Content uploaded by Douglas Walton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas Walton on Nov 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation
... The following example is based on the example given in Robinson's 1971 paper, which was discussed in many papers that were published in its wake. According to (Walton 1989(Walton , 1995, the second (initially implicit) premise was added by (Barker 1976). It was also given as an example of begging the question by (Hansen 2018) in his entry in the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4 . ...
... Step 13, however now comes with its own proof which depends on the conclusion at step 16 that God is benevolent, making the proof viciously circular. Steps 1-12 are implicit in the presentation of the argument by (Robinson 1971;Walton 1989Walton , 1995 and (Hansen 2018), and so this is just one possible way of filling in the omitted part of the argumentation. In this respect it is interesting to note that we were somewhat free on how we treated the assumption that God is gracious. ...
This paper tries to reconcile the clash between argumentation theory and formal logic regarding circular arguments, which are regarded as the fallacy of begging the question by the former, and a benign and useful inference pattern by the latter. This paper provides a formal system which can represent circular arguments found in the literature. The formal system makes it possible to distinguish two ways in which arguments can be circular. The first type of circularity, which is vicious, is when an argument is based on an inference step which is (indirectly) supported by that inference step itself. The second kind of circularity, which is benign, occurs when one of the premises is the same proposition as the conclusion. The first type of circularity implies the second type of circularity, but not the other way round. This distinction is in line with other approaches to circular arguments. Analyzing selected examples from the literature shows the value of the formal system.
... Assessing informal fallacies enables the evaluation of arguments made in a colloquial speech live discussion and is especially useful in a dialectical context. Indeed, the literature showed that familiarity with informal logic and the ability to identify informal fallacies is most useful in assessing arguments in everyday natural language and context [75][76][77]. Therefore, we perceive informal fallacies as a valuable method that teachers can utilize to facilitate discussions and assess student arguments in an SSI context. ...
As consensus towards teaching science for citizenship grows, so grows the need to prepare science teachers to pursue this goal. Implementation of socioscientific issues (SSI) is one of the most prominent theoretical and practical frameworks developed to support scientific literacy and preparing students as informed citizens. However, implementation of SSI holds great challenges for science teachers. Longitudinal professional development (PD) programs were designed to overcome these barriers, yet at the same time many educational systems lack the resources, both in terms of budget and time to meet such intense programs. In this paper, we introduce a design of a short-term PD course that was conducted in Israel. The PD was specifically tailored for secondary school science teachers, with the goal to support them in implementing SSI. Employing an educational design research framework, we tested our PD design over a span of three consecutive years. Through an iterative design process, we were able to make modifications to the program based on data collected and analyzed from the previous year. The structure of the PD is based on four SSI aspects: (a) introduction to SSI, (b) argumentation in SSI context, (c) SSI operationalization, and (d) science communication. In this paper, we provide detailed explanations for each of these aspects, justify the changes made to the PD design, and highlight both promising and less effective strategies for engaging teachers in SSI. Ultimately, we propose a comprehensive SSI PD model that can effectively prepare teachers to take their initial steps in implementing SSI, while remaining adaptable to diverse educational systems.
... In many of Walton's works as well as publications with Krabbe (Walton 1987;1989a;1989b;1992b;Walton and Krabbe 1995), the rhetorical/forensic debate or -as it is later called -debate (without a prefix) is mentioned. It is important to examine this dialogue type as its characteristics are similar to those of a political debate. ...
This paper examines the relevance of moral emotional appeals in the mixed dialogue type of public debates between politicians about environmentalism, relying on the concepts of goals and emotional appeals from the informal logical tradition. This paper argues that if argumentative moves are evaluated according to the action-producing dialogue type’s collective goal which could be pressing for action on environmentalism, and politicians take on the role of emotional entrepreneurs, then moral emotional appeals by politicians could evoke moral emotions in the audience, thus encouraging them to become more environmentally friendly. The influence of moral emotions on individual sustainable choices is based on empirical research from political and environmental sciences. Résumé: Cet article examine la pertinence des appels émotionnels moraux dans les débats publics de type dialogue mixte entre politiciens sur l'environnementalisme, en s'appuyant sur les concepts d'objectifs et d'appels émotionnels issus de la tradition de la logique non formelle. Cet article soutient que si les démarches argumentatives sont évaluées en fonction de l'objectif collectif du dialogue productif d'action, qui pourrait inciter à agir en faveur de l'environnementalisme, et si les politiciens assument le rôle d'entrepreneurs émotionnels, alors les appels émotionnels moraux des politiciens pourraient susciter des émotions morales chez le public, l'incitant ainsi à devenir plus respectueux de l'environnement. L'influence des émotions morales sur les choix individuels durables est fondée sur des recherches empiriques en sciences politiques et environnementales.
... The notion of debate types is much less emphasised in pragma-dialectics than the other key concepts of our analysis above since in contrast e.g. with Walton (1989)'s typology, pragma-dialectics does not differentiate types of debates but analyses and evaluates all debates in accordance with the rules of the ideal model of critical dialogue. However, the role of the social-institutional context and its relevance for argumentation is central for pragma-dialectics as well, since it also considers debates as conventionalised communicative practices and institutional constraints (van Eemeren et al. 2014, pp. ...
