•  201
    Informal Logic and the Surprise Exam
    Informal Logic 22 (2). 2002.
  •  123
    Virtue epistemology was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about by arg…Read more
  •  108
    The problem of counterpossibles
    Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (1): 91-101. 1987.
  •  92
    Stalking the wild paradox
    Metaphilosophy 19 (1). 1988.
  •  156
    Virtue, In Context
    Informal Logic 33 (4): 471-485. 2013.
    Virtue argumentation theory provides the best framework for accommodating the notion of an argument that is “fully satisfying” in a robust and integrated sense. The process of explicating the notion of fully satisfying arguments requires expanding the concept of arguers to include all of an argument’s participants, including judges, juries, and interested spectators. And that, in turn, requires expanding the concept of an argument itself to include its entire context.
  •  238
    Evaluating arguments and making meta-arguments
    Informal Logic 21 (2). 2001.
    This paper explores the outlines of a framework for evaluating arguments. Among the factors to take into account are the strength of the arguers' inferences, the level of their engagement with objections raised by other interlocutors, and their effectiveness in rationally persuading their target audiences. Some connections among these can be understood only in the context of meta-argumentation and meta-rationality. The Principle of Meta-Rationality (PMR)--that reasoning rationally includes reaso…Read more
  •  214
    A Reply to Cahn
    Analysis 48 (2): 109-110. 1988.
    Steven m cahn, In the june 1987 issue of "analysis", Asks how a principled divesture of stocks is possible. Selling stock requires a buyer, So no net reduction of objectionable economic behavior results. Is divestiture merely self-Righteous cleansing of one's own hands? not necessarily. It is argued that divesture as a means to influence corporate behavior, And not just as a means to a clean portfolio, Can be justified.