On answering accusations in controversies

Accusations are a very frequent type of speech act both in everyday life and in formal controversies, and answering accusations is a sophisticated type of linguistic practice well worth analysing from a pragmatic point of view. In my paper I shall first describe some basic properties of accusations and characteristic types of reactions to accusations, i. e. denying the alleged fact, making excuses, and giving justifications. I then go on to describe some fundamental functions of accusations in controversies. Using the basic patterns of accusations and reactions to accusations as an object of comparison, I then analyse some relevant exchanges from historical controversies (l6th to 18th century), among them famous polemical interactions like the Hobbes-Bramhall controversy, but also less well-known debates from the fields of medicine and theology. The present paper is both a contribution to the theory of controversy and to the pragmatic history of controversies. Keywords: historical pragmatics, theory of controversy, ad hominem moves, dynamics of controvers

Reasoning in a Multicultural Society

Multicultural society as a way of being-with-others needs a certain form of public reasoning. Unfortunately, the current yet dominant form of public reasoning is infiltrated by biases from occidental culture. This mode of reasoning does nothing but uproot participants from their cultural identity for the sake of universal consensus. Multicultural society, however, consists of identities which are embedded in the individuals' cultural tradition. This sociological fact demands a richer form of rationality that does not deny the multiplicity of cultural values and embedded identities. We need a form of public reasoning which emphasizes cultural understanding rather than abstract consensus. We might call it a multicultural, contextualized and other-regarding form of public reason

Knowing with Experts: Contextual Knowledge in and Around Science

The original concept of epistemic dependence suggests uncritical deference to expert opinions for non-experts. In the light of recent work in science studies, however, the actual situation of epistemic dependence is seen to involve the necessary and ubiquitous need for lay evaluations of scientific experts. As expert knowledge means restricted cognitive access to some epistemic domain, lay evaluations of expert knowledge are rational and informed only when the criteria used by non-experts when judging experts are different from the criteria used by experts when making their claims. The distinction between ‘substantial knowledge’ and ‘contextual knowledge’ allows for the laypeople to know with experts without having to know precisely what experts know. Such meta-expert evaluations are not specific to the public sphere outside science, nor are they limited internally to science, but they are present in a wide range of contexts in and around science. The paper legitimizes the concept of contextual knowledge by relating it to the relevant literature, and expounds the idea by identifying some elements of such a knowledge

The Persuasive Force of the Ad Baculum

Standard accounts of the ad baculum locate its fallaciousness either in irrelevance or dialogue shift. Such accounts, however, fail to explain its persuasiveness. This paper offers a new account where the real target of an ad baculum is an audience downstream from the initial ad baculum exchange. This means that the ad baculum consists in misrepresenting the quality of evidence by means of the forced adoption of a particular standpoint

Towards automated generation of scripted dialogue: some time-honoured strategies

The main aim of this paper is to introduce automated generation of scripted dialogue as a worthwhile topic of investigation. In particular the fact that scripted dialogue involves two layers of communication, i.e., uni-directional communication between the author and the audience of a scripted dialogue and bi-directional pretended communication between the characters featuring in the dialogue, is argued to raise some interesting issues. Our hope is that the combined study of the two layers will forge links between research in text generation and dialogue processing. The paper presents a first attempt at creating such links by studying three types of strategies for the automated generation of scripted dialogue. The strategies are derived from examples of human-authored and naturally occurring dialogue

ArguBlogging:an application for the Argument Web

In this paper, we present a software tool for ‘ArguBlogging’, which allows users to construct debate and discussions across blogs, linking existing and new online resources to form distributed, structured conversations. Arguments and counterarguments can be posed by giving opinions on one’s own blog and replying to other bloggers’ posts. The resulting argument structure is connected to the Argument Web, in which argumentative structures are made semantically explicit and machine-processable. We discuss the ArguBlogging tool and the underlying infrastructure and ontology of the Argument Web

Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion

Recent work in argumentation theory (Walton and Krabbe, 1995; Walton, 2005) and artificial intelligence (Bench-Capon, 1992, 2003; Cawsey, 1992; McBurney and Parsons, 2002; Bench-Capon and Prakken, 2005) uses types of dialogue as contexts of argument use. This paper provides an analysis of a special type called examination dialogue, in which one party questions another party, sometimes critically or even antagonistically, to try to find out what that party knows about something. This type of dialogue is most prominent in law and in both legal and non-legal arguments based on expert opinion. It is also central to dialogue systems for questioning and answering in expert systems in artificial intelligence. Examples studied are: (1) exegetical analyses and criticisms of religious and philosophical texts, and (2) legal examinations and cross-examinations conducted in a trial setting

The Use of Seneca’s Texts in Antonii Radyvylovskyi’s Sermons

In this paper, through the example of Antonii Radyvylovskyi’s work, I examine the impact of Seneca’s texts on the philosophical component of Ukrainian church sermons from the Baroque period. The objective of this study is to investigate Radyvylovskyi’s use of Seneca’s texts in his own writing. The result should help better understand the ideological influence of ancient philosophy on the formation of the national philosophical tradition of the Baroque epoch. The contents of ideological borrowings from Seneca’s texts and the mechanisms of their use are traced. A list of Seneca’s texts from which Radyvylovskyi quotes is provided. It is also shown that Radyvylovskyi uses Seneca’s authority in his moral teachings and philosophical thinking about the characteristics of human nature. We conclude by commenting on Radyvylovskyi’s creative use of Seneca’s ideas and the significant philosophical component of his written legacy

Deep disagreements: A meta-argumentation approach

This paper examines the views of Fogelin, Woods, Johnstone, etc., concerning deep disa-greements, force-five standoffs, philosophical controversies, etc. My approach is to reconstruct their views and critiques of them as meta-arguments, and to elaborate the meta-argumentative aspects of radical disa-greements. It turns out that deep disagreements are resolvable to a greater degree than usually thought, but only by using special principles and practices, such as meta-argumentation, ad hominem argumentation (in Johnstone’s sense), Ramsey’s principle, etc