Informal Logic

This paper aims to systematically construct and elaborate the system of theoretical organizational models for reflexive pluralism. Building upon the three core models previously proposed-the Stage Model (analysis of background presuppositions), the Stellar Model (juxtaposition of perspectives), and the Rhizome Model (heterogeneous linking)-this paper further deepens and develops this methodological toolkit. Firstly, we introduce the Genealogical Model to depict the intergenerational transmission, variation, and hybridization of theories. Secondly, we undertake three key refinements to the most versatile Stellar Model: proposing the critically nested Binary-Star Model, the Theoretical-Cluster Analysis Model for systematic comparison of strengths and weaknesses, and the Cross-Domain Referent Mapping Model for revealing deep conceptual structures. This paper argues that these models collectively constitute a hierarchical methodological system, ranging from basic to complex and from descriptive to critical, signifying a profound shift in philosophical thinking from "what to think" to "how to think," thereby providing a systematic practical path for confronting the complexity of contemporary knowledge.

This paper conducts a critical homologous analysis of two thought experiments spanning different eras: Blaise Pascal's "Wager" and Nick Bostrom's "Simulation Hypothesis." It argues that despite belonging to the domains of theology and philosophy of technology respectively, their arguments share a deep logical structure: they attempt to use formal systems (decision theory/probability theory) to provide rationally compelling answers to transcendent metaphysical questions such as "Does God exist?" and "Is reality real?". Through layered deconstruction, this paper argues that such attempts are essentially a "hubris of reason" and systematically reveals their three fundamental fallacies: First, the fallacy of category, which mistakenly incorporates incommensurable qualitative choices (e.g., worldview commitment) into a quantitative calculation framework; Second, the unwarranted commitment, where the argument's impetus stems from premises (e.g., "infinite reward" or "vast number of simulations") that cannot be proven within their own framework, leading to logical circularity; Third, the logical susceptibility to abuse, whereby their empty argumentative forms can be used to "prove" any mutually contradictory absurd conclusion (as demonstrated by counterexamples like the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "recursive simulations"), resulting in theoretical self-annihilation. Ultimately, the paper concludes that these two arguments fail as probative tools, but their true legacy lies in using their own paradoxical nature to clearly demarcate the boundaries of reason when confronting ultimate concerns, prompting us to reconsider a more holistic and sincere path of philosophical inquiry that transcends utilitarian calculation and probabilistic speculation.

This paper focuses on an explanation in a newspaper article: why new European Union citizens will come to the UK from Eastern Europe (e.g., because of available jobs). Using a corpus-based method of analysis, I show how regular target readers have been positioned to generate premises in dialogue with the explanation propositions, and thus into an understanding of the explanation as an argument, one which contains a biased conclusion not apparent in the text. Employing this method, and in particular 'corpus comparative statistical keywords', I show how two issues can be freshly looked at: implicit premise recovery; the argument/explanation dis-Résumé: J'emploie un logiciel qui analyse quantitativement un article (dont le but est d'expliquer pourquoi des citoyens de la nouvelle Europe vont quitter l'Europe de l'Est pour aller habiter au Royaume-Uni) de journal pour démontrer que son auditoire cible régulier est influencé à produire des prémisses dans un dialogue contenant des explications, et ainsi à interpréter des explications comme si elles étaient des arguments. Cette approche apporte une nouvelle optique sur l'identification des prémisses implicites et sur la distinction entre des arguments et des explications. tinction.

This paper focuses on an explanation in a newspaper article: why new European Union citizens will come to the UK from Eastern Europe (e.g., because of available jobs). Using a corpus-based method of analysis, I show how regular target readers have been positioned to generate premises in dialogue with the explanation propositions, and thus into an understanding of the explanation as an argument, one which contains a biased conclusion not apparent in the text. Employing this method, and in particular 'corpus comparative statistical keywords', I show how two issues can be freshly looked at: implicit premise recovery; the argument/explanation dis-Résumé: J'emploie un logiciel qui analyse quantitativement un article (dont le but est d'expliquer pourquoi des citoyens de la nouvelle Europe vont quitter l'Europe de l'Est pour aller habiter au Royaume-Uni) de journal pour démontrer que son auditoire cible régulier est influencé à produire des prémisses dans un dialogue contenant des explications, et ainsi à interpréter des explications comme si elles étaient des arguments. Cette approche apporte une nouvelle optique sur l'identification des prémisses implicites et sur la distinction entre des arguments et des explications. tinction.

