Bogency and Goodacies: On Argument Quality in Virtue Argumentation Theory

Fabio Paglieri A

24 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

Virtue argumentation theory (VAT) has been charged of being incomplete, given its alleged inability to account for argument cogency in virtue-theoretical terms. Instead of defending VAT against that challenge, I suggest it is misplaced, since it is based on a premise VAT does not endorse, and raises an issue that most versions of VAT need not consider problematic. This in turn allows distinguishing several varieties of VAT, and clarifying what really matters for them.

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 — 24 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Positive psychology: An introduction.2000Positive psychology: An introduction.1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition 1978The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes 1996Virtues of the Mind 1997Relevance: Communication and cognition . 2nd edn. By. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995. Pp. xiii, 326.1998Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes 1999On Virtue Ethics

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.