for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords

Publisher: Springer-Verlag (Total: 2352 journals)

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Showing 1 - 200 of 2352 Journals sorted alphabetically
3D Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.214, h-index: 10)
4OR: A Quarterly J. of Operations Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.073, h-index: 25)
AAPS J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 1.192, h-index: 74)
AAPS PharmSciTech     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.718, h-index: 54)
Abdominal Imaging     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.723, h-index: 60)
Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universitat Hamburg     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.447, h-index: 12)
Academic Psychiatry     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.492, h-index: 32)
Academic Questions     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.135, h-index: 6)
Accreditation and Quality Assurance: J. for Quality, Comparability and Reliability in Chemical Measurement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.378, h-index: 30)
Acoustical Physics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.355, h-index: 20)
Acoustics Australia     Hybrid Journal  
Acta Analytica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.387, h-index: 6)
Acta Applicandae Mathematicae     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.624, h-index: 34)
Acta Biotheoretica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.419, h-index: 25)
Acta Diabetologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.318, h-index: 46)
Acta Endoscopica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.113, h-index: 8)
acta ethologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.465, h-index: 23)
Acta Geochimica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.294, h-index: 13)
Acta Geotechnica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.818, h-index: 22)
Acta Informatica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.524, h-index: 32)
Acta Mathematica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 8.021, h-index: 47)
Acta Mathematica Hungarica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.53, h-index: 29)
Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.406, h-index: 30)
Acta Mathematica Vietnamica     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.451, h-index: 5)
Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica, English Series     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.22, h-index: 20)
Acta Mechanica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.898, h-index: 52)
Acta Mechanica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.426, h-index: 29)
Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters)     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.525, h-index: 18)
Acta Meteorologica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.524, h-index: 14)
Acta Neurochirurgica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.833, h-index: 73)
Acta Neurologica Belgica     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.348, h-index: 27)
Acta Neuropathologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 6.61, h-index: 117)
Acta Oceanologica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.295, h-index: 17)
Acta Parasitologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.581, h-index: 28)
Acta Physiologiae Plantarum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.551, h-index: 39)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.658, h-index: 20)
Activitas Nervosa Superior     Hybrid Journal  
adhäsion KLEBEN & DICHTEN     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.103, h-index: 4)
ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.871, h-index: 15)
Adhesion Adhesives & Sealants     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research     Partially Free   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.795, h-index: 40)
Adsorption     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.774, h-index: 52)
Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.319, h-index: 15)
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 0.959, h-index: 44)
Advances in Computational Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.255, h-index: 44)
Advances in Contraception     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Advances in Data Analysis and Classification     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 52, SJR: 1.113, h-index: 14)
Advances in Gerontology     Partially Free   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.141, h-index: 3)
Advances in Health Sciences Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 1.397, h-index: 42)
Advances in Manufacturing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.2, h-index: 4)
Advances in Polymer Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41, SJR: 0.637, h-index: 89)
Advances in Therapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.79, h-index: 44)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Aequationes Mathematicae     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.882, h-index: 23)
Aerobiologia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.511, h-index: 36)
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.821, h-index: 49)
African Archaeological Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.612, h-index: 24)
Afrika Matematika     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.248, h-index: 6)
AGE     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.358, h-index: 33)
Ageing Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.337, h-index: 10)
Aggiornamenti CIO     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.529, h-index: 55)
Agricultural Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Agriculture and Human Values     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.197, h-index: 49)
Agroforestry Systems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.64, h-index: 56)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.732, h-index: 59)
AI & Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.171, h-index: 19)
AIDS and Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 2.006, h-index: 71)
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.706, h-index: 19)
Akupunktur & Aurikulomedizin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Algebra and Logic     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.566, h-index: 18)
Algebra Universalis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.388, h-index: 22)
Algebras and Representation Theory     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.868, h-index: 20)
Algorithmica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.898, h-index: 56)
Allergo J.     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.183, h-index: 20)
Allergo J. Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Alpine Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.729, h-index: 20)