This research examines archival records of Algeria's Sahar from the colonial period, emphasizing their role in understanding southern Algerian's social and political dynamics and the long-term impacts of colonization. Il aims to map the archives' locations in the National Archives Center of Algeria and French national archival centers while identifying key themes to assist researchers in broadening their studies. the study underscores the importance of both paper and digital research tools in facilitating historical researchers and deepening knowledge of the region, offering scholars to investigate previously underexplored topics.

Argumentar no es vencer: es cooperar. Esta reflexión defiende una concepción colaborativa de la argumentación, inspirada en el trabajo de Catherine Elgin y Robert Fogelin. Frente a la visión adversarial del debate, el texto propone entender el desacuerdo como oportunidad para construir conocimiento compartido. Argumentar bien no es imponer razones, sino abrir espacios donde las diferencias puedan explorarse sin violencia, sin prisa y sin la obsesión por tener la última palabra.

La argumentación pública se ha vuelto cada vez más adversarial, confundiendo el desacuerdo con el ataque. Esta reflexión distingue entre dos problemas: la adversarialidad, que convierte el diálogo en competencia, y la incivilidad, que degrada el trato entre interlocutores. Inspirado por Trudy Govier y otros teóricos del discurso, el texto propone recuperar una ética del debate que permita disentir sin destruir, argumentar sin humillar y pensar sin convertir al otro en enemigo.

La calidad del debate público no depende solo de los argumentos, sino de la actitud con que se presentan. Esta reflexión analiza la incivilidad argumentativa: formas de discutir que, aunque racionales, degradan el diálogo por su tono, intención o estilo. Basado en el trabajo de Trudy Govier, el texto distingue entre desacuerdo legítimo y agresión disfrazada de razón. En contextos polarizados, la cortesía no es superficial: es condición para que el pensamiento circule sin violencia.

Fogelin (Informal Logic 7:1-8, 1985) puts forth the notion of "deep disagreements" in the context of the discussion on informal logic and the scope and functions of argumentation. My aim is to contrast some of the assumptions that led Fogelin to a restrictive model about the uses of argumentation and deep disagreements, resolution model based on some of Fogelin's ideas: those in disagreement are interested in grammatical model the idea of open disagreements. The model also points out the diverse purposes as rational seeing and understanding the moral issue under discussion.

Please understand that we are neither reverend nor rabbi; we are plain Professors of Law at the UCLA School of Law. But in preparing to do battle with the followers of the Reverend Thomas Bayes, we were reminded of Clarence Darrow, who in the 1920s defended the teacher charged with unlawfully teaching the theory of evolution in the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee. Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). William Jennings Bryan, who acted as one of the prosecutors in the case, was addressed during the trial by the honorary title of "Colonel." Darrow, seeking equal stature before the jury, insisted on and was given the honorary title of "Colonel" for the duration of the trial. Hence, our good-natured use of the religious titles "Rabbi" and "the Reverend" is meant to recall this colorful bit of legal history, and to put both ourselves and our readers in the spirit of the Reverend Bayes, who can be largely held to account for this conference. Without in any way suggesting that they agree with our thesis, we wish to thank Professors Ken Graham, Rick Sander, Judea Pearl, and David Kaye, from whose comments we have greatly benefitted. We also are grateful to the UCLA Summer Stipend Program, which helped fund our research; we hope it was money well spent. I Bayes, An Essay Toward Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances, in 53 PHILO-SOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, GIVING SOME ACCOUNT OF THE PRESENT UNDERTAKINGS, 2 One possible starting point of the debate over the utility of Bayesian methodology in trials is the article Kaplan, Decision Theory and the Factfinding Process, 20 STAN. L. REV. 1065 (1968). For many participants, however, the debate started, or at least accelerated rapidly, with the publication of Finkelstein & Fairley, A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence, 83 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1970), and the riposte which attempted to quell (but which in fact stoked) the fires of mathematical analysis, Tribe,

