標(biāo)題: Titlebook: Anyone Who Has a View; Theoretical Contribu Frans H. Eemeren,J. Anthony Blair,A. Francisca Sno Book 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Do [打印本頁(yè)] 作者: inroad 時(shí)間: 2025-3-21 16:33
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View影響因子(影響力)
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View被引頻次
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View被引頻次學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View年度引用
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View年度引用學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View讀者反饋
書目名稱Anyone Who Has a View讀者反饋學(xué)科排名
作者: 頌揚(yáng)國(guó)家 時(shí)間: 2025-3-21 23:11
,Toulmin’s Warrants, about it. And I respond to criticisms of the concept by (.), (.) and (.). Their criticisms show the need for some revision of Toulmin’s position, but his basic concept of warrant, I shall argue, should be retained as a central concept for the evaluation of arguments.作者: 聯(lián)邦 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 00:57 作者: Cupping 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 05:33 作者: Outshine 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 10:35
Relationships Among Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric,ive years or so, a flurry of activity has raised the profile of these questions in this community, particularly with the focus on how dialectic and rhetoric and their relationships bear on the identification, interpretation and assessment of arguments and argumentation (see the special issues of . edited by ., and by .).作者: 他姓手中拿著 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 16:56
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38418-0 a metadialogue relative to the first dialogue. It will be about this first dialogue and perhaps some related dialogues. Also, its primary purpose is to help this first dialogue achieve its end: in this sense the metadialogue will be embedded in the ground level dialogue.作者: 季雨 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 20:20 作者: visceral-fat 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 00:17
Problemstellung, Zielformulierung,insuperable difficulties. They propose, instead, that rationality be understood in terms of judgment rather than (or in addition to) rules. Govier criticizes some of my previous work on the subject for being overly committed to the classical model, and for equivocating on ‘judgment.’作者: 不可接觸 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 04:16 作者: 沐浴 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 06:23
Rationality and Judgment,insuperable difficulties. They propose, instead, that rationality be understood in terms of judgment rather than (or in addition to) rules. Govier criticizes some of my previous work on the subject for being overly committed to the classical model, and for equivocating on ‘judgment.’作者: Compassionate 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 12:20 作者: arthroplasty 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 13:52 作者: Guileless 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 19:48 作者: DUST 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 23:16 作者: scrutiny 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 03:36
Reasons,the “primary reason” for an action that consists of a belief and a “pro-attitude.”. Despite the variation in terminology, there is wide agreement that reasons for acting involve both . elements such as beliefs and . elements such as desires.作者: 鍵琴 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 08:57
The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burdeaddition to these technical ideas of presumption, as ordinary persons we share plain senses for these terms, and we commonly engage in practices which can truthfully be reported using ‘presuming’ and ‘presumption’ in their everyday meaning. This essay concerns the commonsense concepts which ordinary language attaches to these terms.作者: 檔案 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 11:44 作者: 責(zé)怪 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 18:45
The Pragmatic Dimension of Premise Acceptability, questions to be answered. We may do this overtly, if we are in a critical conversation with the proponent, or implicitly, should we be considering the proponent’s argumentation in the form of an argument as product. Here we note what burdens have been raised and whether they have been discharged. T作者: Finasteride 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 20:58 作者: 教育學(xué) 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 00:05 作者: 特征 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 03:28
Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions,n many cases, the organization of the premises of the scheme and the matching critical questions was obviously clumsy. For example, in some instances, it seemed that the critical question merely asked whether one of the premises was true or acceptable. Thus it looked like either the premise or the c作者: 盲信者 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 10:52
Legal Argumentation Theory and the Concept of Law,encased in the same legal order, follow precedents, ascertain and qualify facts, determine the most reasonable solution to the case at hand, and put forward justifications for their decisions. All such operations are argumentative. And lastly, in a constitutional democratic state the legislators, to作者: Chagrin 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 13:03 作者: myelography 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 17:24 作者: 發(fā)微光 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 20:21 作者: 鑒賞家 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 01:41 作者: Angioplasty 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 05:29 作者: 不足的東西 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 11:58 作者: LAPSE 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 12:51
,Terminm?rkte für Elektrizit?t,n many cases, the organization of the premises of the scheme and the matching critical questions was obviously clumsy. For example, in some instances, it seemed that the critical question merely asked whether one of the premises was true or acceptable. Thus it looked like either the premise or the c作者: 遺忘 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 17:00
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-99033-4encased in the same legal order, follow precedents, ascertain and qualify facts, determine the most reasonable solution to the case at hand, and put forward justifications for their decisions. All such operations are argumentative. And lastly, in a constitutional democratic state the legislators, to作者: 動(dòng)機(jī) 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 00:01 作者: 非秘密 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 01:28 作者: 得體 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 07:09
