-
34Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and ParticipationArgumentation 38 (1): 7-40. 2024.Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principl…Read more
-
39Practical Reasoning and Practical Argumentation: A Stakeholder Commitment ApproachTopoi 42 (2): 509-525. 2023.This paper examines the conceptual and terminological overlap between theories and models of practical deliberation developed within the fields of Practical Reasoning (PR) and Practical Argumentation (PA). It carefully delineates the volitional, epistemic, normative, and social commitments invoked and explicates various rationales for attributing the label ‘practical’ to instances of reasoning and argumentation. Based on these analyses, the paper develops a new approach to practical deliberation…Read more
-
62Connecting ethics and epistemology of AIAI and Society 1-19. forthcoming.The need for fair and just AI is often related to the possibility of understanding AI itself, in other words, of turning an opaque box into a glass box, as inspectable as possible. Transparency and explainability, however, pertain to the technical domain and to philosophy of science, thus leaving the ethics and epistemology of AI largely disconnected. To remedy this, we propose an integrated approach premised on the idea that a glass-box epistemology should explicitly consider how to incorporate…Read more
-
72How persuasive is AI-generated argumentation? An analysis of the quality of an argumentative text produced by the GPT-3 AI text generatorArgument and Computation 14 (1): 59-74. 2023.In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) in evaluating the arguments produced by an Artificial Intelligence text generator, GPT-3, in an opinion piece written for the Guardian newspaper. The CAPNA examines instances of argumentation in three aspects: their Process, Reasoning and Expression. Initial Analysis is conducted using the Argument Type Identification Procedure…Read more
-
32Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural ApproachArgumentation 36 (1): 61-84. 2021.In this paper, we formulate a procedure for assessing reasoning as it is expressed in natural arguments. The procedure is a specification of one of the three aspects of argumentation assessment distinguished in the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation that makes use of the argument categorisation framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments. The theoretical framework and practical application of both the CAPNA and the PTA are described, as well as the evaluation procedure…Read more
-
31Review of M. Spranzi, The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aristotelian tradition (review)Argumentation 27 (1): 89-92. 2013.
-
24Annotating Argument SchemesArgumentation 35 (1): 101-139. 2020.Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise(s) and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quanti…Read more
-
38Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific ExplanationsArgumentation 30 (1): 97-108. 2016.The practice of justifying scientific explanations generates argumentative patterns in which several types of arguments may play a role. This paper is aimed at identifying these patterns on the basis of an exploration of the institutional conventions regarding the nature, the shape and the quality of scientific explanations as reflected in the writings of influential philosophers of science. First, a basic pattern for justifying scientific explanations is described. Then, two types of extensions…Read more
-
98The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert OpinionArgumentation 25 (3): 329-339. 2011.In this contribution, I will develop a comprehensive tool for the reconstruction and evaluation of argumentation from expert opinion. This is done by analyzing and then combining two dialectical accounts of this type of argumentation. Walton’s account of the ‘appeal to expert opinion’ provides a number of useful, but fairly unsystematic suggestions for critical questions pertaining to argumentation from expert opinion. The pragma-dialectical account of ‘argumentation from authority’ offers a cle…Read more
-
20Abduction is a widely used but deductively invalid type of reasoning. In this paper I will develop a tool for the assessment of argumentation based on abduction that can be used to analyse and evaluate the type of argumentation as it occurs in institutionalized contexts like science and medical diagnosis. I will summarize the most important definitions of abduction and propose an argumentative pattern on the basis of a critical examination of two extant dialectical accounts of the argument schem…Read more
-
3Review of M. A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (review)Argumentation 25 (2): 271-274. 2011.
-
75Review of M. A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (review)Argumentation 25 (2): 271-274. 2011.
-
38Review of M. Spranzi, The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aristotelian tradition (review)Argumentation 27 (1): 89-92. 2013.
-
25Review of J. Crosswhite, Deep Rhetoric: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom (review)Argumentation 29 (4): 475-479. 2015.Recent scholarship in the field of argumentation theory has shown an increasing interest in rethinking the relation between dialectic and rhetoric. In the debate concerning this issue, some scholars take the position of ‘isolationists’. They think that fundamental differences exist between the two disciplines and that it is impossible to translate insights developed within the one discipline in terms of the other. Other scholars can be characterized as ‘combinationalists’. They take the position…Read more
-
37Analogy, Similarity, and the Periodic Table of ArgumentsStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1): 63-75. 2018.The aim of this paper is to indicate the systematic place of arguments based on the concept of analogy within the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, a new method for describing and classifying arguments that integrates traditional dialectical accounts of arguments and fallacies and rhetorical accounts of the means of persuasion (logos, ethos, pathos) into a comprehensive framework. The paper begins with an inventory of existing approaches to arguments based on analogy, sim…Read more
-
-
University of AmsterdamRegular Faculty