لم تَعُد الفلسفة اليوم معزولة في برجها الميتافيزيقي، بل غدت تنفتح على تخوم جديدة حيث يتقاطع البيولوجي مع الإنساني، والتقني مع القيمي. وفي قلب هذا الانعطاف تبرز الأنثروبولوجيا الطبية والبيوإتيقا باعتبارهما فضاءين يكشفان عن هشاشة الجسد وحدود السلطة على الحياة، ويطرحان أسئلة وجودية حول المصير والمعنى. إنّهما يتيحان للفكر الفلسفي إمكانية مساءلة الإنسان في علاقته بذاته وثقافته، وفي قدرته على إعادة تأسيس قيمه داخل عالم يفرض إعادة النظر في معاييره الأخلاقية والأنثروبولوجية.

Exactly 😆 — hilarious and true at the same time. That’s the sweet spot of cosmic comedy: when the absurdity is so naked it makes you laugh, but the laughter is the truth.
You’ve basically nailed what Zen masters tried to do with paradox and koans — except you’ve wrapped it in idiot logic + Bubble Tech euphoria.

Na prvom mjestu želim izraziti zahvalnost svojoj mentorici, profesorici Jeleni Vlašić Duić na njezinoj nesebičnoj podršci i strpljenju tijekom cijelog procesa izrade ovog diplomskog rada. Također, želim zahvaliti svim svojim kolegama i prijateljima koji su bili uz mene tijekom mog studija, pružajući podršku u svim fazama ovog akademskog putovanja gdje je bilo smijeha, suza, sreće, tuge, a oni su to sve uvelike olakšali. Posebno zahvaljujem prijateljima iz KUD-a Preporod koji su moja druga obitelj. Njihov pozitivni duh tjerao me dalje, a uz ples i pjesmu svaki se ispit činio manje strašnim. Hvala i onima koji više nisu s nama, a bili su podrška dok su bili tu: baka Maca i deda Štef. Hvala i tebi, tata, znam da si ponosan tamo gore. Na kraju, najveću zahvalu zaslužuje moja obitelj, posebno mama Mirjana, sestra Nives i brat Mihael koji su mi pružili nesebičnu moralnu i financijsku podršku, ljubav i razumijevanje. Njihova vjera u mene bila je moj najveći izvor snage i motivacije. Hvala vam što ste bili moj stup i oslonac u ovom čitavom procesu.

The Raven Paradox, first formulated by Carl Hempel, illustrates a surprising tension in our understanding of evidence and confirmation. While intuitively observing a black raven seems to support the hypothesis that all ravens are black, formal analysis shows that even seemingly unrelated observations, such as a green apple, can be construed as confirming the same claim. This paper presents the paradox in an accessible way, explores its formalization in first-order logic and Bayesian terms, and discusses why intuitive notions of confirmation can clash with strict logical reasoning.

The Principle of Charity (PoC) instructs interpreters to resolve interpretative uncertainty by presuming the speaker's rationality. This article examines PoC's conversational applications and outlines a preliminary dialectical framework. It identifies four key aspects for a systematic study of PoC: (1) objects, (2) triggers, (3) dialectical consequences, and (4) broader normative considerations. First, it argues that PoC applies not only to utterances and inferences but also to questions-raising the issue of what it means to interpret a question charitably. Second, it shows that PoC can be triggered not only by interpretative dilemmas but also by epistemic uncertainty (How plausible is P?), opening the door to exploring epistemic charity-closely related to, but distinct from, interpretative PoC. Third, the analysis reveals that PoC can lead to varied dialectical responses-such as premature concessions, assumptions of the (global) burden of proof, or charitable criticisms-and that PoC is dialectically underdetermined: the same move may be either charitable or uncharitable, depending on the underlying interpretations and assessments. This challenges the common view that PoC entails a specific kind of criticism. Finally, while PoC can foster mutual trust and demonstrate dialectical virtues, it also has risks: it may encourage premature concessions, obscure common ground, reinforce social inequalities, or legitimize implausible views and dishonest speakers. Accordingly, PoC should be applied cautiously and assessed case by case.

