Rational Argument

Ulrike Hahn · Mike Oaksford

31 citations0/0 files storedOxford University Press eBooks

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 Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Abstract

Abstract Argumentation is an integral part of how we negotiate life in a complex world. In many contexts it matters, furthermore, that arguments be rational, not that they are simply convincing. Rational debate is subject to both procedural norms and to epistemic norms that allow the evaluation of argument content. This chapter outlines normative frameworks for argumentation (dialectical, logical, and Bayesian); it then summarizes psychological research on argumentation, drawn from cognitive psychology, as well as a number of applied domains.

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 — 31 citations exist upstream.

References

1973On the psychology of prediction.2009Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach 1996Using Language 1971The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation 1986Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.1989The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task 2000Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms 2011Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory

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.