In pragma-dialectics, a study of legal reasoning analyses judicial judgements’ dialectical and rhetorical aspects. Most analytical studies of legal reasoning focus on the role of judges and their decision-making mechanisms. In our study, we focus on the strategic manoeuvring of the opposing parties. Depending on the context, parties may have to justify their decision to litigants, a professional audience, and the public in rhetorically and dialectically different ways. What makes strategic manoeuvring special in judicial trials is that rhetorical aims (winning the debate) and dialectical aims (convincing the jury), in contrast with debates where parties dialectically aim at resolving a dispute by reaching consensus, are not in conflict. We analyse the Depp ctr. Heard trial 2022, focusing on the parties’ dialectical potential in cases when rhetorical aspects play an important role in addition to objective evidence required by the legal framework. Depp’s party started the trial with a strategic movement we shall call as a ‘topical shift’, doubling their starting position, aiming at dual dialectical goals, and hence also beginning a new debate parallel with the apparently only one by introducing a not directly relevant factor into the debate. Although other factors also played a role in Depp’s victory, setting up his position in the confrontation stage this way was decisive for the trial’s outcome: Heard’s party, following a traditional route, joined actively in one of the dual debates only, effectively giving up the extra debate started by Depp. This way, analysing the trial offers wider consequences to how to understand strategic manoeuvring in judicial trials, and in general as well.
... Facilitative design could also be argued to include dialogue goals, which connects to the question of why one should argue in the first place (Schwarz & Baker, 2017, p. 78). Walton (1989) distinguished different types of dialogue according to their goals, arguing that they typically differ regarding the types of dialogue moves that are made. Schwarz and Baker (2017) therefore argued that one way of eliciting argumentation between students in the classroom is to give them instructions about what kind of dialogue they are expected to engage in before starting a discussion. ...
This article investigates the roles of the terms agreement and disagreement in teachers’ talk in Norwegian Grades 1-4 classrooms. Through an exploration of what teachers said and did when they used these terms, five different themes were identified in the teachers’ talk. The teachers tended to use the terms in relation to the process of discussion, the outcome of these discussions, and nuancing the idea of the nature of this outcome; as a function in conversation; and how agreement and disagreement are valuable in different ways. The key finding across these themes and patterns was that the lessons tended to be oriented toward consensus. This is problematized in relation to exploration and elaboration of perspectives, which is crucial for deliberation.
Successful politicians, to make their language persuasive, need to appeal to and target attitudes and emotions that are already within the audience. When the audience perceives that their beliefs are understood and supported, this means that the politician has succeeded in creating connections between him/herself and the audience, and the policy that he/she wishes to communicate. To be persuasive, politicians employ a variety of rhetorical strategies such as metaphors, analogies, repetition, contrastive pairs, parallel structure ...etc. that are used in varying proportions among politicians. As metaphors can reflex the way that we think and communicate in terms of images created by them, Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) has typically become the approach that adapts metaphorical analysis which aims to reveal the implied intentions and ideologies of language users. The purpose of this study is to reveal what kind of metaphors that were used by the USA presidents; Barack Obama 2008 and 2012, Donald Trump 2016 and Joseph Biden 2020 in their victory speeches, and how they employ these metaphors to persuade their followers about their statements. This paper has adapted the Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) theory Charteris-Black (2004) who gives three criteria regarding analysing metaphors; linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive criteria. The study has found that the use of metaphors as a tool to form social semiotics by politicians is not accidental but ideologically motivated to help politicians in manipulating linguistic resources to suit their interest. It found that ideological investments are derived by not only linguistic and rhetoric devices but also by the politicians' cognitive experiences. It revealed that using metaphors by politicians is purposive as these metaphors present information to persuade the reader to take a definite course of action due to the pragmatic function of 'presupposition' that highlights the information of the whole speech.
Der Beitrag geht aus bildungs- und kompetenztheoretischer Perspektive der Frage nach, wie sich Souveränität in algorithmisierten Gesellschaften bestimmen lässt. Hierzu werden relationale Subjektfiguren (entangled, circulated subjects) erprobt, die jenseits eines individuellen und starken Subjekts argumentieren. Sie sind anschlussfähig an gegenwärtige Diskussionen zum computational thinking, die die Basis für einen zukunftsträchtigen, kollaborativen Ansatz von Souveränität bilden.
This thesis studies the evaluation of arguments through critical questions within the Waltonian theory of argumentation schemes. In the context of contemporary polemics, I identify the central problems that arise from the concept of critical questions and analyze them in the perspective of both the classical Waltonian approach and two alternative approaches: logical-substantive and formulative. After assessing their theoretical adequacy, I focus on their underlying mechanics, which I then combine within a modified procedural approach; I then illustrate this synthetic modification with the example of a real-life argumentation of the Police of the Czech Republic. The final discussion deals with the formulation of the parameters of critical questions and the determination of their theoretical status in terms of the approaches examined.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.