ALTEX : Alternatives to Animal Experimentation     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.392, h-index: 32)
AMBIO     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.094, h-index: 87)
American J. of Cardiovascular Drugs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.864, h-index: 39)
American J. of Community Psychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 1.237, h-index: 83)
American J. of Criminal Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.634, h-index: 13)
American J. of Cultural Sociology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.283, h-index: 3)
American J. of Dance Therapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.175, h-index: 13)
American J. of Potato Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.558, h-index: 35)
American J. of Psychoanalysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.293, h-index: 13)
American Sociologist     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.18, h-index: 13)
Amino Acids     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.362, h-index: 83)
AMS Review     Partially Free   (Followers: 4)
Analog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.21, h-index: 37)
Analysis and Mathematical Physics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.665, h-index: 7)
Analysis in Theory and Applications     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Analysis of Verbal Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 1.096, h-index: 123)
Anatomical Science Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.301, h-index: 26)
Angewandte Schmerztherapie und Palliativmedizin     Hybrid Journal  
Angiogenesis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 2.212, h-index: 69)
Animal Cognition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.122, h-index: 55)
Annales françaises de médecine d'urgence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.156, h-index: 4)
Annales Henri Poincaré     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.377, h-index: 32)
Annales mathématiques du Québec     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Annali dell'Universita di Ferrara     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.504, h-index: 14)
Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.167, h-index: 26)
Annals of Behavioral Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 2.112, h-index: 98)
Annals of Biomedical Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 1.182, h-index: 94)
Annals of Combinatorics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.849, h-index: 15)
Annals of Data Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Annals of Dyslexia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.857, h-index: 40)
Annals of Finance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 0.686, h-index: 14)
Annals of Forest Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.929, h-index: 57)
Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.136, h-index: 23)
Annals of Hematology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.117, h-index: 62)
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.593, h-index: 42)
Annals of Microbiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.402, h-index: 26)
Annals of Nuclear Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.68, h-index: 45)
Annals of Operations Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.186, h-index: 78)
Annals of Ophthalmology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Annals of Regional Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.405, h-index: 42)
Annals of Software Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Annals of Solid and Structural Mechanics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.553, h-index: 8)
Annals of Surgical Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.902, h-index: 127)
Annals of Telecommunications     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.315, h-index: 25)
Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.931, h-index: 31)
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.992, h-index: 87)
Apidologie     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.14, h-index: 57)
APOPTOSIS     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.554, h-index: 87)
Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.354, h-index: 27)
Applications of Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.274, h-index: 20)
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 44, SJR: 0.575, h-index: 80)
Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.267, h-index: 26)
Applied Cancer Research     Open Access  
Applied Categorical Structures     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.361, h-index: 21)
Applied Composite Materials     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 48, SJR: 0.705, h-index: 35)
Applied Entomology and Zoology     Partially Free   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.554, h-index: 34)
Applied Geomatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.323, h-index: 9)
Applied Geophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.541, h-index: 13)
Applied Intelligence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.777, h-index: 43)
Applied Magnetic Resonance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.358, h-index: 34)
Applied Mathematics & Optimization     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.955, h-index: 33)
Applied Mathematics - A J. of Chinese Universities     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.275, h-index: 8)
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.37, h-index: 26)
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 62, SJR: 1.262, h-index: 161)
Applied Physics A     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.535, h-index: 121)
Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.983, h-index: 104)
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.677, h-index: 47)
Applied Research in Quality of Life     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.288, h-index: 15)
Applied Solar Energy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.251, h-index: 6)
Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.351, h-index: 9)
Aquaculture Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.613, h-index: 40)
Aquarium Sciences and Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Aquatic Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 0.646, h-index: 44)
Aquatic Geochemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.764, h-index: 39)
Aquatic Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.172, h-index: 53)
Arabian J. for Science and Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.345, h-index: 20)
Arabian J. of Geosciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.417, h-index: 16)
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 1.056, h-index: 15)
Archaeologies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.397, h-index: 13)
