Evaluating arguments and making meta-arguments

Daniel H. Cohen

26 citations0/0 files storedInformal Logic

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Linguistics and Discourse Analysis Philosophical Ethics and Theory Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Abstract

This paper explores the outlines of a framework for evaluating arguments. Among the factors to take into account are the strength of the arguers' inferences, the level of their engagement with objections raised by other interlocutors, and their effectiveness in rationally persuading their target audiences. Some connections among these can be understood only in the context of meta-argumentation and meta-rationality. The Principle of Meta-Rationality (PMR)--that reasoning rationally includes reasoning about rationality-is used to explain why it can be rational to resist dialectically satisfying arguments or accept logically flawed ones.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Metaphors We Live By 1895WHAT THE TORTOISE SAID TO ACHILLES 1968The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays.2013Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory 1985A practical study of argument 2018What the Tortoise Said to Achilles 2000Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument 1983Philosophical Explanations.

Cited by

2017Computational Argumentation Quality Assessment in Natural Language 2020Corpus Linguistics Methods in the Study of (Meta)Argumentation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.