Argumentative Strategies Research Articles

Late Scholastic Arguments for the Existence of Prime Matter

Scholastic hylomorphism conceives prime matter and substantial form as metaphysical parts of every physical substance. During the early modern period, both hylomorphic constituents faced significant criticism as scientists and philosophers sought to replace Aristotelianism with physical explanations for the workings of the universe. This paper focuses specifically on prime matter and delves into the arguments put forth by four 16th-century scholastic philosophers – Toledo, Fonseca, Góis, and Suárez – in their attempts to establish the existence of prime matter. Firstly, I analyse a set of arguments rooted in substantial change, which emphasize the crucial role of a persistent, common substrate in the processes of generation and corruption. Secondly, I explore a set of ex-nihilo arguments and, thirdly, I examine a series of demonstrations based on the interplay between accidental and substantial change. Although these three sets of arguments converge on the necessity of a common substrate for substantial change to occur, they fall short of demonstrating that this substrate is both prime and shared by all natural entities. Fourthly, I turn to a set of arguments centred on the impossibility of infinite regress, designed to complement those related to natural change, and I assess additional arguments that do not primarily focus on substantial change. Lastly, I draw my conclusions on these argumentative strategies to demonstrate the existence of prime matter.

Queue‐jumping arguments

AbstractA queue‐jumping argument concludes that some course of action is impermissible by likening it to the presumptively impermissible act of jumping a queue. Arguments of this sort may be found in a disparate range of contexts and in support of policies favoured by both left and right. Examples include arguments against private education and private health care but also arguments against accommodations for learning disabilities, refugee resettlement, and birthright citizenship. We infer that, although queue‐jumping arguments are strictly analogies, they constitute a sufficiently distinct class of arguments to justify their separate treatment. The paper proposes an argumentation scheme for queue‐jumping arguments and demonstrates its applicability to some existing arguments of this type.

Postsecular Jewish Thought: Franz Rosenzweig, Alexander Altmann, Leo Strauss

This article traces the emergence of what is nowadays called “postsecular” religion from German-Jewish philosophy of the 1920s and 1930s. The three different cases of Franz Rosenzweig, Alexander Altmann, and Leo Strauss impel us to pay particular attention to a few recurring argumentative and rhetorical strategies. The emergence of postsecularism marks a shift in the epistemic foundations of Jewish religious thought, which had long been under pressure from secular European thought. Beginning with Rosenzweig, Jewish philosophy used secular categories of European philosophy to facilitate a return to the foundations of Judaism, eventually turning against what it sees as the epistemic weaknesses of secularism itself. This article traces the new phenomenon to Rosenzweig’s evolving view of secularism, especially to his ridicule of Siegfried Kracauer’s secular messianism, before examining a few key arguments in his book The Star of Redemption (1921). A brief discussion of Alexander Altmann’s writings of the early 1930s provides that even modern Orthodox Jewish thought, which had never been “secular”, used postsecular categories and arguments to make the philosophical case for orthodoxy. Leo Strauss’s introduction to his Philosophy and Law (1935) provides a far more elaborated form of Rosenzweig’s argument. As this article seeks to show, postsecular Jewish thought comes with a slight twist of epistemic relativism, particularly when it comes to the juxtaposition of the Biblical and scientific “world-views”. But here it merely draws the full consequences of modern science, beating scientism with its own weapons. Furthermore, religious thought in the 20th century had no other option than to rebuild itself on postsecular grounds.

Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation

Cryptocurrency forensics have become standard tools for law enforcement. Their basic idea is to deanonymise cryptocurrency transactions to identify the people behind them. Cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques are often based on premises that largely remain implicit, especially in legal practice. On the one hand, this implicitness complicates investigations. On the other hand, it can have far-reaching consequences for the rights of those affected. Argumentation schemes could remedy this untenable situation by rendering the underlying premises more transparent. Additionally, they can aid in critically evaluating the probative value of any results obtained by cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques. In the argumentation theory and AI community, argumentation schemes are influential as they state the implicit premises for different types of arguments. Through their critical questions, they aid the argumentation participants in critically evaluating arguments. We specialise the notion of argumentation schemes to legal reasoning about cryptocurrency deanonymisation. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of the resulting schemes through an exemplary real-world case. Ultimately, we envision that using our schemes in legal practice can solidify the evidential value of blockchain investigations, as well as uncover and help to address uncertainty in the underlying premises—thus contributing to protecting the rights of those affected by cryptocurrency forensics.