Archiv der Mathematik     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.597, h-index: 29)
Archival Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 0.804, h-index: 22)
Archive for History of Exact Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.28, h-index: 15)
Archive for Mathematical Logic     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.946, h-index: 23)
Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 4.091, h-index: 66)
Archive of Applied Mechanics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.865, h-index: 40)
Archives and Museum Informatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 129)
Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 2.841, h-index: 40)
Archives of Dermatological Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.9, h-index: 65)
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.846, h-index: 84)
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.695, h-index: 47)
Archives of Microbiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.702, h-index: 85)
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.039, h-index: 56)
Archives of Osteoporosis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.092, h-index: 13)
Archives of Sexual Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.198, h-index: 74)
Archives of Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.595, h-index: 76)
Archives of Virology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 1.086, h-index: 90)
Archives of Women's Mental Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.264, h-index: 50)
Archivio di Ortopedia e Reumatologia     Hybrid Journal  
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.2, h-index: 42)
ArgoSpine News & J.     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.102, h-index: 3)
Argumentation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.295, h-index: 18)
Arid Ecosystems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Arkiv för Matematik     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.948, h-index: 22)
Arnold Mathematical J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Arthropod-Plant Interactions     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.797, h-index: 17)
Arthroskopie     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.145, h-index: 8)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.288, h-index: 25)
Artificial Intelligence Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.948, h-index: 48)
Artificial Life and Robotics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.231, h-index: 14)
Asia Europe J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.247, h-index: 9)
Asia Pacific Education Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.371, h-index: 17)
Asia Pacific J. of Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.676, h-index: 50)
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.353, h-index: 13)
Asia-Pacific Financial Markets     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.19, h-index: 15)
Asia-Pacific J. of Atmospheric Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 1.006, h-index: 14)
Asian Business & Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.41, h-index: 10)
Asian J. of Business Ethics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Asian J. of Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.263, h-index: 8)
AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.681, h-index: 15)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.195, h-index: 5)
ästhetische dermatologie & kosmetologie     Full-text available via subscription  

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Journal Cover Argumentation
  [SJR: 0.295]   [H-I: 18]   [5 followers]  Follow
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
   ISSN (Print) 1572-8374 - ISSN (Online) 0920-427X
   Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2352 journals]
  • Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments
    • Authors: Gilbert Plumer
      Pages: 469 - 484
      Abstract: Abstract Although in some contexts the notions of an ordinary argument’s presumption, assumption, and presupposition appear to merge into the one concept of an implicit premise, there are important differences between these three notions. It is argued that assumption and presupposition, but not presumption, are basic logical notions. A presupposition of an argument is best understood as pertaining to a propositional element (a premise or the conclusion) e of the argument, such that the presupposition is a necessary condition for the truth of e or for a term in e to have a referent. In contrast, an assumption of an argument pertains to the argument as a whole in that it is integral to the reasoning or inferential structure of the argument. A logical assumption of an argument is essentially a proposition that must be true in order for the argument aside from that proposition to be fully cogent. Nothing that is both comparable and distinguishing can be said about presumptions of arguments. Rather, presumptions of arguments are distinctively conventional; they are introduced through conventional rules (e.g., those that concern how to treat promises). So not all assumptions and not all presuppositions of arguments are presumptions of those arguments, although all presumptions of arguments are either assumptions or presuppositions of those arguments. This account avoids making the (monological) notion of presumption vacuous and dissolving the distinction between assumption and presumption, which is a vulnerability of alternative views such as Hansen’s and Bermejo-Luque’s, as is shown.
      PubDate: 2017-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9419-1
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 3 (2017)
  • Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing
           Epistemic Risk
    • Authors: David Godden
      Pages: 485 - 511
      Abstract: Abstract Standards and norms for reasoning function, in part, to manage epistemic risk. Properly used, modal qualifiers like presumably have a role in systematically managing epistemic risk by flagging and tracking type-specific epistemic merits and risks of the claims they modify. Yet, argumentation-theoretic accounts of presumption often define it in terms of modalities of other kinds, thereby failing to recognize the unique risk profile of each. This paper offers a stipulative account of presumption, inspired by Ullmann-Margalit (J Philos 80:143–163, 1983), as an inferentially generated modal qualifier, “presumably, p,” distinguishing it from other, particularly epistemic modalities, e.g., standing commitments, assumptions, assertions, suppositions, hypotheses, and defeasible claims. By avoiding the tranching of inferential instruments of qualitatively different bona fides and risk profiles, this account provides a more accurate risk-rating system that better manages epistemic risk in inference, as well as contributing to the normative theory of the operation of presumption in reasoning and argument.
