I propose a characterization of argumentation as a communicative activity aimed at showing a target claim to be correc...
El uso de anologías en bioética es muy frecuente. Dado que son instrumentos especialmente efiscaces desde un punto de vista retórico, resulta fundamental determinar bajo qué condiciones la formulación de analogías constituye un recurso discursivo legítimo. En este artículo, distinguimos entre usos no-discursivos y usos discursivos de las analogías,...
Analogies are frequently used in bioethics. As they are particularly effective as rhetorical tools, it is essential to determine under which conditions they can be said to be a legitimate discursive resource. In this paper we distinguish between non-discursive uses and discursive uses of analogies and, within the latter, between explanatory uses an...
I distinguish four current strategies for integrating a rhetorical perspective within normative models for argumentation.
Then I propose and argue for a fifth one by defending a conception of acts of arguing as having a rhetorical dimension that
provides conditions for characterizing good argumentation, understood as argumentation that justifies a...
I propose a characterization of the dialectical dimension of argumentation by considering the activity of arguing as involving
a “second order intersubjectivity”. I argue that argumentative communication enables this kind of intersubjectivity as a matter
of the recursive nature of acts of arguing—both as justificatory and as persuasive devices. Cal...
I defend a conception of Logic as normative for the sort of activities in which inferences super-vene, namely, reasoning and arguing. Toulmin's criticism of formal logic will be our framework to shape the idea that in order to make sense of Logic as normative, we should con-ceive it as a discipline devoted to the layout of arguments, understood as...
El ideal deductivista de justificación está abocado al escepticismo sobre la confiabilidad de nuestros razonamientos. Este ideal se apoya en una concepción de la validez formal como condición necesaria para la bondad argumental. En este trabajo se propone una alternativa al formalismo para dar sentido a la idea de justificación al margen del ideal...
In The Uses of Argument, Toulmin proposed a distinction between fielddependent and field-invariant standards for argument appraisal that gave rise to a relativistic understanding of his theory. The main goal of this paper is to show that epistemological relativism is not a necessary consequence ofToulmin's model of argument. To this end, I will ana...
In The Uses of Argument, Toulmin proposed a distinction between field-dependent and field-invariant standards for argument appraisal that gave rise to a relativistic understanding of his theory. The main goal of this paper is to show that epistemological relativism is not a necessary consequence of Toulmin's model of argument. To this end, I will a...