Hugendubel.info - Die B2B Online-Buchhandlung 

Merkliste
Die Merkliste ist leer.
Bitte warten - die Druckansicht der Seite wird vorbereitet.
Der Druckdialog öffnet sich, sobald die Seite vollständig geladen wurde.
Sollte die Druckvorschau unvollständig sein, bitte schliessen und "Erneut drucken" wählen.

How Philosophers Argue

An Adversarial Collaboration on the Russell--Copleston Debate
BuchGebunden
472 Seiten
Englisch
Springererschienen am22.02.20221st ed. 2022
In 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.mehr
Verfügbare Formate
BuchGebunden
EUR106,99
BuchKartoniert, Paperback
EUR106,99
E-BookPDF1 - PDF WatermarkE-Book
EUR96,29

Produkt

KlappentextIn 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.
Details
ISBN/GTIN978-3-030-85367-9
ProduktartBuch
EinbandartGebunden
Verlag
Erscheinungsjahr2022
Erscheinungsdatum22.02.2022
Auflage1st ed. 2022
ReiheArgumentation Library
Seiten472 Seiten
SpracheEnglisch
IllustrationenXIII, 472 p. 248 illus., 4 illus. in color.
Artikel-Nr.49919825

Inhalt/Kritik

Inhaltsverzeichnis
Preface.- Introduction.- Chapter 1. Argumentation Theories.- Part I: A P-Theoretical Analysis of the Debate, by Fernando Leal.- Chapter 2. Description of the Method Followed.- Chapter 3. Analysis of Segment I: Start of the Debate.- Chapter 4. Analysis of Segment II: Discussion of Copleston´s Metaphysical Argument.- Chapter 5. Analysis of Segment III: Discussion of Copleston´s Religious Argument.- Chapter 6. Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston´s Moral Argument.- Chapter 7. Analysis of Segment V: Summing-Up of the Arguments.- Part II: An E-Theoretical Analysis of the Debate, by Hubert Marraud.- Chapter 8. Argument Dialectic.- Chapter 9. Argumentation Structures and Operations.- Chapter 10. Counterarguments.- Chapter 11. Co-oriented Reasons and Modifiers.- Chapter 12. Intertwined Structures.- Chapter 13. An Argument-Dialectical Analysis of the Russell-Copleston Debate.- Chapter 14. An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration.- Appendix: Text of the Russell-Copleston Debate.mehr
Kritik
"The book is a serious piece of scholarly work and a welcome addition to argumentation studies." (Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Argumentation, Vol. 37 (1), 2023)mehr

Schlagworte

Autor


Fernando Leal Trained in Germany in philosophy, classical scholarship, and general linguistics, he founded the first research center for the study of contemporary Mexican Indian languages. As a professor of research methodology, he has sought the unification of that field with the fields of academic writing and argumentation theory. He is currently working on applying pragma-dialectical theory to the study of philosophical argumentation in particular and academic argumentation in general. To serve that purpose, he is trying to put questioning and questions at the center of interest of argumentation theory. He is author of over 150 academic papers and has authored or edited over 10 books. More information at academia.edu (guadalajara.academia.edu/FernandoLeal).

 

Hubert Marraud From 2005 on, after a first period as formal logician, I work in Argumentation Theory. My view of the Theory of Argument is developed in the book ¿Es lógic@? Análisis y evaluación de argumentos [ Is it logic? Is it logical? Analysis and evaluation of arguments ] (Madrid, 2013). My position is characterized by:

(1) My definition of arguing as offering for examination something as a reason for another thing.

(2) The importance I attach to argumentative connectors and operators.

(3) The use of a version of the Toulmin model to describe the structure of arguments

(4) The attention given to counterargumentation.

(5) The advocacy for a comparative or topological concept of cogency, grounded on the notion of argument strength or weight.
Weitere Artikel von
Marraud, Hubert