      PubDate: 2017-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9422-1
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 3 (2017)
  • The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation
    • Authors: Raymundo Gama
      Pages: 555 - 572
      Abstract: Abstract This paper explores two persistent questions in the literature on presumptions: the place and the nature of presumptions in law and legal argumentation. These questions were originally raised by James Bradley Thayer, one of the masters of the Law of Evidence and the author of the classic chapter devoted this subject in A preliminary treatise on Evidence (1898). Like Thayer, I believe that these questions deserve attention. First the paper shows that the connection between presumptions and argumentation is a constant feature in the literature on presumptions, since its foundation in the Middle Ages to modern times. James Bradley Thayer was probably the last jurist who clearly saw that presumptions belong to argumentation. Second, the paper examines two sources of controversy in the language of presumptions. First, “presumption” is an ambiguous word in the legal discourse. As a result, it is almost impossible to provide a clear and succinct answer to the question “What is a presumption'”. Second, there are at least four reconstructions of the concept of presumption whose merits and shortcomings are relevant to explore. The analysis presented here may be of interest for legal and non-legal scholars and, hopefully, it may help to shed light on the possibilities and limits of an interdisciplinary dialogue about presumptions.
      PubDate: 2017-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9417-3
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 3 (2017)
  • Presumptions in Speech Acts
    • Authors: Cristina Corredor
      Pages: 573 - 589
      Abstract: Abstract The aim of this paper is to explore the viability of accounting for presumptions as a subtype of verdictives, within the framework of the Austinian approach to speech acts. The available set of felicity conditions is examined and worked out, in order to try and account in particular for a main feature of presumptions, namely, their function in shifting the burden of proof. In order to extend the Austinian framework as required, the notion of pragmatic presupposition accommodation is shown to be a useful device.
      PubDate: 2017-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9425-y
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 3 (2017)
  • Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions
    • Authors: Marcin Lewiński
      Pages: 591 - 613
      Abstract: Abstract In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise “the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today” (Godden and Walton in Pragmat Cogn 15:333, 2007). I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The “presumption of veracity” (Kauffeld) is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by the Principle of Charity (Davidson, Quine), or else Gricean maxims or satisfaction conditions for speech acts (Austin, Searle). Formal presumptions are general presumptive rules of argument, theorised as topoi or acceptable inference warrants, including institutional warrants (“If not proven guilty, then innocent”). Material presumptions are acceptable outcomes of nested or outsourced arguments, which entitles arguers to use them as acceptable premises or opinions (endoxa) in further arguments without the typical burden of proof. If this is correct, then the study of presumption always collapses into the study of other, likely more fundamental, concepts. Does it render presumptions, by Occam’s Razor, altogether redundant in argumentation theory' I tentatively answer this question from a consistently conversational perspective on argumentation; I argue that the pragmatic grounds for presumptions are to be found in the conditions for speech act performance in the institutional social world, as developed by Searle.
      PubDate: 2017-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9421-2
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 3 (2017)
  • Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions
    • Authors: Fabrizio Macagno; Douglas Walton; Christopher Tindale
      Pages: 221 - 243
      Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the terms of the comparison (essential similarities) or non-semantic ones, indicating possible characteristics of the referents (accidental similarities). Such distinct types of similarity characterize different kinds of analogical arguments, all based on a similar general structure, in which a common genus (or rather a generic feature) is abstracted. Depending on the nature of the abstracted common feature, different rules of inference will apply, guaranteeing the attribution of the analogical predicate to the genus and to the primary subject. This analysis of similarity and the relationship thereof with the rules of inference allows a deeper investigation of the defeasibility conditions.
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9406-6
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Re-contextualising Argumentative Meanings: An Adaptive Perspective
    • Authors: Thanh Nyan
      Pages: 267 - 299
      Abstract: Abstract The study of context can benefit greatly from re-examining some of the concepts arising from Anscombre and Ducrot’s argumentation theory (AT) from an adaptive perspective. By focusing on discourse dynamism, AT provides fresh angles from which to view key issues, such as the nature of context triggers; whether context construction is necessarily a background activity; in what way utterances set themselves up as contexts for the upcoming discourse; and the nature of the inferences whereby background knowledge and information are accessed. The need for an adaptive perspective arises in connection with AT’s construal of context construction, which raises but cannot answer certain questions that are crucial to our understanding of context: these questions concern the source of the background knowledge required to understand the argumentative meanings under consideration. An adaptive perspective can offer a non-ad-hoc account of the source of the background knowledge involved, in terms of what pre-existing systems require to support their processing needs, and the information and knowledge they produce. Such an account builds on the assumptions that language can avail itself of processing strategies, skills, forms of know-how utilised by pre-existing systems, and has access to knowledge generated by systems such as perception and action production.