(Un)disciplined Patients, (Un)controlled Medical Authority?

Abstract Starting at the end of the 1940s, the so-called “democratic transformation of healthcare” was not limited to the expansion of beneficiaries and making care provided in the system free of charge. It also sought to define the new roles of those who run (physicians) and use (patients) the system. To enforce the implementation of new norms, medical ethics committees were set up, and in many respects, these new structures were integrated into the system of social courts and were tasked mainly with the protection patients’ rights during investigations into complaints against doctors. This article aims to address the following question: What role did the functioning of these medical ethics committees play in healthcare operations organized along socialist principles, considering their involvement in both politics and healthcare? Additionally, what forms of governmentality can be inferred from the ways these committees functioned within the framework of socialist healthcare? To answer these questions, I examine patients’ complaints received by the medical ethics committees, as the core objective of socialist healthcare was to provide quality healthcare and educate individuals about utilizing the socialist healthcare system. My hypothesis is that while the committees exhibited organizational and operational characteristics aligned with the basic institutions of socialist democracy, their ultimate goal was to educate individuals in accordance with the principles of the socialist system. However, the committees’ decisions were influenced by the degrees of autonomy granted to them and existing practices for supervising medical activity prior to the establishment of the state-socialist system. Consequently, they functioned not as guardians of the socialist state’s biopolitics but rather as autonomous bodies of medical advocacy. Although patients used various strategies of argumentation to justify the incompatibility of their grievances with socialist healthcare, doctors did not primarily assess the seriousness of the problems based on patient complaints. Institutional constraints and specific professional practices, which also played a role in medical activities, had a more significant impact on the decision-making process.

Independent evidence in multi-messenger astrophysics

In this paper I discuss the first “multi-messenger” observations of a binary neutron star merger and kilonova. These observations, touted as “revolutionary,” included both gravitational-wave and electromagnetic observations of a single source. I draw on analogies between astrophysics and historical sciences (e.g., paleontology) to explain the significance of this for (gravitational-wave) astrophysics. In particular, I argue that having independent lines of evidence about a target system enables the use of argumentative strategies—the “Sherlock Holmes” method and consilience—that help overcome the key challenges astrophysics faces as an observational and historical science.

An analysis of some ethical argumentation about genetically modified food

We present an analysis of ethical argumentation and rhetorical elements in an article on the debate about growing genetically modified food (GMF), an issue of current interest in environmental ethics. Ethical argumentation is argumentation that a certain action is permissible, forbidden, or obligatory in terms of ethical intuitions, principles, or theories. Based on analysis of argumentation in the article, we propose several argumentation schemes for descriptive modeling of utilitarian arguments as an alternative to using more general schemes such as practical reasoning and argument from consequences. We also show how the article promoted its pro-GMF stance using rhetorical elements such as quotation, argument from expert opinion, and ad hominem attacks. Pedagogical and computational implications of the analysis of argumentation and rhetoric are discussed.

The ethically significant difference between dual use and slippery slope arguments, in relation to CRISPR-Cas9: philosophical considerations and ethical challenges

Biomedical research, on the one hand, contributes to important goals from generation of knowledge about the human body to the development and testing of therapeutics of all kinds. On the other hand, it can produce serious and sometimes unforeseeable consequences. In the ethical analysis of these two aspects of biomedical research, two important argumentative strategies play a major role. First, slippery slope arguments are used to warn of potential risks and to highlight knowledge-based limitations. Second, a dual-use problem describes the challenge that already established techniques can be used for both morally wrong and morally right purposes. These two argumentative strategies appear to share several similarities, which will be investigated in this article. For this purpose, the article will first provide clear working definitions for both types of argument. This lays the foundation for the further ethical analysis. In a second step, and in order to investigate the similarities and differences of the argumentative strategies with an example from current ethical debates, CRISPR-Cas9, a currently very promising tool of genome editing, will be examined. The extent to which the possible applications of this genome editing tool can be addressed by slippery slope arguments or the dual use problem will be investigated. For this purpose, selected studies involving the use of CRISPR-Cas9 will be examined. Based on this two-step, analytic and example-based comparison of slippery-slope argumentation and dual-use considerations, the article will detail the ethically relevant difference between the two argumentative strategies and at the same time contribute to the ongoing ethical debate about CRISPR-Cas9.

Afinal, o que é um argumento?