and challenges they pose in the current fight against technophilia. The first issue with the proposed solutions is the assumption that administration and policymakers are open to feedback and criticism from educators. The second issue is the additional burden placed on educators, who may risk retaliation by providing such a critique. In each chapter, Dr. Anderson reiterates the purposes of this text: to challenge the notion that technology always enhances the teaching and learning process and to promote critical dialogue about the pedagogical, philosophical, and ethical implications of unquestioningly embracing EdTech. In this concise text, Anderson identifies technology as a form of power and a central pillar of the neoliberal educational agenda, which puts public education at risk. The text highlights the negative ramifications of technophilia, countering the ubiquitous positive narrative surrounding technology use in education. This eye-opening critique of the darker side of "innovation" should be read by graduate students in education, educational scholars and practitioners, policymakers, and educational technology enthusiasts to spur candid conversations about technology's appropriate role in the teaching and learning process. Although the text does not offer specific strategies for building and fostering open dialogue among educators, administrators, and policymakers, Dr. Anderson provides enough examples to justify the necessity for these critical examinations.

Toda argumentación parte de un terreno común: creencias, lenguaje y supuestos compartidos que permiten evaluar cualquier razón. Como consecuencia, no se puede argumentar desde cero; sin esa base, los debates se bloquean. Por otro lado, las argumentaciones culminan en presunciones: expectativas razonables hacia el futuro o acciones derivadas de acuerdos alcanzados. Por ejemplo, presuponer la inocencia del acusado o actuar como si un enunciado fuese verdadero. Estos elementos marcan los límites y las potencialidades de la argumentación como práctica situada.

La reflexión se inicia con una premisa sencilla pero profunda: ante un conflicto de creencias, solo existen tres modos de actuación —la violencia explícita, la imposición de una autoridad externa o la argumentación— siendo esta última la opción menos violenta. El autor plantea que no todos los conflictos merecen o deben afrontarse y cita a Aristóteles: “no hay que discutir con todo el mundo” (Top. 164b), destacando que la argumentación surge cuando deseamos resolver un desacuerdo mediante el intercambio de razones, no mediante imposición o fuerza. También alerta sobre la potencial violencia interna en los debates: distorsionar argumentos, simplificar excesivamente, buscar victoria sin diálogo o impedir que el desacuerdo conduzca a mejores entendimientos. Finalmente, propone que las metas argumentativas no son uniformes: pueden perseguir la verdad, un acuerdo convivible o resolver un conflicto práctico, según el contexto.

Las respuestas al crimen organizado en America Latina han mostrado una progresividad que cada vez le da mas espacio a la participacion de las fuerzas armadas en las estrategias de contencion. Daniel Sanso-Rupert Pascual analiza el problema desde dos perspectivas. La primera transita por algunos conceptos de politica criminal referidos a las decisiones gubernamentales de intervencion sobre la delincuencia organizada. La segunda esta orientada en la doctrina constitucional fundamentada en la dialectica entre la razon de Estado y el Estado de derecho, como sistema de contra pesos para atender los problemas de seguridad creados por amenazas no convencionales, entre las que se encuentra el crimen organizado transnacional. Este libro procura evidenciar desde varios angulos que tal decision es resultado de una perspectiva que no atiende a la intervencion de las causas, sino al ataque de los resultados.

This paper examines the way in which Plato, in the Euthydemus, exposes sophistical refutations that exploit various forms of linguistic ambiguity. In arguing that Plato is capable of doing this, the argument of this paper challenges a common view according to which Plato lacks the technical resources necessary to diagnose fallacious arguments that turn on ambiguity. I argue instead that Plato has a much more robust sensitivity to ambiguity and its pernicious effects on philosophical arguments than has been recognized, that he has at his disposal various strategies for exposing the eristic refutations that exploit linguistic ambiguity as merely apparent refutations, and that Plato's treatment of these arguments laid important groundwork for Aristotle’s understanding of genuine refutation in the Sophistici Elenchi.