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9405-7
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model
    • Authors: Claire Polo; Christian Plantin; Kristine Lund; Gerald Niccolai
      Pages: 301 - 329
      Abstract: Abstract Education and cognition research today generally recognize the tri-dimensional nature of reasoning processes as involving cognitive, social and emotional phenomena. However, there is so far no theoretical framework articulating these three dimensions from a descriptive perspective. This paper aims at presenting a first model of how group emotions work in collective reasoning, and specifies their social and cognitive functions. This model is inspired both from a multidisciplinary literature review and our extensive previous empirical work on an international corpus of videotaped student debates. The cognitive function of emotions is defined in reference to the process of schematization (Grize 1996, 1997) and associated emotional framing (Polo et al. 2013). On the other hand, the social function of emotions refers to recognition-oriented behaviors that correspond to engagement into specific types of group talk (e.g. Mercer 1996), implying specific politeness rules or face-preservation systems (Brown and Levinson 1988). We believe that our multi-dimensional and multi-level approach to group reasoning, which mostly employs a linguistic perspective, can be applied to a diversity of contexts. We hope it will serve as a basis for further discussion on the role of emotions in reasoning among the interdisciplinary community of argumentation studies.
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9407-5
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Using Argumentative Tools to Understand Inner Dialogue
    • Authors: Sara Greco
      Pages: 331 - 358
      Abstract: Abstract The starting point of this paper is the acknowledgement that individual reasoning, understood as inner dialogue, and social argumentation, albeit they are two different phenomena, share some similarities. On this basis, this paper sets out to apply instruments from argumentation theory (in particular, in a pragma-dialectical perspective) to inner dialogue in order to better explain it. Within this framework, some limitations to the study of inner dialogue are also discussed; and methodological suggestions are provided in order to grasp what could be considered data on “inner dialogue” starting from social research interviews. The ultimate aim is to go beyond a mere recognition of a similarity between inner dialogue and argumentation and start analysing inner dialogue empirically using tools from argumentation theory. The findings show that the analytic overview help shed light on how inner dialogue within processes of individual decision-making develops and what it means to have an internal difference of opinion, in which one and the same person adopts opposing standpoints and argues for them. On the opposite, it is shown that the notion of strategic manoeuvring per se cannot be applied to inner dialogue.
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9408-4
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-revisionism
    • Authors: David Godden
      Pages: 395 - 431
      Abstract: Abstract Visual arguments can seem to require unique, autonomous evaluative norms, since their content seems irreducible to, and incommensurable with, that of verbal arguments. Yet, assertions of the ineffability of the visual, or of visual-verbal incommensurability, seem to preclude counting putatively irreducible visual content as functioning argumentatively. By distinguishing two notions of content, informational and argumentative, I contend that arguments differing in informational content can have equivalent argumentative content, allowing the same argumentative norms to be rightly applied in their evaluation.
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9411-9
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Toulmin’s Logical Types
    • Authors: David Botting
      Pages: 433 - 449
      Abstract: Abstract In “The Uses of Argument” Toulmin introduces a number of concepts that have become popular in argumentation theory, such as data, claim, warrant, backing, force, field, and, most fundamentally, the concept of a “logical type”. Toulmin never defines the concept of a logical type or a field very clearly, and different interpretations can be found in the literature, either reconstructing what Toulmin has in mind, or revising his concepts to suit other concerns. A natural history of these concepts is not my concern. I will analyse logical types according to what Toulmin uses this concept for, namely to raise a problem with deductive logic and motivate its replacement with the Toulmin model. I will argue that a logical type and the distinction he draws between different logical types resembles distinctions made in logical positivism between the directly and the indirectly verifiable, and the problem raised is, in essence, the positivist’s problem of how indirect propositions can be justified on the basis of direct propositions. I will show that Toulmin makes a straw man of the positivists’ own solution to the problem and hence does not prove there to be an adequate motivation for replacing deductive logic with the Toulmin model.
