You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Establishes a theoretical context for, and to elaborate the implications of, the claim that argument is a form of interaction in which two or more people maintain what they construe to be incompatible positions The thesis of this book is that argument is not a kind of logic but a kind of communication—conversation based on disagreement. Claims about the epistemic and political effects of argument get their authority not from logic but from their “fit with the facts” about how communication works. A Theory of Communication thus offers a picture of communication—distilled from elements of symbolic interactionism, personal construct theory, constructivism, and Barbara O’Keefe’s provocative thinking about logics of message design. The picture of argument that emerges from this tapestry is startling, for it forces revisions in thinking about knowledge, rationality, freedom, fallacies, and the structure and content of the argumentation discipline.
A departure from the traditional orientation that conceived of argumentation as applied logic. . . . [This book] exhibit[s] a concern for the social knowledge generated by a practice of communication in real situations[, ] provide[s] suggestions for interpreting interactions in which incompatible ideas come into conflict, and attempt[s] to explain how human beings thus come to know. --Philosophy and Rhetoric
In this witty and provocative study of democracy and its critics, Charles Willard debunks liberalism, arguing that its exaggerated ideals of authenticity, unity, and community have deflected attention from the pervasive incompetence of "the rule of experts." He proposes a ground of communication that emphasizes common interests rather than narrow disputes. The problem of "unity" and the public sphere has driven a wedge between libertarians and communitarians. To mediate this conflict, Willard advocates a shift from the discourse of liberalism to that of epistemics. As a means of organizing the ebb and flow of consensus, epistemics regards democracy as a family of knowledge problems—as ways of managing discourse across differences and protecting multiple views. Building a bridge between warring peoples and warring paradigms, this book also reminds those who presume to instruct government that they are obliged to enlighten it, and that to do so requires an enlightened public discourse.
For this volume the editors commissioned the top theorists in argumentation and human communication to submit essays in their areas of specialization. Because there are sixteen essays contributed by twenty-one specialists, many points of view are represented in this volume; all of the essayists, however, look upon argumentation as a process of human communication, not a species of formal logic. These essayists see the function of argument as a method of attaining social knowledge. The editors have assembled this volume to make available the latest advances in argumentation; for scholars it serves as a "state of the discipline" report. The editors have divided the book into four secti...
Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Pages: 78. Chapters: Aristotle, Bernard Lonergan, Brigitte Mral, Charles Arthur Willard, David Zarefsky, Diane Davis, Gary A. Olson, Geoffrey of Vinsauf, George Puttenham, Gregory G. Colomb, Groupe u, Henry Peacham, Hermagoras of Temnos, Hugh Blair, Jacques Derrida, James A. Berlin, Joseph M. Williams, Kenneth Burke, Linda Flower, Mark Turner (cognitive scientist), Marshall McLuhan, Michel Foucault, Paul de Man, Petrus Ramus, Quintilian, Richard A. Lanham, Richard M. Weaver, Robert T. Craig (scholar), Ronald Reid's Three Topoi, Thomas Trueblood, Wayne C. Booth. Exce...
Includes writings and service reports.