Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of knowledge. By Nicholas Rescher. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1976. 333 pages. $14.50.

Walton, Douglas

doi:10.1017/s0012217300024987

Cited by 51 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each model of dialogue is defined by its initial situation, the participants' individual goals, and the collective goal of the dialogue as a whole (Walton and Krabbe 1995). Six basic types of dialogue previously recognised in the argumentation literature are persuasion dialogue, inquiry, negotiation dialogue, information-seeking dialogue, deliberation, and eristic dialogue.…”

Section: Framework Of Dialogue and Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way, the two parties both take part in the reasoning process, even though they do not have a dialogue in the literal sense that they take turns speaking and replying. Still their argumentation interaction does have what might be called a dialogue structure in the sense of (Walton and Krabbe 1995), as shown in Figure 1. The advertiser, to make a successful argument that will persuade the reader to buy the product (or ask his doctor about it) needs to base it on what he takes to be the commitments of the reader, including the reader's presumed goals and values.…”

Section: Framework Of Dialogue and Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But some dialectical shifts are illicit, meaning that the advent of the second dialogue interferes with the progress of the first (Walton and Krabbe 1995, p. 107). Illicit shifts of this sort can be associated with fallacies, according to Walton and Krabbe (1995).…”

Section: Framework Of Dialogue and Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The structure of argumentation in health product messages

Walton

2010

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an analysis of argumentation in direct-to-consumer health product ads in Newsweek that brings out special features of the arguments used in the ads, including practical reasoning, chained arguments, enthymemes, and prolepsis. A way to help overcome deficiencies in techniques of tailored health communication in consumer health informatics is shown by using argumentation schemes, argument visualisation tools, and dialogue models to frame these persuasive communication messages. The evidence collected is shown to be useful to allow the health informatics communicator and the person to whom message was directed to interact in a dialogue format where arguments can be put forward by both parties in a way that responds to the previous arguments and questions of the other party.Keywords: practical reasoning; argumentation schemes; Araucaria; persuasion dialogue; direct-to-consumer ads; consumer health informatics In this paper, some illustrative examples of direct-to-consumer health product advertisements are analysed using argumentation methods, and some conclusions about the analyses are drawn. The three main methods applied are argumentation schemes, argument visualisation, and dialogue structures that represent the context of use of an argument. The ads studied include commercials for pharmaceuticals, as well as ads for other medications, including health foods, and treatments and devices that purport to have health benefits. It is shown that they use arguments of a kind that fit structures of kinds known in argumentation studies, especially one particular argumentation scheme. The findings are interesting for many reasons. They can be applied both to the crafting of the ads and to the enhancement of critical thinking skills for intelligent consumers. They are also applicable to recent efforts to use computational techniques to assist consumer health informatics to inform consumers and improve health care.According to Kukafka (2005, p. 29), applying persuasive argumentation theories to consumer healthcare informatics for behavioural change has turned out to be a complex undertaking, because of the limitations of some of the tools used. The natural language generation systems used to provide explanation and advice to consumers have proved to have limitations and shortcomings. One problem is that they do not explore planning mechanisms that account for the generation of text consisting of multiple arguments. Another is that although they have attempted to improve the construction of persuasive argument through rhetorical structure theory, these attempts lack a theory of how persuasive arguments in health communication are put together in a coherent sequence. At the same time, the tailored approach to health communication, where the behavioural change strategy is intended to reach a specific person, although it is proving to be a successful method, clearly needs better argumentation tools that allow the health informatics communicator and the person to whom message was directed to interact in a dial...

show abstract

Section: Framework Of Dialogue and Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Framework Of Dialogue and Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The structure of argumentation in health product messages

Walton

2010

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such a DECEPTIVE ARGUMENTS persuasion dialogue the aim of the one party is to persuade the other party by means of premises that reflect commitments and values of that other party. Different formal models of persuasion dialogue have been constructed and studied (Walton and Krabbe, 1995). Some are called rigorous persuasion dialogues (RPD's) because the allowed moves are precisely determined by rigid and exact rules, and the argumentation in such a dialogue is formally rigorous.…”

Section: Modeling Persuasion Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions

Walton

2005

Argumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using persuasive definitions and persuasive language generally to put a spin on an argument has often held to be suspicious, if not deceptive or even fallacious. However, if the purpose of a persuasive definition is to persuade, and if rational persuasion can be a legitimate goal, putting forward a persuasive definition can have a legitimate basis in some cases. To clarify this basis, the old subject of definitions is reconfigured into a new dialectical framework in which, it is argued, a definition should be evaluated in light of its purpose as a speech act. But if persuasive definitions are so often thought to be suspect, misleading, or even fallacious, how can individual cases be judged on some objective basis? In this paper, a new dialectical method of evaluating such definitions on a case-by-case basis is proposed, showing how abusive as well as reasonable uses of persuasive language can properly be identified, analyzed and evaluated.The purpose of this project is to develop a new approach to the study of persuasive definitions in different contexts of argumentation. Two more general other concerns also come centrally into the project: the study of definitions generally in argumentation, and the persuasive use of language in argumentation. The new approach to these subjects will show how the use of persuasive definitions should be evaluated by context-dependent sets of rules for argumentative discourse. Such a method of evaluation shows how such definitions can be used for legitimate purposes of persuasion in some cases, and therefore cannot be dismissed or categorically classified as misleading, deceptive or fallacious. Examples of persuasive definitions are presented from ethical disputation, discussions of social policy issues, scientific argumentation, business communications, and legal arguments. The project begins by reviewing Stevenson's theory of persuasive definition and some real cases that illustrate persuasive definitions at work. The project is interdisciplinary, in that although it has a traditional base in logic, it also draws on recent work in the fields of computing

show abstract

“…NOTES ' Walton and Krabbe, 1995. See also van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984 on speech acts in argumentative discourse.…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%