Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument

The informal logic movement began as an attempt to develop – and teach – an alternative logic which can account for the real life arguing that surrounds us in our daily lives – in newspapers and the popular media, political and social commentary, advertising, and interpersonal exchange. The movement was rooted in research and discussion in Canada and especially at the University of Windsor, and has become a branch of argumentation theory which intersects with related traditions and approaches (notably formal logic, rhetoric and dialectics in the form of pragma-dialectics). In this volume, some of the best known contributors to the movement discuss their views and the reasoning and argument which is informal logic’s subject matter. Many themes and issues are explored in a way that will fuel the continued evolution of the field. Federico Puppo adds an insightful essay which considers the origins and development of informal logic and whether informal logicians are properly described as a “school” of thought. In considering that proposition, Puppo introduces readers to a diverse range of essays, some of them previously published, others written specifically for this volume

What Do We Know About the World? Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives

his book consists of selected papers delivered at “First International Conference on Rhetoric in Croatia: the Days of Ivo Škarić” in May, 2012, and subsequently revised for publication. Through a variety of different routes, the papers explore the role of rhetoric and argumentation in various types of public discourse and present interdisciplinary work connecting linguists, phoneticians, philosophers, law experts and communication scientists in the common ground of rhetoric and argumentation

Russell Kirk and the Rhetoric of Order

The corpus of historically-minded man of letters and twentieth century leader among conservatives, Russell Amos Kirk, prompts one to reflect upon a realist rhetoric of order for conservative discourse in particular and public argumentation in general. In view of building a realist rhetoric of order within the present spectrum of modern to postmodern thought, this dissertation project contains two related layers of study. At one level, the author both builds and departs from the realist approach to communicative epistemology known as rhetorical perspectivism toward a theoretical framework for the study of rhetoric that is based upon Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas\u27s legacy of classical realism. At another level, in light of the significance of Russell Kirk for the question of conservatism and postmodernism, from the vantage point of realism, the author considers Kirk\u27s view on imagination, language, and life as against certain aspects of Hans Georg Gadamer\u27s philosophical hermeneutics. This comparison, next to a rhetorical theoretical study of The Roots of American Order regarding the essential constancy of human nature as such through history, points to some avenues by which Kirk\u27s imaginative standpoint provides a way of taking the imagination as formative of communicative perspectives within and across rhetorical situations. For conservative discourse and beyond, within this age of epistemological skepticism and moral relativism, Kirk\u27s corpus provides for some ethical prospects for persuasion in terms of both argument and narrative, inclusive of the natural law as a basis for rhetorical ethics. In establishing parameters for a realist rhetoric of order, the author relies upon the work of Richard M. Weaver, who contributed to both movement conservatism and rhetorical theory during the twentieth century. In particular, the author embraces Weaver\u27s connecting of genuine conservatism to philosophical realism, notwithstanding some necessary correctives toward classical realism regarding reality and ideation. Although this project in large part operates within the realm of rhetorical theory, some implications for the practice, criticism, and pedagogy of rhetoric are highlighted along the way with respect to a realist rhetoric of order

Identifying with Conspiracy Theorists: Uncovering Rhetorical Questions in the QAnon Movement

Inspired by Kenneth Burke’s call to understand even the most distasteful rhetorics, this project directly explores arguments imagined by contemporary conspiracy theorists within the modern QAnon movement. After careful analysis of the rhetorical questions posed within “Q drops,” this project understands conspiracy theories to be a rhetorical act that narrates a socially constructed reality in opposition to an imagined or real “other,” recognizing the narratives to be the articulation of an inquisitive and collective positionality that attempts to provide answers to difficult questions. This definition guides my empathetic reading of the conspiracy theory’s origins, but also provides critique of the act as the creation of an often harmful narrative of division. The first chapter of this project analyzes the term “conspiracy theory” from multiple disciplines, including rhetorical studies. Next, I provide a detailed literature review of the scholars who have studied Q drops before me, finding that few scholars have taken on the task of directly analyzing the rhetoric. The third chapter details the methods and methodology of my study of Q’s drops, defining more precisely how Burke’s work on identification and dialectic informs the project. From there, I explain my findings, focusing much of my analysis on questions that begin with “how” or “why,” which represent the most common kind of question Q poses. The concluding chapter initiates a conversation regarding the role of questions in composition studies–especially relating to the way instructors generate writing prompts. I suggest that instructors of First-Year Writing pay careful attention not just to teaching students how to ask questions, but also to countering the impulse to generate narratives of division by facilitating acts of rhetorical listening, a method of deliberately considering arguments made by others rather than harping on the creation of one’s own, individualized claims

Technology argument frames : examining the impact of argumentation on the development of a health information exchange initiative

This dissertation applies the Technology Frames of Reference (TFR) theoretical lens to examine the implementation of a health information exchange (HIE) initiative in southeast USA. It extends the TFR lens by developing Toulminian argument maps to depict frame structure and employing the argument theories of Toulmin, Habermas and Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca to help analyze the role that argumentation plays in the emergence and development of the technology frames that characterized this HIE endeavor. The argument maps developed in this dissertation helped to assess the level of argumentation within frames and to compare argumentation across frame domains. The argument maps were also used to structurally depict changes in frame salience over time and helped to facilitate the discovery of a prominent “perspective blindness” or “perspective indifference” which was the key finding of this dissertation. Previous TFR literature has focused on dysfunctions produced by conflict/alignment issues. This dissertation extends this research by highlighting the role that conflict avoidance or frame apathy may play in producing these dysfunctions. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric was recommended as a boundary spanning discursive framework that could help ameliorate the problems associated with both inter-frame conflict and frame indifference

“That’s Gold, Jerry, Gold!”: The Sophisticated Contradiction at the Heart of Stand-Up Comedy

This dissertation examines the word “sophisticated” by re-situating it within the Greek tradition and explicating how such a move informs a study of humor and amusement. In regard to “techniques and theories,” the OED suggests the word sophisticated can be used to mean “highly developed” and “employing advanced or refined methods,” but also “not plain, honest, or straightforward,” and “containing alterations intended to deceive.” In other words, as a discourse descriptor, “sophisticated” can be taken complimentarily to mean complex, intricate, and worldly-wise, but also disparagingly to mean deceptive, misleading, and superficially-wise. The opposition between these meanings illustrates the central idea of this study—that what lies at the heart of both sophistic rhetoric and amusement is contradiction: a state of tension in which “incompatible things” are held together “because both or all are necessary and true” (Haraway). In the context of contemporary North American stand-up comedy, this dissertation links sophistic rhetoric and humor theory such that they mutually support each other, gain meaning, and become more approachable. Defined as an orientation to contradiction, sophistic rhetoric provides a way to theorize humor, while the universal phenomenon of amusement provides justification for theorizing a thing called “sophistic rhetoric.