Este artigo busca discutir o conceito de argumento, alvo de considerável controvérsia no âmbito dos estudos da argumentação. Nosso objetivo central é apresentar uma contribuição a esse debate a partir de uma proposta unificadora e integradora orientada pela seguinte definição: o argumento é uma unidade de fundamentação de uma resposta a uma questão argumentativa. Com base nessa definição, procuramos, então, discorrer sobre as propriedades do fundamentar, propondo que tal processo possa ser delineado a partir de três operações: a operação lógico-inferencial de atribuição de plausibilidade à tese, que articula a noção de argumento à noção de esquema argumentativo em termos de uma relação tipo-instância; a operação retórica de geração de influência, que incorpora a discussão em torno de comprometimentos e acordos ao modo de funcionamento do argumento; e a operação dialética de deslocamento do ônus da prova para o outro, que conecta a realidade racional à interacional e intertextual. Cada uma dessas operações é discutida do ponto de vista teórico e operacional, destacando categorias relevantes de análise para dar conta desse conjunto. A fim de mostrar a produtividade da proposta, agregamos a tal debate a análise ilustrativa de um diálogo concreto entre uma menina de quatro anos e seu responsável, publicado no perfil Fatos de Crianças do então Twitter (hoje, X).

O funcionamento pré-discursivo e as estratégias textuais

In this work, we aim to show how a textual analysis deals with discursive "anteriorities". Pre-discourse refers to ideas, beliefs and narratives that circulate in a society or social group and that influence the production and interpretation of discursive uses (Paveau, 2013 [2006]). These pre-discourses must be considered in the linguistic analysis of the text since they affect individual perspectives and positions in relation to different issues. We analyzed two humorous cartoons to understand the dynamics of social and cultural influences that permeate textual production and interpretation. By taking pre-discourses into account in textual analysis, we admit that meaning is not only a result of the internal characteristics of the text but is also influenced by the broader context in which the text occurs. We justify why the analytical criteria of textual linguistics, such as, text plan, intertextuality and referencing, consider argumentative strategies assuming the distributed cognition.

Knowledge generation between design, data and theory

Design-based research (DBR) is a diversified research genre: The combination of two worlds – that of research and that of education – and the different backgrounds and intentions of those involved entail different emphases, epistemological ideas, ideas on valuable outcomes and normative claims. This becomes visible in very different kinds of reasoning: No uniform structure of argumentation can be discerned, and so far, a differentiation into clear DBR types has not been convincingly achieved. This is a challenge for the orientation of DBR novices, the quality review of DBR studies, and the legitimation of DBR in the field of educational research. This article provides an empirical contribution to the discussion on argumentation: In a literature review, DBR studies are examined regarding their outcomes, the rationales authors use to justify their outcomes and indications for specific challenges in DBR reasoning. The analysis confirms for the sample that preliminary, prescriptive theory is most common alongside diverse practical outcomes. Authors often justify them with emphasis on variation, iteration, cooperation, and data triangulation. Different (standard) orientations, multi-level reasoning, and sub-studies present challenges for authors and readers, going back to the complexity of DBR projects. To justify their results in a comprehensible way, authors are confronted with the task to actively select an argumentation strategy.

The Structure of Arguments from Deontic Authority and How to Successfully Attack Them

Despite increasing interest in studying arguments from deontic authority of the general form “(1) δ\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\delta$$\\end{document} is a deontic authority in institution Ω\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\varOmega$$\\end{document}; (2) according to δ\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\delta$$\\end{document}, I should do α\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\alpha$$\\end{document}, C: therefore, (3) I should do α\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$\\alpha$$\\end{document}”, the state of the art models are not capable of grasping their complexity. The existing sets of critical questions assigned to this argumentation scheme seem to conflate two problems: whether a person is subject to an authority of an institution in the first place and whether the command issued within the context of a particular institution is eventually binding. For this reason, we introduce (1) a set of Basic Critical Questions to scrutinize the former issue, and (2) a set of more detailed questions related to specific features, also referred to as “parameters”, of institutional environments (Intra-Institutional Critical Questions). We identify major elements of institutional environments in which authoritative utterances are made and the crucial parameters of arguments from deontic authority. The selected evidence from the decisions of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court helps us show how these parameters may be used to reconstruct subtypes of this argument scheme, with their associated sets of critical questions. In specific institutional contexts, such detailed schemes are capable of grasping the complexity of appeals to deontic authority and thus should be used rather than general schemes. The reconstruction of argumentation schemes with critical questions shows how particular arguments may successfully be attacked.

