The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum .

Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacie

Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions

Abstract This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, we need to depend on an abductive process of interpretation

Contested Cases of Statutory Interpretation

This paper proposes an argumentation based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes,which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of contested statutory interpretation in law. A simplified version of the Carneades Argumentation System is applied in a case analysis showing how the procedure works. A logical model for statutory interpretation is finally presented , covering protanto and all things considered interpretive conclusions

Implicatures as Forms of Argument

In this paper, we use concepts, structure and tools from argumentation theory to show how conversational implicatures are triggered by conflicts of presumptions. Presumptive implicatures are shown to be based on defeasible forms of inference used in conditions of lack of knowledge, including analogical reasoning, inference to the best explanation, practical reasoning, appeal to pity, and argument from cause. Such inferences are modelled as communicative strategies to knowledge gaps that shift the burden of providing the missing contrary evidence to the other party in a dialogue. Through a series of illustrative examples, we show how such principles of inference are based on common knowledge about the ordinary course of events shared by participants in a structured dialogue setting in which they take turns putting forward and responding to speech acts

Dialogical functions of metaphors in medical interactions

This paper proposes a method for analyzing the dialogical functions of metaphors in communicative interactions, and more specifically in the context of medical interviews. The dialogical goals proposed and pursued by the interlocutors are coded using a coding scheme that captures seven mutually exclusive categories of dialogical moves. The functions of the moves, including metaphors, can be identified and correlated with other variables relevant to the type of communication under analysis. The coding scheme is used to analyze a corpus of 39 interactions between healthcare providers and patients affected by Type 2 diabetes. The exploratory quantitative analysis, for the purpose of determining the different distributions of metaphor uses between patients and providers, is combined with qualitative analysis in which the thematic areas of the metaphors are considered. The findings show how patients and providers use metaphors for pursuing different dialogical goals and meeting distinct communicative needs

DNA vaccines against ErbB2+ Carcinomas: From mice to humans.

DNA vaccination exploits a relatively simple and flexible technique to generate an immune response against microbial and tumor-associated antigens (TAAs). Its effectiveness is enhanced by the application of an electrical shock in the area of plasmid injection (electroporation). In our studies we exploited a sophisticated electroporation device approved for clinical use (Cliniporator, IGEA, Carpi, Italy). As the target antigen is an additional factor that dramatically modulates the efficacy of a vaccine, we selected ErbB2 receptor as a target since it is an ideal oncoantigen. It is overexpressed on the cell membrane by several carcinomas for which it plays an essential role in driving their progression. Most oncoantigens are self-tolerated molecules. To circumvent immune tolerance we generated two plasmids (RHuT and HuRT) coding for chimeric rat/human ErbB2 proteins. Their immunogenicity was compared in wild type mice naturally tolerant for mouse ErbB2, and in transgenic mice that are also tolerant for rat or human ErbB2. In several of these mice, RHuT and HuRT elicited a stronger anti-tumor response than plasmids coding for fully human or fully rat ErbB2. The ability of heterologous moiety to blunt immune tolerance could be exploited to elicit a significant immune response in patients. A clinical trial to delay the recurrence of ErbB2+ carcinomas of the oral cavity, oropharynx and hypopharynx is awaiting the approval of the Italian authorities

The impact of fixed triple therapy with beclometasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium on health status and adherence in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an italian context of real life: The TRITRIAL study protocol

Background: The fixed triple combination Beclometasone dipropionate/Formoterol fuma- rate/Glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G, Trimbow\uae), an extrafine formulation in a unique pressur- ized metered dose inhaler, is indicated for the maintenance treatment in adult patients with moderate to severe COPD, not adequately treated by ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA. Besides the evidence from three randomized controlled trials, the impact of fixed triple therapy has not been extensively evaluated in a real-world population of COPD patients. TRITRIAL (TRIple Therapy in Real life: Impact on Adherence and HeaLth status) is a non- interventional study to assess the effect of BDP/FF/G in a real world setting in Italy. Design: TRITRIAL is a 12-month, multicenter, cohort, prospective, longitudinal observational study. Two follow-up visits will be performed at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The study includes the collection of anamnestic clinical and functional data before the start of BDP/FF/G. The study is built for digital conduction, from signature of the informed consent on a dedicated web platform, to the collection of questionnaires and clinical data on the eCRF. Population: A total of 800 patients with COPD ranging from Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stages 2 to 4, receiving therapy with BDP/FF/G accord- ing to the Summary of Product Characteristics and local clinical practice, will be recruited. All concomitant therapies will be permitted for the duration of the study. Evaluations: The primary endpoint is the change of CAT score at 12 months versus baseline. Secondary endpoints are adherence, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, disease-related outcomes (lung function and COPD exacerbations), device usability, eco- nomic resources consumption, and safety. Conclusion: TRITRIAL study is expected to give relevant information about effectiveness of BDP/FF/G fixed triple therapy in a real-life setting of patients with COPD, where adherence, usability of inhalers and patient\u2019s preference of the device are crucial factors for the success of the therapy

Diagnosing Misattribution of Commitments: A Normative and Pragmatic Model of for Assessing Straw Man

This paper builds a nine-step method for determining whether a straw man fallacy has been committed in a given case or not, by starting with some relatively easy textbook cases and moving to more realistic and harder cases. The paper shows how the type of argument associated with the fallacy can be proved to be a fallacy in a normative argumentation model, and then moves on to the practical task of building a hands-on method for applying the model to real examples of argumentation. Insights from linguistic pragmatics are used to distinguish the different pragmatic processes involved in reconstructing what is said and what is meant by an utterance, and to differentiate strong and weak commitments. In particular, the process of interpretation is analyzed in terms of an abductive pattern of reasoning, based on co-textual and contextual information, and assessable through the instruments of argumentation theory