摘要: A critical examination of the dialectical approach, focusing on a comparison ofthe illative and definitions argument. I distinguish moderate, strong hyper conception critique Goldman's argument for moderate Johnson's conception, argue that is correct.
philpapers.org
sci-hub.st 参考文章(56)
Hans Vilhelm Hansen, An Exploration of Johnson's Sense of ‘Argument’ Argumentation. ,vol. 16, pp. 263- 276 ,(2002) , 10.1023/A:1019941018258
Christopher W. Tindale, A Concept Divided: Ralph Johnson's Definition of Argument Argumentation. ,vol. 16, pp. 299- 309 ,(2002) , 10.1023/A:1019997120075
Louise Cummings, Hilary Putnam's Dialectical Thinking: An Application to Fallacy Theory Argumentation. ,vol. 16, pp. 197- 229 ,(2002) , 10.1023/A:1015526710248
Ralph H. Johnson, The Dialectical Tier Revisited Anyone Who Has a View. pp. 41- 53 ,(2003) , 10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_4
James B. Freeman, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments ,(1991)
C.W Tindale, A.V. Colman, H.V. Hansen, Argumentation and Rhetoric OSSA. ,(1998)
Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality Reconsidered: Reply to my Fellow Symposiasts Argumentation. ,vol. 16, pp. 311- 331 ,(2002) , 10.1023/A:1019901304146
Leo Groarke, Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument Argumentation. ,vol. 16, pp. 277- 286 ,(2002) , 10.1023/A:1019993002329
Peter Adam Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy ,(1981)
Adelino Cattani, Botta e risposta : l'arte della replica Il Mulino. pp. 1- 244 ,(2001)