scholarly journals Discovering Warrants in Political Argumentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-676
Author(s):  
Irmtraud Gallhofer ◽  
Willem Saris

Philosophers deny a proposal for actions can be deduced from arguments for or against the proposal because they may be incompatible. Nevertheless, people in general, and politicians especially, make decisions and present arguments they believe are convincing. We studied politicians who made decisions in complex situations. They spoke about possible actions, their consequences, the probabilities of these consequences and their evaluations, but rarely indicated why their arguments led to their choice. We hypothesized implicit argumentation rules involved and checked whether they predicted those choices. We found seven implicit informal logic rules involved. We also found a random sample of people made the same choices based on the same arguments, suggesting basic warrants by which people argue about decisions.

Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Jones ◽  
Leonardo De la Torre

The increasing difficulty of return migration and the demands for assimilation into host societies suggest a long-term cutting of ties to origin areas—likely accentuated in the Bolivian case by the recent shift in destinations from Argentina to the US and Spain. Making use of a stratified random sample of 417 families as well as ethnographic interviews in the provinces of Punata, Esteban Arze, and Jordán in the Valle Alto region the authors investigate these issues. Results suggest that for families with greater than ten years cumulated foreign work experience, there are significantly more absentees and lower levels of remittances as a percentage of household income. Although cultural ties remain strong after ten years, intentions to return to Bolivia decline markedly. The question of whether the dimunition of economic ties results in long-term village decline in the Valle Alto remains an unanswered.   


Author(s):  
Alexandra-Niculina Babii

The digital era has determined a very easy creation and propagation of fake news. As a consequence, it has become harder for people to fight this malicious phenomenon. However, the only weapon that can have results in this informational war is critical thinking. But who should use it? The creators of fake news that do this for different reasons? The social platforms that allow the circulation of fake news with ease? Mass media which does not always verify with much attention and rigour the information they spread? The Governments that should apply legal sanctions? Or the consumer that receives all the fake news, him being the final target? Even if critical thinking would be useful for every actor on fake news’ stage, the one who needs it the most is the consumer. This comes together with the big responsibility placed on his shoulders. Even if others are creating and spreading disinformation, the consumer must be aware and be careful with the information he encounters on a daily basis. He should use his reasoning and he should not believe everything just because it is on the Internet. How can he do that? Critical thinking seems to be a quite difficult tool to use, especially for non-specialized individuals. This paper’s aim is to propose a simplified model of critical thinking that can contribute to detecting fake news with the help of people’s self judgement. The model is based on theories from Informal Logic considering the structure of arguments and on Critical Discourse Analysis theories concerning the patterns found in the content of the information.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document