Search Results

1 - 10 of 3,001 items :

  • "argumentation" x
Clear All

References Govier, T. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Govier, T. (1999). What is a Good Argument? In T. Govier, The Philosophy of Argument (pp. 107-122). Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press. Govier, T. (2010). A Practical Study of Argument. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cen- gage Learning. Hitchcock, D. (1999). The Thomas-Nolt Dispute: Some Lessons about Induction. Informal Logic, 19(2), 201-212. Kyburg, H. (1961). Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown: Wes- leyan University Press. Lambert K

References Aberdein, Andrew. 2006. ‘Raising the Tone: Definition, Bullshit, and the Definition of Bullshit.’ In George Reisch and Gary Hardcastle (eds.), Bullshit and Philosophy, 151-169. Chicago: Open Court. Amossy, Ruth. 2009. Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-discursive Approach to Arguments. Informal Logic 29 (3). 252-267. Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson. 2000. Informal Logic: An Overview. Informal Logic 20 (2). 93-107. Katarzyna Budzynska, Araszkiewicz

.1365-3121.2007.00742.x Hempel, C. G. & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15 (2), 135-175. Retrieved from Hofstadter, D. R. & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York, NY: Basic Books. Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 19 (1), 1-27. doi: 10.1007/s10503-005-2314-9 Kennaway, E. L. (1924). On the Cancer-Producing Factor of Tar. The British Medical Journal, 1 (3300), 564-567. Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1955). Selection

References Aristotle (1939). Topics (trans. E. S. Forster). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bench-Capon, T. J.M., Doutre, S. and Dunne, P. E. (2008). Asking the Right Question: Forcing Commitment in Examination Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, ed. P. Besnard, S. Doutre and A. Hunter. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 49-60. Budzynska, K. and Reed, C. (2012). The Structure of Ad Hominem Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. ed. B. Verheij, S. Szeider and S. Woltran. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 410

References Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2): 510-530. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y. and Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation, 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), Honolulu, HI, USA, p. 158. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S. and Maudet, N. (2000). Arguments, dialogue and negotiation, inW. Horn (Ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference

(8), 1763-1773. Flaherty, D.K. 2011. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 45(10), 1302-1304. Freudenburg, W.R., Gramling R., Davidson, D.J. 2008. Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry 78(1), 2-38. Galilei, G. 1638 [2010] Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Henry Crew (translation). Cosimo Classics. Goldman, A. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63

., Wieczorek, K. A., Witek, M., Wybraniec-Skardowska, U., Yaskorska, O., Załęska, M., Zdanow- ski, K. & Żurek, T. (2014). The Polish School of Argumentation: A Mani- festo. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argu- mentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press). Budzynska, K. & Dębowska, K. (2010). Dialogues with conflict resolution: goals and effects. In: P. Łupkowski & M. Purver (Eds.), Aspects of Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. SemDial 2010, 14th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 59-66), Poznań

). Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 21-24. Craig, Robert T. (1996). Practical-theoretical argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 461-474. Craig, Robert T. (1999).Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 21-29. Craig, Robert T. (2011). The uses of “argument” in practical metadiscourse. In Robert C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change (pp. 76-86). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Craig, Robert T. & Tracy, Karen. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of

RES 11 (1/2019), p. 180-198 DOI: 10.2478/ress-2019-0014 Forsaken or Not? Patristic Argumentation on the Forsakenness of Jews Revisited Serafim Seppälä* After the Shoah, the Catholic-Jewish dialogue has reached considerable intellectual depth, existential honesty, theological advancement and thematic width. The Orthodox Church, however, has hardly started its process of reconciliation. At the heart of the problem is the patristic argumentation on the forsakenness of the Jews, which in the Early Church was organically connected with the truth of Christianity

: Oxford University Press Heffer, Chris. 2007. ‘Judgement in Court: Evaluating Participants in Courtroom Discourse.’ In Krzysztof Kredens and Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.), Language and the Law: International Outlooks, 145-179. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics . Harmondsworth: Penguin. Macagno, Fabrizio. 2016. Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes. Informal Logic , vol. 36 (3). 309-332. Macagno, Fabrizio and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation . Cambridge University