標題: Titlebook: How Philosophers Argue; An Adversarial Colla Fernando Leal,Hubert Marraud Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under [打印本頁] 作者: 動詞 時間: 2025-3-21 17:32
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue影響因子(影響力)
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue影響因子(影響力)學科排名
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue網絡公開度
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue網絡公開度學科排名
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue被引頻次
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue被引頻次學科排名
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue年度引用
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue年度引用學科排名
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue讀者反饋
書目名稱How Philosophers Argue讀者反饋學科排名
作者: hieroglyphic 時間: 2025-3-21 22:30 作者: novelty 時間: 2025-3-22 03:13 作者: Acupressure 時間: 2025-3-22 06:30
Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argumentourism. Although noticeable points of contact appear now and then, none of the debaters take advantage of them and so the debate on the moral argument is as inconclusive as that on the metaphysical argument.作者: ASSET 時間: 2025-3-22 11:03
Argument Dialectiche logical perspective understands and evaluates arguments as products that people create. My analysis is logical in that it focuses on intra. and inter.argumentative relations, and at the same time it is dialectical in that it places at the core the relations of opposition between arguments.作者: cardiovascular 時間: 2025-3-22 15:16
Argumentation Structures and Operations simple or complex. Thus, e.g. the operation of concatenation yields a subordinative argument. The successive interventions of the participants in an argumentative exchange can be seen as applications of these operations, by means of which participants interactively weave a macro-argument in the course of an argumentative exchange.作者: 變態(tài) 時間: 2025-3-22 19:52 作者: 把…比做 時間: 2025-3-22 23:33
Co-Oriented Reasons and Modifierson stand of fall independently of one another, whereas in conjunction reasons add up. Consequently, disjunction may be a reply either to an objection or a rebuttal of an argument, while conjunction may be a reply to a refutation.作者: Proponent 時間: 2025-3-23 02:00
Intertwined Structurestive exchange. Every countermove amounts to the application of an operation that produces a new argumentative structure. In this way, an abstract structure formed by arguments and counter-arguments can be extracted from the argumentative process.作者: 純樸 時間: 2025-3-23 08:29 作者: BIPED 時間: 2025-3-23 12:37 作者: 變形 時間: 2025-3-23 16:40
Description of the Method Followedfew concepts are added to tie up the matter of questions with the fundamental concepts of standpoint and difference of opinion. Then the role of questioning within the ideal model of a critical discussion is tackled. Finally, all these developments are used to present an overview of the Russell–Copleston debate to be analysed in Chaps. .–..作者: 全國性 時間: 2025-3-23 18:10
Analysis of Segment III: Discussion of Copleston’s Religious Argumentopleston starts with a reasonably clear example of what he calls religious experience, Russell keeps substituting different kinds of experience which appear to be quite unlike that intended by Copleston. The debate is never really engaged in the original terms and slowly shifts towards the moral argument.作者: 小蟲 時間: 2025-3-24 01:50 作者: 子女 時間: 2025-3-24 05:47 作者: Obliterate 時間: 2025-3-24 10:28 作者: GRILL 時間: 2025-3-24 11:12
How Philosophers Argue978-3-030-85368-6Series ISSN 1566-7650 Series E-ISSN 2215-1907 作者: Hirsutism 時間: 2025-3-24 15:29
Introduction,tage point of two different argumentation theories, pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2018) and argument dialectics (Marraud, 2020c); next to justify why we chose precisely that text; and finally, to explain briefly the way in which we performed the analysis, namely by what is called "adversarial collaboration" (Kahneman, 2013).作者: 清楚說話 時間: 2025-3-24 19:50 作者: Complement 時間: 2025-3-25 00:51
Analysis of Segment V: Summing-Up of the Arguments but dwells especially on the metaphysical argument, which he considers the strongest. He also objects to the intrusion of formal mathematical logic in a metaphysical issue. Russell for his part rejects this objection and repeats the main arguments against Copleston’s position.作者: Delectable 時間: 2025-3-25 07:09
Fernando Leal,Hubert MarraudIs the first step-by-step analysis of a long argumentative dialogue.Contrasts two different argumentation theories as applied to the same argumentative dialogue.Examines the most famous philosophical 作者: 熱情的我 時間: 2025-3-25 08:12
Argumentation Libraryhttp://image.papertrans.cn/h/image/428676.jpg作者: braggadocio 時間: 2025-3-25 12:39 作者: Enervate 時間: 2025-3-25 18:29
Book 2022n Part II the theoretical framework of argument dialectic is put to work: argument structures are identified by means of punctuation marks, argumentative connectors and operators, allowing to see the argumentative exchange as the collaborative construction of a macro-argument. Such a macro-argument 作者: 后天習得 時間: 2025-3-25 20:38 作者: parallelism 時間: 2025-3-26 01:29
Fernando Leal,Hubert Marraudare integrated in order to redefine the way in which the val- creation process must be conceived and realized. BASYS 2010, which was held in Valencia, Spain, proposed new approaches in automation where synergies between people, systems a978-3-642-42254-6978-3-642-14341-0Series ISSN 1868-4238 Series E-ISSN 1868-422X 作者: meretricious 時間: 2025-3-26 08:03 作者: Spinal-Tap 時間: 2025-3-26 09:44 作者: 領導權 時間: 2025-3-26 16:17
Fernando Leal,Hubert Marraudhow human actors, emergent technologies and even organizations are integrated in order to redefine the way in which the val- creation process must be conceived and realized. BASYS 2010, which was held in Valencia, Spain, proposed new approaches in automation where synergies between people, systems a作者: 我不明白 時間: 2025-3-26 20:33 作者: Aviary 時間: 2025-3-27 00:09 作者: commute 時間: 2025-3-27 01:36
