Book Reviews by PAULA OLMOS
Informal Logic , 2018
This article reviews Christopher
W. Tindale’s The Philosophy
of Argument and Audience Reception
(... more This article reviews Christopher
W. Tindale’s The Philosophy
of Argument and Audience Reception
(Cambridge, 2015).
Copyright©PAULA_OLMOS Se permite el uso, copia y distribución de este artículo si se hace de mane... more Copyright©PAULA_OLMOS Se permite el uso, copia y distribución de este artículo si se hace de manera literal y completa (incluidas las referencias a la Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación), sin fines comerciales y se respeta al autor adjuntando esta nota. El texto completo de esta licencia está disponible en: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/es/legalcode.es Revista Digital de Acceso Abierto
Papers by PAULA OLMOS
Informal Logic, Jan 20, 2024
This paper is a response to H. Siegel's "Arguing with Arguments" from a rhetorical perspective on... more This paper is a response to H. Siegel's "Arguing with Arguments" from a rhetorical perspective on argumentation. First I address Siegel's concept of 'argument in its abstract propositional sense' and attempt to show that it is not at all an obvious object that should unquestionably be the privileged focus of argumentation theory. I then defend C. W. Tindale's rhetorical perspective on argumentation against some of Siegel's misreadings and also some of his legitimate disagreements regarding the relations between persuasion and rational justification and the way we should understand the source of argumentative normativity. Résumé: Cet article est une réponse à « Arguing with Arguments » de H. Siegel d'un point de vue rhétorique sur l'argumentation. J'aborde d'abord le concept siegelien d'« argument dans son sens propositionnel abstrait » et tente de montrer qu'il ne s'agit pas du tout d'un objet évident qui devrait incontestablement être le centre privilégié de la théorie de l'argumentation. Je défends ensuite la perspective rhétorique de C. W. Tindale sur l'argumentation contre certaines erreurs de lecture de Siegel ainsi que contre certains de ses désaccords légitimes concernant les relations entre persuasion et justification rationnelle et la manière dont nous devrions comprendre la source de la normativité argumentative.
Reason-Giving-Based Accounts of Abduction
Springer eBooks, 2022
Prácticas argumentativas: las conversaciones cotidianas y el discurso especializado
Los retos de la filosofía en el siglo XXI: actas del I Congreso internacional de la Red española de Filosofía, Vol. 11, 2015 (Simposio 1: Argumentación, filosofía y discurso digital / coord. por Luis Vega Reñón), ISBN 978-84-370-9680-3, págs. 53-64, 2015
Reason-Giving-Based Accounts of Abduction
Springer eBooks, 2022
Las prosopopeyas en la tradición del enciclopedismo alegórico. Un ensayo sobre retórica científica
The reception of Gödel in Spain
Vega Reñón, Luis, Introducción a la teoría de la argumentación. Problemas y perspectivas
Revista De Hispanismo Filosofico, 2016
Argumentation
This paper tries to offer a descriptive account of the normative workings of evaluative fallacy c... more This paper tries to offer a descriptive account of the normative workings of evaluative fallacy charges directed to narratives. In order to do that, I first defend the continuity and mutual dependence, as based on a dynamical conception of argument, between the ‘belief conception’ and the ‘argumentative conception’ of fallacy. Then, I construe a catalogue of ‘fallacy charges’ based on both such a continuity and the variety of counterarguments explored by the theoretical framework of Argument Dialectics. And finally, I apply these ideas and distinctions in the analysis of four examples of published texts in which the charge of ‘fallacious narrative’ is issued by a discursive agent against other discursive agents’ either full-fledged narratives or narrative assumptions. The analyses confirm some of the characteristics mentioned in the catalogue as well as the argumentative nature of fallacy charges, even when the censored discourse does not exactly or explicitly contain an argument. T...
Narrative Science
This chapter examines the criteria exposed by Stephen Jay Gould's original paper on just-so stori... more This chapter examines the criteria exposed by Stephen Jay Gould's original paper on just-so stories to sustain such a charge. I show that Gould's concerns were neither directed to narrative explanations nor were they ineluctably linked to their narrative quality. Then I analyse how advocates of narrative science have met the challenge. I identify two basic defensive approaches: the vindication of explanatory narratives in cases where the historical, contingent and causally complex nature of the phenomena demand a narrative approach and an unveiling strategy showing how there's a narrative behind each law-like generalization or nomological explanatory formula. The chapter's concentration on the argumentative moves of the discussants helps clarify their positions. Moreover, the argumentative quality of their object of study (scientific reason-giving practices) is also emphasized. I claim that the dialectical requirement of openness to collective survey and discussion is what may prevent just-so charges for any kind of explanatory model.