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

This paper tries to explore the different argumentation strategies in courtroom discourse. The paper aims to decode the various argumentative strategies that are employed to communicate a successful interaction between the interlocutors in courtrooms. This is done by highlighting the linguistic tools targeting the persuasion of the conversationalists in the legal discourse presented in courts. The paper will focus on five strategies of argumentation, including lexical choices, questioning and answering, oppositional arguments, rhetorical questions, and premeditated arguments. The core concern of the investigation of these argumentation strategies is to show the degree to which they are used by courtroom interlocutors to communicate a successful and persuasive argument to their recipients. Data used in this study are derived from two legal trials: Nelson Mandela’s trial and Bill Clinton’s trial. The research questions of this paper are: first, what is meant by argumentation in courtroom discourse? Second, what are the different argumentation strategies used in courtroom discourse? Third, to what extent are argumentation strategies employed to achieve a persuasive argument between interlocutors in courtrooms? There are three main findings in this paper: First, attorneys and litigants use various argumentation strategies to influence their recipients so as to be able to persuade the court of their arguments. Second, the power of persuasiveness is entirely based on the ability to use various strategies of argumentation. Third, language is a crucial element in the understanding of legal arguments in courtrooms.

The Discursive Clash Between the Portraits of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire in Relation to Their Foreign Policy: The ‘Victorious’ Turkey Versus the ‘Defeated’ Ottoman Empire

This article argues that the Turkish press of the early republican years was one of the instruments used by the Turkish political discourse of the early republican years to disseminate and reproduce its values in the public sphere. This article attempts to examine the discursive distinction between Turkey and the Ottoman Empire in terms of their international relations through the Turkish press discourse. To this end, this article focuses on the Turkish newspaper column "Sabah Gazeteleri ne diyorlar?" published in the Turkish newspaper Haber Akşam Postası on June 11, 1938, and conducts an argumentation analysis of the column by applying the Vienna School of Discourse-Historical Approach (Reisigl & Wodak 2001; Wodak 1990, 1994; Wodak & Meyer 2001; Wodak & Chilton 2005; Wodak et al. 2009). This article examines the rhetorical, discursive, and argumentative strategies used by the editorial writer Asım Us to persuade readers. One of the key findings of the article is the following: the negative portrayal of the Ottoman Empire versus the positive portrayal of Turkey. While the Ottoman Empire was described as "defeated" in World War I, Turkey was portrayed as a "victorious" country that was able to sign the Treaty of Lausanne with the Entente powers on an equal footing.

Dialogic discussions for enhancing children’s argumentation skills in Indonesian reading sessions

Dialogic discussions offer advantages in improving language and literacy skills. However, research in the Indonesian context on this topic is limited. Furthermore, existing studies also tend to overlook the challenges associated with children’s interactions. To bridge this research gap, this study investigated the role of dialogic discussions in advancing children’s argumentation abilities during Indonesian reading sessions. This study utilized a case study approach, involving sixteen fourth-grade children from a public elementary school. Data were collected through observations, field notes, and audio recordings. The children participated in small group discussions during six reading sessions. These sessions involved exploring both Indonesian fiction and non-fiction texts, centered on significant moral or social questions and dilemmas. The findings revealed an increased use of various argumentation strategies by the children, including presenting reasons, posing challenges, and responding to challenges. Using personally engaging texts proved beneficial for sustaining discussions, as it encouraged children to share their lived experiences and opinions. However, the findings also indicated that children who did not participate seemed distracted during individual tasks. The study provides valuable insights into the dynamics and complexities of small group discussions during Indonesian reading sessions.

The puzzle of the sovereign’s smile and the inner complexity of Hobbes’s theory of authorisation

ABSTRACT Hobbes’s theory of authorisation poses numerous puzzles to scholars. The weightiest of these conundrums is a supposed contradiction between chapter 17 of Leviathan, that calls for unconditional submission to the sovereign, and chapter 21, that defends the liberties of the subject. This article offers a fresh perspective on the theory’s consistency, function and addressees. While existing research doubts the theory’s consistency, focuses on its immunisation function and on the subjects as the theory’s main addresses, the paper argues that Hobbes’s theory of authorisation is consistent with the doctrine of the liberty of subjects, and that it serves the dual purpose of immunising the sovereign against criticism and disciplining the sovereign via a counsel of memento mori: A hitherto underexplored element of authorisation theory is a reminder of the mortality of sovereignty directed at the sovereign to convince him to make restricted use of his absolute right to rule. Hobbes’s theory of authorisation can thus be read as part of a complex argumentative strategy for peace, rooted in a ‘liberal absolutism’ which is not as paradoxical as it sounds, and which is reflected in the frontispiece by the friendly smile of the sovereign.

