Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse have a nice piece up at 3Quarks Daily about the constraints of certain argument contexts. They write: In the real world of political talk, getting the last word is often what counts most. This is especially the case where political talk is conducted in the limited space between commercial breaks. … Continue reading Spitballing
Stephen Usery at Memphis’ WYPL interviewed me and Rob Talisse for Book Talk. Stream the audio HERE.
Rob Talisse and I were on Nashville local TV promoting Why We Argue. Two in the last week. The link to the show “Inside Politics”: HERE. And the link to the call in show, “Open Line”: HERE.
Talisse and I have a short piece on what constitutes a dialectical fallacy over at 3QuarksDaily.
Hello All, A heaping serving of thanks to all of The Non Sequitur readers–but special gratitude to the commenters. Extra special gratitude to my co-contributors over the years. On that note, please enjoy this 3QuarksDaily essay by Scott and Rob Talisse and Thanksgiving and Christmas. A taste: Unlike Halloween, Thanksgiving is a holiday of human … Continue reading Happy Thanksgiving
Talisse and I had a short webinar with Critical Thinking and Political Philosophy professors this last Thursday. We have a short transcript of our opening remarks over at WWA. (Unfortunately, the software for the webinar didn’t cooperate, so it didn’t record. So I can’t post audio of the full conversation. Too bad, because we were … Continue reading Webinar on argumentation
We’ve pretty regularly noted that you can tell a straw man fallacy is coming when the speaker starts the windup for attributing views to his opponent by saying, “Some folks who believe X say…” or “You know what all those X-ists say about this…” What generally comes is a view nobody even recognizes as their … Continue reading First, get some straw…
Talisse and I have a post over at 3QuarksDaily on why the dialogical perspective on argument is important. I’m thinking that the line there about turn-taking is a good way to characterize what goes wrong with straw-manning in specific cases, only though. For example, weak-manning isn’t part of a turn-taking exchange, but mostly a form … Continue reading On Logic and Dialogue
Over at WWA, Talisse and I have a short post on why argument analysis is necessary for recognizing politics (even your own) as having anything to do with the rule of reason.
Over at WWA, Talisse and I have a short note on the difference between taking formal and dialectical perspectives on argument-assessment. For the NS readers, it’s a familiar distinction, but motivating it can be tricky. I’ve taken to using the intuitive notion of begging the question as a way of showing how an argument can … Continue reading On formal and dialectical argument