scholarly journals Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Ad Hominem

scholarly journals Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-114
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Dialectical Structure ◽  
Ad Hominem ◽  
Ethical Character

Abstract This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.

The Use of the ad hominem Argument in the Works of Isaeus

2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-51
Author(s):  
Rosalia Hatzilambrou
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hominem

FACTS, NOT OPINIONS, DRIVE SCIENCE: A REPLY TO MORRISON

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-156
Author(s):  
PAUL CAMERON
Keyword(s):  
Gay Men ◽  
Lesbian Women ◽  
Ad Hominem

Accuracy is the most important aspect of empiricism. If investigators are clear about their method and employ it to generate ‘facts,’ their opinions are irrelevant. So it is of some significance that Morrison, who spends more than one-third of his paper attacking my motives — indeed accusing me of ‘hatred of gay men and lesbian women’ — does not dispute my findings. Strip away the ad hominem attacks and little remains.

Houses of cards

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 56-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Bergmann
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Domestic Space ◽  
Behavioral Patterns ◽  
Ad Hominem ◽  
The Past ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
New Information ◽  
Exciting Time

We have reached an important moment in the study of the Roman house. The past 20 years have been extremely active, with scholars approaching domestic space down different disciplinary and methodological avenues. Since the important essay on Campanian houses by A. Wallace-Hadrill in 1988, new excavations and scores of books and articles have changed the picture of Pompeii and, with it, that of the Roman house. Theoretical archaeologists have taken the lead, approaching Pompeii as an "archaeological laboratory" in which, armed with the interpretative tools of spatial and statistical analysis, they attempt to recover ancient behavioral patterns. The interdisciplinary picture that emerges is complex and inevitably contradictory. There is so much new information and such a tangle of perspectives that it is time to consider what we have learned and what kinds of interpretative tools we might best employ. Without doubt this is an exciting time in Roman studies. But two overviews of recent scholarship to appear this year, the present one by R. Tybout and another by P. Allison (AJA 105.2 [2001]), express considerable frustration and resort to ad hominem recriminations that signal a heated backlash, at least among some.

Desacuerdos profundos, elección de criterios y exigencia de coherencia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Julio Robledo Bordas
Keyword(s):  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Ad Hominem

Este trabajo trata de ahondar en la noción de desacuerdo profundo propuesta por Robert Fogelin, comparando la idea de Fogelin de que los desacuerdos profundos emergen del choque entre dos marcos o trasfondos conceptuales (e incluso vitales) con el concepto kuhniano de inconmensurabilidad entre paradigmas. A su vez, argumento que ciertos elementos de dichos trasfondos no son enteramente revisables por medios puramente lógicos (dándole la razón a Fogelin) y dependen de una elección voluntaria fundamental entre distintos criterios sobre los que hacer pivotar la propia posición (siguiendo a Alasdair MacIntyre). Por último, contra Fogelin, propongo un método de resolución racional (parcial) de los desacuerdos profundos basado en la argumentación ad hominem en el sentido de Henry Johnstone y en la argumentación por analogía, que llamo «exigencia de coherencia».

Argumentation and Incivility in Online Forums: The Case of Discussing Colorism

2021 ◽  
pp. 0261927X2110668
Author(s):  
Susan L. Kline ◽  
Tiffany N. White ◽  
Ralph J. Martins
Keyword(s):  
Skin Tone ◽  
Online Discussions ◽  
Online Forums ◽  
Ad Hominem

Conversation argument theory is used to analyze seven online discussions of colorism, a form of skin tone prejudice. Discussants’ comments (N = 587) expressed ad hominem acts (17%), reasoning activities (59%) and delimitors (e.g., addressed objections, 37%). Unlike general forums confrontation-initiated forums had more ad hominem acts. Posts with compared to posts without ad hominem acts had fewer reasoning activities and delimitors. General colorism forums were the most civil and developed, findings that have implications for designing online forums.

scholarly journals Commitment, Types of Dialogue, and Fallacies

1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Ad Hominem ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Informal Fallacies

This paper, based on research in a forthcoming monograph, Commitment in Dialogue, undertaken jointly with Erik Krabbe, explains several informal fallacies as shifts from one type of dialogue to another. The normative framework is that of a dialogue where two parties reason together, incurring and retracting commitments to various propositions as the dialogue continues. The fallacies studied include the ad hominem, the slippery slope, and many questions.

scholarly journals Ad Hominem Arguments, Rhetoric, and Science Communication

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-166
Author(s):  
Carlo Martini
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Ad Hominem ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
Rhetorical Tools

Abstract In this paper, I contend that evidence-focused strategies of science communication may be complemented by possibly more effective rhetorical arguments in current public debates on vaccines. I analyse the case of direct science communication - that is, communication of evidence - and show that it is difficult to effectively communicate evidential standards of science in the presence of well-equipped anti-science movements. Instead, I argue that effective rhetorical tools involve ad hominem strategies, that is, arguments involving claims of expertise. I provide a rationale, and sketch a methodology, for using ad hominem arguments in science communication.

scholarly journals Story Similarity in Arguments from Analogy

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Hybrid Model ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Abstract Representations ◽  
Argument From Analogy ◽  
Model Similarity

In this paper a hybrid model of argument from analogy is presented that combines argumentation schemes and story schemes. One premise of the argumentation scheme for argument from analogy in the model claims that one case is similar to another. Story schemes are abstract representations of stories (narratives, explanations) based on common knowledge about how sequences of actions and events we are familiar with can normally be expected to unfold. Story schemes are used (a) to model similarity between two cases, and (2) as the basis of evidence to support the similarity premise of an argument from analogy. Four examples of argument from analogy are used to test the theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document