Practical reasoning in political discourse: The UK government's response to the economic crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report

This article focuses on practical reasoning in political discourse and argues for a better integration of argumentation theory with critical discourse analysis (CDA). Political discourse and its specific genres (for example, deliberation) primarily involve forms of practical reasoning, typically oriented towards finding solutions to problems and deciding on future courses of action. Practical reasoning is a form of inference from cognitive and motivational premises: from what we believe (about the situation or about means—end relations) and what we want or desire (our goals and values), leading to a normative judgement (and often a decision) concerning action. We offer an analysis of the main argument in the UK government’s 2008 Pre-Budget Report (HM Treasury, 2008) and suggest how a critical evaluation of the argument from the perspective of a normative theory of argumentation (particularly the informal logic developed by Douglas Walton) can provide the basis for an evaluation in terms of characteristic CDA concerns. We are advancing this analysis as a contribution to CDA, aimed at increasing the rigour and systematicity of its analyses of political discourse, and as a contribution to the normative concerns of critical social science

Language and argumentation in the controversy economic

This article offers an approach to the general structure of the controversy in economy. In our case we adopted a perspective to study a particular aspect of the rhetoric that comes from the context of a particular controversy: the controversy on the advantages of the free commerce between Daly and Bhagwati. It is sustained that the positions in economy present with relative frequency interest conflicts that are revealed in the dialectic one of the arguments. A proponent in open defense of the free commerce is not released of presumptions reflected in the field of the rhetoric. Reason why to include the language dimensions of the argumentation in economy has advantages for the field of the explanation and the epistemology in the social sciences.

Commentary on Why Not Teach Critical Thinking by B. Hamby

Some ways of teaching critical thinking seem destine to failure, e.g.,CT across the curriculum, and some obstacles to acquiring CT skills seem insurmountable, e.g., cognitive biases, but some approaches to teaching and learning to think critically, discussed in this article, can mitigate those biases and be demonstrably successful

Language and argumentation in the controversy economic

This article offers an approach to the general structure of the controversy in economy. In our case we adopted a perspective to study a particular aspect of the rhetoric that comes from the context of a particular controversy: the controversy on the advantages of the free commerce between Daly and Bhagwati. It is sustained that the positions in economy present with relative frequency interest conflicts that are revealed in the dialectic one of the arguments. A proponent in open defense of the free commerce is not released of presumptions reflected in the field of the rhetoric. Reason why to include the language dimensions of the argumentation in economy has advantages for the field of the explanation and the epistemology in the social sciences.language, argumentation, theory economics, epistemology, public choice, decision theory.

The rhetoric of economics

This article offers an approach to the general structure of the rhetoric in economy. In our case we adopted a perspective to study a particular aspect of the rhetoric that comes from the context of a particular controversy: the controversy on the advantages of the free commerce between Daly and Bhagwati. It is sustained that the positions in economy present with relative frequency interest conflicts that are revealed in the dialectic one of the arguments. A proponent in open defense of the free commerce is not released of presumptions reflected in the field of the rhetoric. Reason why to include the language dimensions of the argumentation in economy has advantages for the field of the explanation and the epistemology in the social sciences.rhetoric, language, argumentation, theory economics, epistemology, public choice, decision theory

Collectivized Intellectualism

We argue that the evolutionary function of reasoning is to allow us to secure more accurate beliefs and more effective intentions through collective deliberation. This sets our view apart both from traditional intellectualist accounts, which take the evolutionary function to be individual deliberation, and from interactionist accounts such as the one proposed by Mercier and Sperber, which agrees that the function of reasoning is collective but holds that it aims to disseminate, rather than come up with, accurate beliefs. We argue that our collectivized intellectualism offers the best explanation of the range of biases that human reasoning is prone to, and that it does better than interactionism at offering a function of reasoning that would have been adaptive for our distant ancestors who first evolved this capacity

Radical policy change in Germany's health system in 2011: The case of patented drug regulation

This present thesis is an analysis of radical policy change in Germany's health system. The pharmaceutical industry was stopped to determine freely the prices of patented drugs in 2011; this is what is defined as radical change in the study. This thesis is based on Kingdon' s (1995) multiple stream approach and has three main objectives: first to understand the timing of this radical change in 2011, second to explain the change of behavior of political parties towards this change in 2011. Third objective is to explain why Germany was a latecomer compared to the other European countries to stop the pharmaceutical industry from free price setting. Germany was with Malta and Denmark the only European countries where the pharmaceutical industry enjoyed this freedom until 2011. The decisive explaining variables which made a policy change in 2011 possible in contrast to various attempts in the past were that the pharmaceutical industry and CDU/CSU and FDP did not block this radical change. The explanation why CDU/CSU and FDP and the pharmaceutical industry did not block it has a strategically explanation: The policy change in 2011 was dominated by problem solving in the sphere of politics, which was, finding a way to prove CDU/CSU and FDP was capable of action. Germany has a very big and strong pharmaceutical industry compared to other European countries which leads to the suggestion that this is the explanation why Germany is such a latecomer in matters of drug regulation.Master of Philosophy in Public AdministrationAORG351MASV-PUBA

Economic Freedom as Political Virtue: An Insight from the Perspective of Value Pluralism

This paper considers the market process as the essence and intrinsic core of liberal democracy. It disentangles market means from welfare ends and recognises the importance, constitutional status and independent stand of the former. Freedom is placed in the same categories as rights. Each constitutional right is protected not because it is efficient, useful or self-executable. On the contrary, rights are protected as a matter of evolutionary choice, as a matter of public principle, as an ethical rather than a practical value.Economic freedom usually leads to success. Its successfulness however sometimes transforms into its biggest enemy. Economic prosperity is a category which can find supporters more rapidly than the notion of economic freedom does. Therefore the latter is often perceived as a means to reach former. The main argument of this paper is that freedom itself loses its internal legitimacy if it is constantly subordinated to the tangible outcomes which it can eventually generate. Freedom can generate welfare, indeed, but welfare maximisation is neither an unconditional nor a quintessential feature of freedom. Freedom must be perceived as a driving force for entrepreneurial discovery, and a prerequisite to democracy, rather than as a mere component of the economic success. Freedom cannot be seen as purely rational, predictable and calculable

Ruinous arguments: Escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing

People argue to reconcile differences of opinion, but reconciliation may fail to happen. In these cases, most theorists assume arguers are left with the same disagreement from which they started. This is too optimistic, since disagreement might instead escalate, and this may happen because of the argumentative practice, not in spite of it. These dangers depend on epistemological, pragmatic, and cultural factors, and show why arguers should be (and are) careful in picking their dialogical fights