•  178
    The aim of this paper is to make it clear how and why begging the question should be seen as a pragmatic fallacy which can only be properly evaluated in a context of dialogue. Included in the paper is a review of the contemporary literature on begging the question that shows the gradual emergence over the past twenty years or so of the dialectical conception of this fallacy. A second aim of the paper is to investigate a number of general problems raised by the pragmatic framework.
  • Informal fallacy
    In Audi Robert (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press. pp. 373--376. 1995.
  •  10
  •  742
    Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation
    with Fabrizio Macagno and Giovanni Sartor
    Law and Philosophy 37 (1): 69-115. 2018.
    The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal int…Read more
  •  1576
    Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidence
    Pragmatics and Cognition 19 (1): 92-116. 2011.
    Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines his conclusion and what…Read more
  •  710
    Emotive Language in Argumentation
    Cambridge University Press. 2014.
    This book analyzes the uses of emotive language and redefinitions from pragmatic, dialectical, epistemic and rhetorical perspectives, investigating the relationship between emotions, persuasion and meaning, and focusing on the implicit dimension of the use of a word and its dialectical effects. It offers a method for evaluating the persuasive and manipulative uses of emotive language in ordinary and political discourse. Through the analysis of political speeches and legal arguments, the book off…Read more
  • Modal logic and agency
    Logique Et Analyse 69 (70): 103-111. 1975.
  •  130
    Argument from appearance: a new argumentation scheme
    Logique Et Analyse 195 (2006): 319-340. 2006.
  •  42
    The traditional fallacy of many questions, also known as the fallacy of complex question, illustrated by the question, "Have you stopped sexually harassing your students?", has been known since ancient times, but is still alive and well. What is of practical importance about this fallacy is that it represents a tactic of entrapment that is very common in everyday argumentation, as well as in special kinds of argumentation like that in a legal trial or a parliamentary debate. The tactic combines …Read more
  • John E. McPeck, Critical Thinking and Education (review)
    Philosophy in Review 3 242-244. 1983.
  •  28
    In this paper, a case study is conducted to test the capability of the Carneades Argumentation System to model the argumentation in a case where forensic evidence was collected in an investigation triggered by a conflict among art experts on the attribution of a painting to Leonardo da Vinci. A claim that a portrait of a young woman in a Renaissance dress could be attributed to da Vinci was initially dismissed by art experts. Forensic investigations were carried out, and evidence was collected b…Read more
  •  252
    Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning
    with Erik C. W. Krabbe
    State University of New York Press. 1995.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies
  •  577
    The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the relationship between persuasive definition and common knowledge (propositions generally accepted and not subject to dispute in a discussion). We interpret the gap between common knowledge and persuasive definition (PD) in terms of potential disagreements: PDs are conceived as implicit arguments to win a potential conflict. Persuasive definitions are analyzed as arguments instantiating two argumentation schemes, argument from classification and arg…Read more
  •  51
    Rules for reasoning from knowledge and lack of knowledge
    Philosophia 34 (3): 355-376. 2006.
    In this paper, the traditional view that argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy is challenged, and lessons are drawn on how to model inferences drawn from knowledge in combination with ones drawn from lack of knowledge. Five defeasible rules for evaluating knowledge-based arguments that apply to inferences drawn under conditions of lack of knowledge are formulated. They are the veridicality rule, the consistency of knowledge rule, the closure of knowledge rule, the rule of refutation and…Read more
  •  7
    Appeal to Popular Opinion
    Pennsylvania State University Press. 1999.
    Arguments from popular opinion have long been regarded with suspicion, and in most logic textbooks the _ad populum _argument is classified as a fallacy. Douglas Walton now asks whether this negative evaluation is always justified, particularly in a democratic system where decisions are based on majority opinion. In this insightful book, Walton maintains that there is a genuine type of argumentation based on commonly accepted opinions and presumptions that should represent a standard of rational …Read more
  •  40
    Historical Origins of Argumentum ad Consequentiam
    Argumentation 13 (3): 251-264. 1999.
    What are the historical origins of the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from consequences, sometimes featured as an informal fallacy in logic textbooks? As shown in this paper, knowledge of the argument can be traced back to Aristotle. And this type of argument shows a spotty history of recognition in logic texts and manuals over the centuries. But how it got into the modern logic textbooks as a fallacy remains somewhat obscure. Its modern genesis is traced to the logic text of James Mc…Read more
  • It's all very well for you to talk
    with Erik Cw Krabbe
    Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 15 79-91. 1994.
  •  8
    Peter Ramus
    Argumentation 13 (4): 391-392. 1999.
  •  653
    The aim of the paper is to present a typology of argument schemes. In first place, we found it helpful to define what an argument scheme is. Since many argument schemes found in contemporary theories stem from the ancient tradition, we took in consideration classical and medieval dialectical studies and their relation with argumentation theory. This overview on the main works on topics and schemes provides a summary of the main principles of classification. In the second section, Walton’s theory…Read more
  •  34
    This investigation joins recent research on problems with ambiguity in two fields, argumentation and computing. In argumentation, there is a concern with fallacies arising from ambiguity, including equivocation and amphiboly. In computing, the development of agent communication languages is based on conversation policies that make it possible to have information exchanges on the internet, as well as other forms of dialogue like persuasion and negotiation, in which ambiguity is a problem. Because…Read more
  •  3
    Editor's introduction
    Argumentation 8 (3): 215-216. 1994.
  •  28
    On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion
    Argument and Computation 5 (2-3): 139-159. 2014.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclu…Read more
  •  19
    International Commentary on Evidence, 2006 Vol. 4, Issue 2, 1-47 . [link to online version posted].
  •  37
    The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
    Argumentation 16 (4): 473-503. 2002.
    This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called ‘sunk costs’ in economics and ‘argument from waste’ in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly empirical. The empirical part is carried out through the analysis of case studies of the sunk cost…Read more
  •  11
    Explanation-Aware Computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI Workshop, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Technical Report WS-07-06, Menlo Park California, AAAI Press, 2007, 1-9.