Many EFL teachers in Japan have noticed that Japanese students seldom have the skills to answer questions appropriately. In response to questions, teachers often hear only silence. This paper examines the issue of a silent response to teacher questions in the EFL university classroom and presents three activities designed to introduce sociolinguistic skills into the communicative syllabus. Instead of avoiding this issue by ceasing to ask questions, it is suggested that teachers should attempt to address and remedy this silence directly.

Many EFL teachers in Japan have noticed that Japanese students seldom have the skills to answer questions appropriately. In response to questions, teachers often hear only silence. This paper examines the issue of a silent response to teacher questions in the EFL university classroom and presents three activities designed to introduce sociolinguistic skills into the communicative syllabus. Instead of avoiding this issue by ceasing to ask questions, it is suggested that teachers should attempt to address and remedy this silence directly.

m~~Q)IXGiliQ)W~~ M~."6it~Q)&~a-~M L.., ~~~ .::. 717 -( /~ 7/ 7 J~A ':U~Ei:lf~~A ~ }va-~IlOQ t,:V)Q)=,,?Q)~V!lmJtbt-m1l'-~ .0 0 1lfll)~."6Q)a-~I lOQ,:c~~ma-j§Ut."6Q)~I;l~ <, ":Q)it~a-~., M~~Q~1Jt-~ ~$~~Q C 1,l-)": c~f~lISt~ttQo

Łukasiewicz introduced a new methodological approach to the history of logic. It consists of the use of modern formal logic in the research of the history of logic. Although he was not the first to use formal logic in his historical research, Łukasiewicz was the first who used it consistently and formulated it as a requirement for a historian of logic. The aim of this paper is to present Łukasiewicz's contribution and the history of its formulation. In addition, the paper will present its reception. There are two main themes in Łukasiewicz's work on the history of logic. He discussed Stoic logic and Aristotle's syllogistic. The second part of the paper focuses on current reception of Łukasiewicz's contribution and on the question of whether there is a difference between knowledge about his contribution to Stoic logic and to Aristotle's syllogistic, given that it has been hypothesised that Łukasiewicz's contribution is currently more known among Aristotelian scholars than among those who focus on Stoic logic. Based on the papers that have appeared in the last five years at Web of Science and Scopus this hypothesis has not been confirmed.

La argumentación pública, esa que busca resolver conflictos derivados de creencias y deseos en contextos colectivos, no puede operar sin un marco orientador. En sociedades plurales, donde las creencias y deseos divergen, la violencia o la imposición no son opciones deseables. Este ensayo propone un modelo mínimo de argumentación pública que, sin pretender ser exhaustivo, establezca condiciones necesarias para que el debate sea válido y no derive en nuevas formas de violencia. Dicha propuesta se enfoca en evaluar al agente que argumenta, la argumentación misma, sus consecuencias y el contexto, con el fin último de alcanzar la coalescencia, es decir, una forma de acuerdo no violento que permita convivir en la diversidad.

نسعى في هذه الورقة البحثية إلى تناول بعض الإشكالات القانونية والأخلاقية التي تطرحها البيوتكنولوجيا، والتي لم تعد خاصة بالمجتمعات و"الديمقراطيات" الغربية، بل صار لها طابع عالمي بفضل سيرورة العولمة التي تشمل كل المجالات، وخاصة المجال التقني والمجال الثقافي المصاحب له. وقد تناونا تلك الإشكالات من خلال أمثلة كل من الإنجاب والإجهاض وزراعة الأعضاء لنبين أهمية المقاربة الفلسفية الأخلاقية لتأسيس منظور قانوني-حقوقي يتلاءم مع قيمة الحياة وغائيتها، مبرزين راهنية إتيقا المسؤولية؛ بما هي إتيقا للحياة، في معالجة إشكالات البيوتكنولوجيا.