L\u2019Aristotele volgare di Concetto Marchesi
L'illustre latinista Concetto Marchesi si dedic\uf2, negli anni della formazione, allo studio... more L'illustre latinista Concetto Marchesi si dedic\uf2, negli anni della formazione, allo studio dell'Aristotele latino, in particolare per quanto riguarda il testo dell'Etica Nicomachea e i suoi volgarizzamenti in italiano. Viene ricostruita, in chiave di storia della filologia, questa fase della sua formazione e dei suoi studi
Kuhn (1977) considered that criteria for scientific theory choice function as values and not as r... more Kuhn (1977) considered that criteria for scientific theory choice function as values and not as rules what implies: i) the debatable character of their attribution, ii) the gradual nature of their compliance and iii) the necessity to weigh them up in a multidimensional values-based judgment. Kuhn also emphasized: 1) the agent-related nature of processes involving the "recognition of values as reasons" and 2) the non-algorithmic and open character of the "justificatory dynamics of science".
Commentary on Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’s “Unpacking the narrative-argumentative conundrum: story cre... more Commentary on Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’s “Unpacking the narrative-argumentative conundrum: story credibility revisited
Informal Logic
This paper is an essay on metaphilosophy that reviews, describes, categorises, and discusses diff... more This paper is an essay on metaphilosophy that reviews, describes, categorises, and discusses different ways philosophers have approached the justification of abduction as a mode of reasoning and arguing. Advocating an argumentative approach to abduction, I model the philosophical debate over its justification as the critical assessment of a warrant-establishing argument allowing “H explains D” to be used as a reason for “H can be inferred from D.” Philosophers have discussed the conditions under which such kind of generic argument can be accepted, and I identify five kinds of such conditions, namely: a) dialectical/procedural restriction; b) claim restriction; c) restriction over acceptable explanatory principles; d) balancing restriction; and e) epistemic restriction.
Making it Public: Testimony and Socially Sanctioned Common
ABSTRACT: Contrary to current individualistic epistemology, classical rhetoric provides us with a... more ABSTRACT: Contrary to current individualistic epistemology, classical rhetoric provides us with a pragmatical conception of ‘testimony ’ as a source provided to the orator by the particular community in which he acts. In order to count as usable ‘testimony’, any linguistic instance must comply with specific rules of social sanction. A deliberate attention to the social practices in which ‘testimony ’ is given and assessed may provide us with a more accurate view of its epistemological role.
Abstract: Contrary to current individualistic epistemology, Classical rhetoric provides us with a... more Abstract: Contrary to current individualistic epistemology, Classical rhetoric provides us with a pragmatical and particularly dynamic conception of ‘testimony ’ as a source made available for the orator by the particular community in which she acts. In order to count as usable testimony, a testimony to which one could appeal in further communications, any discourse must comply with specific rules of social sanction. A deliberate attention to the social practices in which testimony is given and assessed may offer us a more accurate view of its epistemological role. Résumé: Contrairement à l’épistémologie individualiste courante, la rhétorique classique nous apporte une conception pragmatique et particulièrement dynamique du « témoignage » : c’est une source rendue disponible à l’orateur par sa communauté. Un témoignage légitime auquel nous pouvons faire appel dans nos entretiens doit se conformer à des règles spécifiques de sanction sociale. Une attention délibérée sur les pratiques...
as an Instrument For Evaluative Rationality. Another Lesson from Aristotle
The problems of deep disagreements, in- compatibility and incommensurability between political pr... more The problems of deep disagreements, in- compatibility and incommensurability between political proposals in a society that favors value-diversity and value-plurality, have led some authors to assume that de- liberative processes may only be conducted in terms of an instrumental, means-ends rationality. However M. Finoc- chiaro has recently suggested that meta-argumentation may be an efficient instrument "for rationally resolving deep disagreements and fierce standoffs". It is quite evi - dent that we can consider as meta-argumentative some discursive models offering an evaluative weighing of dif- ferent arguments. Precisely in the section of his Rhetoric specifically dedicated to the deliberative genre ( genos symbouleutikon) Aristotle shows his full consciousness about the relevance of this type of discursive model. Book I, chapters 4-7 explain among other things how common it is to meta-argue in deliberations over proposals of col- lective action, weighing reasons in ord...
Euge, Graeculi nostri! Greek Scholars among Latin Connoisseurs in Macrobius' Saturnalia
Uploads
Book Reviews by PAULA OLMOS
W. Tindale’s The Philosophy
of Argument and Audience Reception
(Cambridge, 2015).
Papers by PAULA OLMOS