The Rabbit in the Hat, I think these rules individually, and as a set, have a great deal of intuitive plausibility in their favour. Therefore, in this essay, I propose to look at the rules more closely and ask where they come from, how they may be justified, and whether there is any internal connection between them as a group.作者: 觀點(diǎn) 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 10:02 作者: 過分 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 13:54 作者: Enliven 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 20:16 作者: 去才蔑視 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 23:52 作者: Scintigraphy 時(shí)間: 2025-3-28 02:18 作者: 協(xié)定 時(shí)間: 2025-3-28 09:23
,Z?hler für besondere Verwendungszwecke,f himself, than his alleged discovery of a new type or mode of logical reasoning commonly referred to as abduction. In a retrospective note written in 1902 Peirce in this respect even declared himself “an explorer upon untrodden ground.” (CP 2.102). Whether or not this boasting judgment was indeed justified, we shall have to see.作者: 混雜人 時(shí)間: 2025-3-28 10:38
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83519-3Since I originally proposed that arguments require a dialectical tier, many commentators have weighed in with objections and challenges. Originally (.), then (.), (.), (.), (.), (.), (.) and (.) — to mention just those who have gone on record with objections to that proposal.作者: 網(wǎng)絡(luò)添麻煩 時(shí)間: 2025-3-28 15:26 作者: 高腳酒杯 時(shí)間: 2025-3-28 21:57
,Terminm?rkte für Elektrizit?t,This presentation of the current state of argumentation studies in France will focus on four points.作者: 要素 時(shí)間: 2025-3-29 00:15
The Dialectical Tier Revisited,Since I originally proposed that arguments require a dialectical tier, many commentators have weighed in with objections and challenges. Originally (.), then (.), (.), (.), (.), (.), (.) and (.) — to mention just those who have gone on record with objections to that proposal.作者: 脫水 時(shí)間: 2025-3-29 04:01
Logical Fallacies, Dialectical Transgressions, Rhetorical Sins, and Other Failures of Rationality iWhen does . become .? Is it ever wrong to argue — making . a fallacy? Could it be a fallacy . to argue — the fallacy of .? If audiences are elements of arguments, is there a class of .?.. and . and ., as well as ., and . are all bad things to do in argumentation. Do they all deserve the name “fallacy”?作者: Cardiac 時(shí)間: 2025-3-29 11:12 作者: Relinquish 時(shí)間: 2025-3-29 14:26
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8Argumentation Theory; Nation; argue; discourse; formal logic; logic作者: 軟弱 時(shí)間: 2025-3-29 16:17
978-1-4020-1456-7Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003作者: 性學(xué)院 時(shí)間: 2025-3-29 20:41 作者: GUISE 時(shí)間: 2025-3-30 00:39
Tr?gheit des Magnetfeldes und Wechselstr?me This thesis requires some clarification. When critically evaluating an argument purportedly giving us good reason to accept its conclusion, we are taking the role of a challenger in a simple dialectical exchange. The person who put forward the argument is the proponent. His role is to advance an in作者: 承認(rèn) 時(shí)間: 2025-3-30 06:19 作者: 起波瀾 時(shí)間: 2025-3-30 09:14
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38418-0 I think these rules individually, and as a set, have a great deal of intuitive plausibility in their favour. Therefore, in this essay, I propose to look at the rules more closely and ask where they come from, how they may be justified, and whether there is any internal connection between them as a 作者: SOB 時(shí)間: 2025-3-30 13:54
,Terminm?rkte für Elektrizit?t,h a new set of terms: claim, data (later “grounds”), warrant, modal qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Toulmin’s scheme has been widely adopted in the discipline of speech communication, especially in the United States. In this paper I focus on one component of the scheme, the concept of a warrant. I arg作者: 講個(gè)故事逗他 時(shí)間: 2025-3-30 18:58
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38418-0or instance, let the ground level dialogue be an argumentative discussion aiming at the resolution of some dispute. Then disagreement about the correctness of some move in this dialogue will constitute another dispute which the parties again may try to resolve by dialogue. This dialogue will then be作者: Carbon-Monoxide 時(shí)間: 2025-3-30 23:49 作者: 瘙癢 時(shí)間: 2025-3-31 02:42 作者: instructive 時(shí)間: 2025-3-31 05:22 作者: 地殼 時(shí)間: 2025-3-31 11:54
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38418-0s is most prominently featured in the dialectical ideal of a procedure designed to achieve reflective inquiry, critical testing, mutual influence and consensus decision-making. Sometimes this value is embodied in the form of specific rules — such as those in the pragma-dialectical code of conduct (.作者: ALE 時(shí)間: 2025-3-31 14:29 作者: rectocele 時(shí)間: 2025-3-31 20:58 作者: 通情達(dá)理 時(shí)間: 2025-3-31 23:21
,Terminm?rkte für Elektrizit?t,gumentation schemes. The paper shows how argumentation schemes and critical questions should be fitted into the technique of argument diagramming using the Araucaria software system. This XML-based system provides an interface through which the user can mark up a text of discourse to produce an argu作者: 過時(shí) 時(shí)間: 2025-4-1 04:51
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-99033-4 what is ordinarily considered the legal domain involves recourse to reasoning.. Legal scientists put forward interpretive statements: they propose what they see as reasonable interpretations of laws and defend these interpretations with arguments. Both of these tasks require reasoning. Lawyers, whe作者: 首創(chuàng)精神 時(shí)間: 2025-4-1 06:06
,Z?hler für besondere Verwendungszwecke,ddress that topic when I responded to the paper he presented at the conference on Argumentation and Rhetoric sponsored by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) in May, 1997 (.; .). In that paper Johnson discussed some differences he perceived in the approaches of logic and rhetor作者: CRP743 時(shí)間: 2025-4-1 12:31
,Z?hler für besondere Verwendungszwecke,f himself, than his alleged discovery of a new type or mode of logical reasoning commonly referred to as abduction. In a retrospective note written in 1902 Peirce in this respect even declared himself “an explorer upon untrodden ground.” (CP 2.102). Whether or not this boasting judgment was indeed j