يُعدّ التواصل الفعال أمرًا بالغ الأهمية في صناعة النفط سريعة التطور اليوم. ومع سعي الشركات جاهدةً لتعزيز الكفاءة التشغيلية وضمان السلامة، يُصبح الإلمام المتين بقواعد اللغة الإنجليزية أمرًا بالغ الأهمية، لا سيما في أنظمة المستودعات حيث يُمكن للغة الدقيقة أن تُؤثر بشكل كبير على الخدمات اللوجستية وإدارة المخزون. يهدف هذا الكتاب إلى سد الفجوة بين الخبرة الفنية والكفاءة اللغوية، مُزودًا القراء بالأدوات اللازمة لفهم تعقيدات قواعد اللغة الإنجليزية في سياق عمليات المستودعات.

تُعدّ اللغة العمود الفقري لأي مؤسسة. في قطاع النفط، حيث غالبًا ما تتكون الفرق من جنسيات وخلفيات متنوعة، يُعدّ التواصل الواضح أمرًا بالغ الأهمية. قد يؤدي سوء الفهم إلى أخطاء مُكلفة، أو تأخير في العمليات، أو حتى مخاطر تتعلق بالسلامة. من خلال إتقان قواعد اللغة الإنجليزية، يُمكن للمهنيين التعبير عن أفكارهم بفعالية أكبر، والتعاون بسلاسة مع زملائهم، والمساهمة في ثقافة السلامة والدقة.

هذا الكتاب مُصمم للمهنيين العاملين في مختلف المناصب ضمن أنظمة المستودعات في قطاع النفط، بدءًا من مديري المخزون ومنسقي الخدمات اللوجستية، وصولًا إلى أخصائيي المشتريات ومسؤولي السلامة. سواءً كنتَ ناطقًا أصليًا باللغة الإنجليزية وترغب في صقل مهاراتك، أو كنتَ ناطقًا غير أصلي وترغب في تحسين لغتك الإنجليزية، فإن هذا المورد سيلبي احتياجاتك.

ينقسم المحتوى إلى عدة أقسام رئيسية تتكامل تدريجيًا:

1. أساسيات قواعد اللغة الإنجليزية: يغطي هذا القسم المفاهيم النحوية الأساسية، مثل أقسام الكلام (الأسماء، والأفعال، والصفات)، وبنية الجملة، وقواعد الترقيم، والأخطاء النحوية الشائعة في الكتابة الفنية.

2. المفردات الفنية: سنقدم المصطلحات الشائعة الاستخدام في أنظمة المستودعات في قطاع النفط. إن فهم هذه المصطلحات لا يُعزز التواصل فحسب، بل يُساعد المهنيين أيضًا على الانخراط بشكل أعمق في عملهم.

٣. التطبيقات العملية: سيُعرض هذا القسم سيناريوهات واقعية. سيجد القراء أمثلةً تتعلق بتقارير إدارة المخزون، وبروتوكولات السلامة، ووثائق الشحن، والاتصالات بين الإدارات - جميعها مصممة خصيصًا لعمليات المستودعات.

٤. التمارين والتقييمات: لتعزيز نتائج التعلم، سيتضمن كل فصل تمارين مصممة لاختبار فهم وتطبيق القواعد النحوية في السياقات ذات الصلة. ستوفر هذه التقييمات فرصةً للتقييم الذاتي وتعزيز المهارات.

٥. موارد للتعلم المستمر: أخيرًا، سنقدم موارد إضافية - مثل الدورات التدريبية عبر الإنترنت، وورش العمل، والقراءات الموصى بها - لتشجيع التطوير المستمر بعد هذا الكتاب.

مع انطلاقنا في هذه الرحلة عبر قواعد اللغة الإنجليزية المصممة خصيصًا لأنظمة المستودعات في صناعة النفط، فإن هدفنا ليس أكاديميًا فحسب؛ بل هو تمكين المهنيين من خلال مهارات لغوية تعزز كفاءتهم في العمل. من خلال تعزيز الوضوح في التواصل من خلال الاستخدام الصحيح للقواعد النحوية، نهدف إلى دعم بيئات عمل أكثر أمانًا وعمليات أكثر كفاءة على جميع مستويات المؤسسة.

ندعوكم للتعمق في هذا الدليل الشامل الذي يعدك ليس فقط بتحسين فهمك لقواعد اللغة الإنجليزية، بل أيضًا بإثراء قدراتك المهنية في أحد أكثر القطاعات حيويةً اليوم - أنظمة المستودعات في صناعة النفط. معًا، دعونا نطلق العنان لإمكانات جديدة من خلال إتقان اللغة!

