Analysing Practical Argumentation

Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning

Volumn 10, Issue , 2016, Pages 39-77

  Brun, Georg ^a   Betz, Gregor ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Argument analysis; Argument mapping; Argumentation schemes; Practical reasoning; Reconstruction; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

EID: 85057019378     PISSN: 22149120     EISSN: 22149139     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (43)

1. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641.
2. Betz, G. (2010). Theorie dialektischer Strukturen. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
3. Betz, G. (2013). Debate dynamics: How controversy improves our beliefs. Dordrecht: Springer.
4. Betz, G. (2016). Accounting for possibilities in decision making. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 135–169). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_6.
5. Betz, G., & Cacean, S. (2012). Ethical aspects of climate engineering. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing. doi:10.5445/KSP/1000028245.
6. Brun, G. (2014). Reconstructing arguments. Formalization and reflective equilibrium. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy, 17, 94–129.
7. Brun, G., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2014). Textanalyse in den Wissenschaften. Inhalte und Argumente analysieren und verstehen (2nd ed.) Zürich: vdf.
8. Brun, G., & Rott, H. (2013). Interpreting enthymematic arguments using belief revision. Synthese, 190, 4041–4063.
9. Cheyne, C. (2012). The asymmetry of formal logic. In M. Peliš & V. Punčochář (Eds.), The logica yearbook 2011 (pp. 49–62). London: College Publications.
10. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning. Logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.
11. Elliott, K. C. (2016). Climate geoengineering. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 305–324). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_13.
12. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.
13. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
14. Gardiner, S. M. (2006). A core precautionary principle. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, 33–60.
15. Hansson, S. O. (2000). Formalization in philosophy. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6, 162–175.
16. Hansson, S. O. (2013). The ethics of risk: Ethical analysis in an uncertain world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Hansson, S. O. (2016). Evaluating the uncertainties. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 79–104). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_4.
18. Hansson, S. O., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2016). Introducing the argumentative turn in policy analysis. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 11–35). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_2.
19. Harsanyi, J. C. (1975). Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’ theory. American Political Science Review, 69, 594–606.
20. Jacquette, D. (1996). Charity and the reiteration problem for enthymemes. Informal Logic, 18, 1–15.
21. Lumer, C. (2011). Argument schemes. An epistemological approach. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–22, 2011. Windsor: University of Windsor. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/17/. Accessed 22.07.2015.
22. McNamara, P. (2010). Deontic logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford. edu/archives/fall2010/entries/logic-deontic/.
23. Morscher, E. (2009). Kann denn Logik S€unde sein? Die Bedeutung der modernen Logik f€ur Theorie und Praxis des Rechts. Wien: Lit.
24. Morscher, E. (2013). How to treat naturalistic fallacies. In H. Ganthaler, C. R. Menzel, & E. Morscher (Eds.), Aktuelle Probleme und Grundlagenfragen der medizinischen Ethik (pp. 203–232). St. Augustine: Academia.
25. Paglieri, F., & Woods, J. (2011). Enthymematic parsimony. Synthese, 178, 461–501.
26. Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518.
27. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
28. Reinmuth, F. (2014). Hermeneutics, logic and reconstruction. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy, 17, 152–190.
29. Rescher, N. (2001). Philosophical reasoning. Malden: Blackwell.
30. Rickels, W., et al. (2011). Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system? Assessing the climate engineering debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Kiel: Kiel Earth Institute. http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/scoping-report-climate-engineering.html?file¼tl_files/media/downloads/scoping_ reportCE.pdf. Accessed 22.07.2015.
31. Sather, T. (1999). Pros and Cons. A debater’s handbook (18th ed.). London: Routledge.
32. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundation of statistics. New York: Wiley.
33. Schefczyk, M. (2016). Financial markets: the stabilisation task. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 265–290). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_11.
34. Singer, P. (1988). Ethical experts in a democracy. In D. M. Rosenthal & F. Shehadi (Eds.), Applied ethics and ethical theory (pp. 149–161). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
35. Singer, P. (2002). Animal liberation (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
36. Skyrms, B. (2000). Choice and chance. An introduction to inductive logic (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
37. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2001). Argumentation structures. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 101–134). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
38. Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Steele, K. (2006). The precautionary principle: A new approach to public decision-making? Law, Probability, and Risk, 5, 19–31.
40. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument structure. A pragmatic theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
43. Walton, D. N., Reed, C. A., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.