•  2
    The New Dialectic
    ProtoSociology 13 70-91. 1999.
  •  85
    Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes
    with C. A. Reed
    Synthese 145 (3): 339-370. 2005.
    The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown…Read more
  •  8
    Analogical Arguments
    In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Wiley-blackwell. 2013.
  •  17
    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
  •  892
    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
  •  39
    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
  •  10
    Abductive Reasoning
    University Alabama Press. 2004.
    This book examines three areas in which abductive reasoning is especially important: medicine, science, and law. The reader is introduced to abduction and shown how it has evolved historically into the framework of conventional wisdom in logic. Discussions draw upon recent techniques used in artificial intelligence, particularly in the areas of multi-agent systems and plan recognition, to develop a dialogue model of explanation. Cases of causal explanations in law are analyzed using abductive re…Read more
  •  6
    Journal of Applied Logic, to appear [uncorrected version posted].
  •  37
    Evaluating Corroborative Evidence
    with Chris Reed
    Argumentation 22 (4): 531-553. 2008.
    How should we evaluate an argument in which two witnesses independently testify to some claim? In fact what would happen is that the testimony of the second witness would be taken to corroborate that of the first to some extent, thereby boosting up the plausibility of the first argument from testimony. But does that commit the fallacy of double counting, because the second testimony is already taken as independent evidence supporting the claim? Perhaps the corroboration effect should be consider…Read more
  •  42
    It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks
    with Erik C. W. Krabbe
    Informal Logic 15 (2). 1993.
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situat…Read more
  •  41
    New Dialectical Rules For Ambiguity
    Informal Logic 20 (3). 2000.
    A set often rules is proposed for dealing with problems of ambiguity when interpreting a text of argumentative discourse. The rules are based on Grice's pragmatic rules for a collaborative conversation and on principles and maxims used to deal with ambiguity in interpreting legal and religious writings. The rules are meant to be applied to a given argument used in a given case, and to resolve (or at least deal with) an ambiguity in the argument (or affecting the argument) by using evidence deriv…Read more
  •  41
    The recent redefinition of 'planet' that excludes Pluto as a planet led to controversy that provides a case study of how competing scientific definitions can be supported by characteristic types of evidence. An argumentation scheme from Hastings is used to analyze argument from verbal classification as a form of inference used in rational argumentation. The Toulmin-style format is compared to more recently developed ways of modeling such cases that stem from advances in argumentation technology …Read more
  •  52
    Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes
    with Giovanni Sartor
    Argumentation 27 (2): 111-142. 2013.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by th…Read more
  •  47
    Commitment, Types of Dialogue, and Fallacies
    Informal Logic 14 (2): 93-103. 1992.
    This paper, based on research in a forthcoming monograph, Commitment in Dialogue, undertaken jointly with Erik Krabbe, explains several informal fallacies as shifts from one type of dialogue to another. The normative framework is that of a dialogue where two parties reason together, incurring and retracting commitments to various propositions as the dialogue continues. The fallacies studied include the ad hominem, the slippery slope, and many questions
  •  28
    Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues
    with Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon
    Argument and Computation 4 (2): 105-127. 2013.
    No abstract
  •  51
    A Bibliography of Douglas Walton's Published Works, 1971-2007
    Informal Logic 27 (1): 135-147. 2007.
    A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-20
  •  41
    The Argument of the Beard
    Informal Logic 18 (2). 1996.
    The essence of the argument of the beard (so-called by some logic textbooks) is the tactic used by a respondent to reply to a proponent, "The criterion you used to define a key term in your argument is vague, therefore your use of this term in your argument is illegitimate, and your argument is refuted." This familiar kind of argument tactic is similar to the much more famous heap (sorites) argument of Eubulides, closely associated with the slippery slope argument. This article provides a system…Read more
  •  34
    Classification of Fallacies of Relevance
    Informal Logic 24 (1): 71-103. 2004.
    Fallacies of relevance, a major category of informal fallacies, include two that could be called pure fallacies of relevance-the wrong conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, wrong conclusion, missing the point) fallacy and the red herring digression, diversion) fallacy. The problem is how to classify examples of these fallacies so that they clearly fall into the one category or the other, on some rational system of classification. In this paper, the argument diagramming software system, Araucaria. is us…Read more
  •  12
    Judging How Heavily a Question is Loaded: A Pragmatic Method
    Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 17 (2): 53-71. 1997.
  •  15
    This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their critical questions can be characterized as an extension to traditional dialectical systems. The aim is to construct a dialectical system in which the set of locutions is extended to include scheme-based moves the set of structural rules describes the roles that critical questioning can play; and the set of commitment rules distinguishes between exceptions and assumptions.
  •  30
    Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
    Argumentation 13 (2): 161-182. 1999.
    This paper makes a case for a refined look at the so- called ‘fallacy of hasty generalization’ by arguing that this expression is an umbrella term for two fallacies already distinguished by Aristotle. One is the fallacy of generalizing in an inappropriate way from a particular instance to a universal generalization containing a ‘for all x’ quantification. The other is the secundum quid (‘in a certain respect’) fallacy of moving to a conclusion that is supposed to be a universal gener…Read more
  •  49
    Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument
    Argumentation 26 (3): 369-391. 2012.
    Abstract   This paper addresses the role that argumentation schemes and argument visualization software tools can play in helping to find and counter objections to a given argument one is confronted with. Based on extensive analysis of features of the argumentation in these two examples, a practical four-step method of finding objections to an argument is set out. The study also applies the Carneades Argumentation System to the task of finding objections to an argument, and shows how this system…Read more
  •  7
    The Petitio: Aristotle's Five Ways
    with John Woods
    Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12 (1): 77-100. 1982.
    If one looks to the current textbook lore for reliable taxonomic and analytical information about the petitio principii, one is met with conceptual disarray and much too much nonsense. The present writers have recently attempted to furnish the beginnings of a theoretical reconstruction of this fallacy which is at once faithful to its formidable complexity yet useful as guide for its detection and avoidance. The fact is that the petitio has had a lengthy and interesting history, and in this paper…Read more
  •  55
    How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3): 177-239. 2006.
    In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to cou…Read more
  •  23
    Poisoning the Well
    Argumentation 20 (3): 273-307. 2006.
    In this paper it is shown is that although poisoning the well has generally been treated as a species of ad hominem fallacy, when you try to analyze the fallacy using ad hominem schemes, even by supplementing with related schemes like argument from position to know, the analysis ultimately fails. The main argument of the paper is taken up with proving this negative claim by applying these schemes to examples of arguments associated with the fallacy of poisoning the well. Although there is a posi…Read more
  •  33
    Action theory
    Philosophia 8 (4): 719-740. 1979.
  •  475
    Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes .
    Studies in Communication Sciences 5 (2): 1-22. 2005.
    We argue that common knowledge, of the kind used in reasoning in law and computing is best analyzed using a dialogue model of argumentation (Walton & Krabbe 1995). In this model, implicit premises resting on common knowledge are analyzed as endoxa or widely accepted opinions and generalizations (Tardini 2005). We argue that, in this sense, common knowledge is not really knowledge of the kind represent by belief and/or knowledge of the epistemic kind studied in current epistemology. This paper ta…Read more