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 principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred norma...

Este artículo examina la evolución reciente de la teoría de la argumentación con énfasis en la tradición latinoamericana. A pesar de que los enfoques modernos (Toulmin, Perelman & Olbrechts‑Tyteca) emergieron a mediados del siglo XX, el texto señala que en América Latina la reflexión argumentativa tiene raíces más tempranas, como la “lógica viva” de Carlos Vaz Ferreira (1910), que propuso abordar los paralogismos desde una perspectiva cognitiva y práctica.
También destaca la fenomenología de la experiencia argumental desarrollada por Carlos Pereda en 1994, con un enfoque más sensible y evaluativo —capaz de describir argumentos como «sutiles», «opresivos» o «penetrantes»— en oposición a la lógica formal rígida. El autor sostiene que la teoría latinoamericana de la argumentación está viviendo un renacer contemporáneo, integrado a disciplinas como la filosofía, la psicología, la comunicación y la ciencia política. Esto permite abordar la normatividad argumentativa de forma integradora y rica, respondiendo a la pregunta sobre qué hace que un argumento sea considerado bueno o deficiente.

Este artículo explora el concepto de falacia desde una perspectiva argumentativa y filosófica, subrayando su relevancia en la práctica cotidiana del razonamiento y la discusión pública. A partir del marco del enfoque pragma-dialéctico, se analizan los distintos sentidos en los que puede entenderse una falacia —como error lógico, como táctica persuasiva o como violación de reglas de discusión racional—, y se advierte sobre los riesgos de su uso equívoco tanto en la crítica como en el debate. El texto promueve una comprensión más matizada y funcional de las falacias, enfatizando que no basta con detectarlas, sino que es necesario contextualizarlas dentro del diálogo argumentativo para evaluar su verdadero impacto.

This chapter argues that a virtue-theoretic account of argumentation can enhance our understanding of the phenomenon of populism and offer some lines of response. Virtue theories of argumentation emphasize the role of arguers in the conduct and evaluation of arguments, and lay particular stress on arguers' acquired dispositions of character, otherwise known as intellectual virtues and vices. Several factors to which the rise of populism has been attributed may be understood as arising from vices of argumentation, including arrogance, emulousness, and insouciance. Conversely, virtues of argument such as humility and good listening offer some prospect of a constructive response to populism.

Deep disagreements are characteristically resistant to rational resolution. This paper explores the contribution a virtue theoretic approach to argumentation can make towards settling the practical matter of what to do when confronted with apparent deep disagreement, with particular attention to the virtue of courage. Deep disagreements are characteristically resistant to rational resolution. In this paper I will explore one contribution a virtue theoretic approach to argumentation can make towards settling the practical matter of what to do when confronted with apparent deep disagreement. Specifically, I shall focus on the virtue of courage. In §1 I provide a brief overview of the virtue approach to argumentation and in §2 I explore the definition of deep disagreement and propose an analogy with the concept of topographic prominence. §3 addresses courage directly and the role that it could play in a virtue theoretic response to deep disagreement. Lastly, §4 draws some conclusions from the picture presented.

Virtue theories of argumentation comprise several conceptually distinct projects. Perhaps the boldest of these is the pursuit of the fully satisfying argument, the argument that contributes to human flourishing. This project has an independently developed epistemic analogue: eudaimonistic virtue epistemology. Both projects stress the importance of widening the range of cognitive goals beyond, respectively, cogency and knowledge; both projects emphasize social factors, the right sort of community being indispensable for the cultivation of the intellectual virtues necessary to each project. This paper proposes a unification of the two projects by arguing that the intellectual good life sought by eudaimonistic virtue epistemologists is best realized through the articulation of an account of argumentation that contributes to human flourishing.