The epistemic conditional in polar questions as an argumentative strategy

Abstract This paper accounts for the epistemic use of the conditional in polar questions in French. It is argued that polar questions modalised by the epistemic conditional are biased questions that serve an argumentative function, and that the conditional contributes a different commitment update in interrogatives and in questioning declaratives. The bias type depends on whether the question is interrogative or declarative. In interrogatives, the epistemic conditional is generally associated with the subject clitic-verb inversion pattern. This pattern is argued to routinely convey evidential bias, while evidential bias is determined by the context in est-ce que questions. As biased polar questions in the conditional do not undergo interrogative flip, the conjectural meaning conveyed by the combination of the conditional and questioning is reported to be an evidential extension in keeping with evidentiality in non-flip languages (Bhadra, Diti. 2020. The semantics of evidentials in questions. Journal of Semantics 37. 367–423). This might shed new light on the apparent conceptual puzzle posed by the shift in meaning of the epistemic conditional in assertions and in questions.

Instrumental variables in real-world clinical studies of dementia and neurodegenerative disease: Systematic review of the subject-matter argumentation, falsification test, and study design strategies to justify a valid instrument.

We systematically reviewed how investigators argued for and justified the validity of their instrumental variables (IV) in clinical studies of dementia and neurodegenerative disease. We included studies using IV analysis with observational data to investigate causal effects in clinical research studies of dementia and neurodegenerative disease. We reported the subject-matter argumentation, falsification test, and study design strategies used to satisfy the three assumptions of a valid IV: relevance, exclusion restriction, and exchangeability. Justification for the relevance assumption was performed in all 12 included studies, exclusion restriction in seven studies, and exchangeability in nine studies. Two subject-matter argumentation strategies emerged from seven studies on the relevance of their IV. All studies except one provided quantitative evidence for the strength of the association between the IV and exposure variable. Four argumentation strategies emerged for exclusion restriction from six studies. Four falsification tests were performed across three studies. Three argumentation strategies emerged for exchangeability across four studies. Nine falsification tests were performed across nine studies. Two notable study design strategies were reported. Our results reinforce IV analysis as a feasible option for clinical researchers in dementia and neurodegenerative disease by clarifying known strategies used to validate an IV.

“You shall surely die”. Elijah Montalto’s Tratado and the Critique of Original Sin

This essay focuses on Elijah Montalto’s critique of original sin, as articulated in his anti-Christian work Tratado sobre o capitulo 53 de Isaias. The aim of this paper is to investigate the argumentative strategy employed by Montalto against the Christian doctrine of Adam’s Fall, which will be referred to as the “philological argument”. The analysis begins with an examination of the translation of Gen 2:17 (“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”) in Jerome’s Vulgate and its reception by Augustine. Following this, the focus shifts to Montalto’s exegesis of the same verse and his use of the Ferrara Bible to contest the Christian interpretation of the Gan Eden narrative. Finally, the discussion will address Montalto’s employment of the medical concept of radical moisture to explore Adam’s prelapsarian condition. By analyzing Montalto’s arguments, this essay seeks to demonstrate that the notion of mors duplex – encompassing both physical and spiritual death –, which Christians associate with Gen 2:17, is not explicitly articulated within the verse itself.

Pharmaceutical Patents and Vaccination Justice

The production of vaccines for COVID-19 has been far from ideal in terms of meeting world demand, thereby mitigating the infections and deaths caused by the pandemic. Part of the reason production has been inefficient is that those pharmaceutical companies that own the vaccine do not have sufficient productive capacity to meet demand. Resultantly, many have advocated for waiving patent rights to the vaccine so it can be massively produced worldwide. Pharmaceutical companies and their advocates have opposed this waiving of patent rights. In this article, I respond to the arguments that oppose waiving patents and contend that there is a case for temporarily waiving them. Mainly, I present a negative argumentative strategy that upholds the view that patents ought to be waived. However, in light of my arguments, the absence of positive reasons to withhold the patents implies that there are positive views for temporarily waiving them.