Fernando Leal,Hubert Marraude a conceptual framework to aid building control system designers in their tasks of specification, analysis, tests and changes of integrated building control strategies. The formal approach proposed can facilitate the development of complete integrated building automation systems, lowering their cos作者: 譏笑 時間: 2025-3-27 06:34
Fernando Leal,Hubert Marrauding customer needs but also by agile and fast-reacting networked structures. Flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness are properties that the next generation of systems must have in order to successfully support such new emerging trends. Customers are being attracted to be involved in Co-innovat作者: Madrigal 時間: 2025-3-27 11:01
toward more open and resilient spaces where innovation is driven not only by ever-changing customer needs but also by agile and fast-reacting networked structures. Flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness are properties that the next generation of systems must have in order to successfully suppo作者: 審問 時間: 2025-3-27 17:17
Fernando Leal,Hubert Marrauding customer needs but also by agile and fast-reacting networked structures. Flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness are properties that the next generation of systems must have in order to successfully support such new emerging trends. Customers are being attracted to be involved in Co-innovat作者: 絕種 時間: 2025-3-27 20:17 作者: 古代 時間: 2025-3-28 00:08
Introduction,tage point of two different argumentation theories, pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2018) and argument dialectics (Marraud, 2020c); next to justify why we chose precisely that text; and finally, to explain briefly the way in which we performed the analysis, namely by what is called "adversarial coll作者: wall-stress 時間: 2025-3-28 03:56
Argumentation Theories,hap. ., we need to establish a map of the different theories. To draw that map is the purpose of this chapter. Starting with the major fact of the lexical ambiguity of ‘argument’ in English, we propose to distinguish three major types of theory, as they focus on arguments as abstract objects (like p作者: 放肆的你 時間: 2025-3-28 09:38
Description of the Method Followedhe Russell–Copleston debate, and indeed in all philosophical argumentation. Starting with the way standard pragma-dialectics deals with this issue, a few concepts are added to tie up the matter of questions with the fundamental concepts of standpoint and difference of opinion. Then the role of quest作者: 證明無罪 時間: 2025-3-28 13:13
Analysis of Segment I: Start of the Debateerly fashion: in pragma-dialectical terms, we find here the confrontation and the opening stages of a critical discussion. A few elementary starting points, both material and procedural, are offered by Copleston and either accepted or rejected by Russell.作者: 衰弱的心 時間: 2025-3-28 16:23
Analysis of Segment II: Discussion of Copleston’s Metaphysical Argumentpleston calls ‘the metaphysical argument’, which he considers a proper proof. Segment . contains sixty turns (from 11 to 70), i.e. almost half of the debate. This segment starts with a complicated version of the cosmological argument, although other simpler formulations are later given. The discussi作者: 加劇 時間: 2025-3-28 20:37
Analysis of Segment III: Discussion of Copleston’s Religious Argumentr this argument nor the argument from moral experience are presented by Copleston as proofs but only as inferences to the best explanation. Although Copleston starts with a reasonably clear example of what he calls religious experience, Russell keeps substituting different kinds of experience which 作者: CREEK 時間: 2025-3-29 01:59
Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argumenterience to God’s existence. Very soon a big gap opens between fundamentally different conceptions of human moral life: Copleston defends a variety of the natural law tradition with some Kantian overtones, whereas Russell argues from a science-inspired mixture of emotivism, utilitarianism, and behavi作者: 改變立場 時間: 2025-3-29 03:04
Analysis of Segment V: Summing-Up of the Arguments but dwells especially on the metaphysical argument, which he considers the strongest. He also objects to the intrusion of formal mathematical logic in a metaphysical issue. Russell for his part rejects this objection and repeats the main arguments against Copleston’s position.作者: HOWL 時間: 2025-3-29 09:10 作者: Intend 時間: 2025-3-29 14:53
Argumentation Structures and Operationsration is a process by which two or more arguments are integrated into a single, more complex, argument. Many argumentative connectors are commonly used as signs of argumentative operations. An argumentative operation yields an argumentative structure: the arrangement of parts in an argument, either作者: Expressly 時間: 2025-3-29 18:38 作者: tackle 時間: 2025-3-29 23:38 作者: Hyaluronic-Acid 時間: 2025-3-30 01:34
Intertwined Structurescourse of the argumentative exchange. We might say, then, that argumentative structures are the static counterpart of the dynamic dialectical profiles, as defined by van Eemeren (2010, p. 98). Since dialectical profiles are made of moves and countermoves, oppositional relationships between arguments作者: 斜 時間: 2025-3-30 07:28 作者: 調整 時間: 2025-3-30 10:17 作者: 同義聯想法 時間: 2025-3-30 15:12 作者: Console 時間: 2025-3-30 17:28
Seemant Tiwarin for a specific user in an organization. First of all, we propose a new model which is called as safety community model in order to protect everybody in the organization. We build a target function orienting to the safety for everybody in the organization. After that, we have designed an effective 作者: 引起痛苦 時間: 2025-3-30 23:41 作者: ascend 時間: 2025-3-31 03:43 作者: 非實體 時間: 2025-3-31 05:16 作者: capsule 時間: 2025-3-31 10:31
Introduction,linguistic evidence. A supplemental approach to interdisciplinary scholarship is introduced. This approach takes into consideration what researchers can?learn about the past when archaeological and historical linguistic data agree and, significantly, when the two bodies of evidence disagree. The sup作者: 飛鏢 時間: 2025-3-31 14:24
Fazit,ei hinsichtlich soziodemographischer Variablen differenziert: St?dter, Befragte ohne Kinder sowie jüngere Menschen beurteilen ihre Umgebung h?ufiger negativ und haben einen schw?cheren Heimatbezug, mit steigender Schulbildung nimmt die Unabh?ngigkeit von der Heimat zu.