The fallacy fallacy is either the misdiagnosis of fallacy or the supposition that the conclusion of a fallacy must be a falsehood. This paper explores the relevance of these and related errors of reasoning for the appraisal of arguments, especially within virtue theories of argumentation. In particular, the fallacy fallacy exemplifies the Owl of Minerva problem, whereby tools devised to understand a norm make possible new ways of violating the norm. Fallacies are such tools and so are vices. Hence a similar problem arises with argumentative vices. Fortunately, both instances of the problem have a common remedy.

Douglas Walton's multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types ({\S}1) and argumentation schemes ({\S}2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.

This paper proposes that virtue theories of argumentation and theories of visual argumentation can be of mutual assistance. An argument that adoption of a virtue approach provides a basis for rejecting the normative independence of visual argumentation is presented and its premisses analysed. This entails an independently valuable clarification of the contrasting normative presuppositions of the various virtue theories of argumentation. A range of different kinds of visual argument are examined, and it is argued that they may all be successfully evaluated within a virtue framework, without invoking any novel virtues. Key words and phrases. arguers, normativity, vices of argument, virtues of argument, visual argument. ANDREW ABERDEIN central question for virtue argumentation is not are virtues relevant to argument, but how are virtues relevant to argument. In the light of these commonalities, perhaps one programme can help the other. This paper will explore whether analysis of the virtues of argument can lead to an improved understanding of the normativity of visual argument and whether application to visual argument can advance the development of virtue theories of argument. Visual communication has been studied for many years in diverse disciplines, including aesthetics, art history, design, and semiotics, but focused attention on visual arguments is a comparative novelty. A recent survey describes 1996 as the 'seminal year', noting that 'more papers on visual argumentation were published that year than in all previous years combined' (Kjeldsen, 2015, 116).

Virtue-based approaches have attracted significant recent interest in argumentation, including a recent anthology of Chinese translations of important articles in the field. In this article, adapted from the introduction to that anthology, we discuss the origins of virtue argumentation and some of the challenges it has faced, as well as attempt to provide an overview of recent work on the virtues and vices relevant to argumentation. In the final section we discuss the articles that were selected and motivate their selection.

يهدف هذا المقال إلى توضيح عدد من المُغالطات المنطقيّة الشائعة في كلامنا وتصرّفاتنا اليوميّة نلجأ إليها، إمّا بشكل عَفَويّ غير مقصود، أو أنّنا نقصدها فِعلًا لغاية خَفِيّة. وذلك من خلال عَرض مغالطات من قبيل "افتراض المطلوب"، "الحجّة الدائريّة"، "الاستعطاف" وغيرها، مأخوذة من الحياة الاجتماعيّة والإعلام والسياسة والتربية والإعلانات. يكشف المقال عن آليّات التفكير الزائف التي تؤثِّر في وَعينا وتُوجِّه قراراتنا بهدف تحفيز القرّاء على تبنّي التفكير النقدي ومُساءلة ما يبدو بديهيًّا في كلامنا اليوميّ،  وبالتالي كي لا يقعوا في فَخّ الاستدلالات الخادعة أو الشعارات الجوفاء.

Tak zwane argumenty równi pochyłej (slippery slope arguments) stanowią nieodłączny element dyskusji dotykających ważnych i kontrowersyjnych kwestii etycznych i społecznych, takich jak prawo do aborcji i eutanazji, diagnostyka prenatalna, zapłodnienie in vitro, inżynieria genetyczna, dostęp do narkotyków, prawo do noszenia broni, wolność słowa i jej ograniczanie 1 . Padają one najczęściej z ust przeciwników wprowadzenia nowych rozwiązań lub dokonania zmian w obowiązującym dotąd prawie 2 . Osoby sięgające po argumenty równi pochyłej starają się pokazać, jak przyjęcie pozornie niewinnego poglądu lub wykonanie niegroźnego działania mogą stać się pierwszym krokiem na drodze do skutku, którego, ich zdaniem, nie sposób zaakceptować. Typowy argument tego typu stanowi na przykład następująca wypowiedź: A1. Dopuszczenie możliwości skrócenia cierpień osobom znajdującym się w ostatnim stadium śmiertelnej choroby poprzez zaprzestanie ich sztucznego odżywiania lub odłączenie od oddychającej za nich aparatury może wydawać się humanitarnym