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9414-6
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Christopher W. Tindale: The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception
    • Authors: Daniel Beresheim
      Pages: 451 - 454
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9392-0
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies
    • Authors: Andrew Aberdein
      Pages: 455 - 461
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9398-2
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 2 (2017)
  • Legal Facts in Argumentation-Based Litigation Games
    • Authors: Minghui Xiong; Frank Zenker
      Abstract: Abstract This paper analyzes legal fact-argumentation in the framework of the argumentation-based litigation game (ALG) by Xiong (Leg Sci 370(9):16–19, 2012). Rather than as an ontological one, an ALG treats a legal fact as a fact-qua-claim whose acceptability depends on the reasons supporting it. In constructing their facts-qua-claims, parties to an ALG must interact to maintain a game-theoretic equilibrium. We compare the general interactional constraints that the civil (a.k.a. ‘continental’) and common law systems assign, and detail what the civil, administrative, and criminal codes of mainland China require of the suitor (S), the respondent (R), and the trier (T) to establish their respective S-, R- and T-facts. We also offer an improved version of the legal syllogism.
      PubDate: 2017-09-18
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9438-6
  • “You Think That Says a Lot, but Really it Says Nothing”: An
           Argumentative and Linguistic Account of an Idiomatic Expression
           Functioning as a Presentational Device
    • Authors: Henrike Jansen
      Abstract: Abstract This paper discusses idiomatic expressions like ‘that says it all’, ‘that says a lot’ etc. when used in presenting an argument. These expressions are instantiations of the grammatical pattern that says Q, in which Q is an indefinite quantifying expression. By making use of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and the linguistic theory of construction grammar it is argued that instantiations of that says Q expressing positive polarity (‘it all’, ‘everything’, ‘much’, ‘a lot’, ‘something’) can fulfil the role of an argumentation’s (explicitly expressed) linking premise. Furthermore, an analysis of these expressions as presentational devices shows that an arguer can use them for strategic reasons, i.e. to leave the exact formulation of the standpoint implicit and to present the argument as self-evident. Using these devices derails into fallaciousness when the context offers insufficient clues to reconstruct the standpoint or when the argument does not offer the kind of support that would be required by the specific instantiation of Q. The argumentative function of instantiations of that says Q expressing negative polarity (‘little’, ‘nothing’ and other denials of those expressing positive polarity) is that an antagonist can use them to attack the justificatory power of the protagonist’s argument.
      PubDate: 2017-09-07
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9436-8
  • Questioning the Virtual Friendship Debate: Fuzzy Analogical Arguments from
           Classification and Definition
    • Authors: Oliver Laas
      Abstract: Abstract Arguments from analogy are pervasive in everyday reasoning, mathematics, philosophy, and science. Informal logic studies everyday argumentation in ordinary language. A branch of fuzzy logic, approximate reasoning, seeks to model facets of everyday reasoning with vague concepts in ill-defined situations. Ways of combining the results from these fields will be suggested by introducing a new argumentation scheme—a fuzzy analogical argument from classification—with the associated critical questions. This will be motivated by a case study of analogical reasoning in the virtual friendship debate within information ethics. The virtual friendship debate is a disagreement over whether virtual friendships are genuine friendships. It will be argued that the debate could move away from its current impasse, caused by unproductive metaphysical and logical assumptions, if extant arguments are reinterpreted as fuzzy analogical arguments from classification, and subjected to a new set of critical questions which would replace the quest for facts of essence about friendship with an emphasis on empirical data, persuasion, and definitional power.
      PubDate: 2017-09-04
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9437-7
  • Arguments from Ostension
    • Authors: Hubert Marraud
      Abstract: Abstract My purpose here is to describe a type of argument characterized by the fact that one of its premises is a directive—i.e. what is expressed by a directive sentence: a general instruction how to proceed or act. This directive premise brings an ostensive mechanism for the inclusion of visual or multimodal elements in an argument. If an argument is an invitation to inference (Robert Pinto), by using such a directive utterance the addresser is inviting the addressee to make an inference from an image, not from a proposition. Hence I will call them arguments from ostension or from deixis.
      PubDate: 2017-07-17
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9435-9
  • The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue
    • Authors: Conny Rhode
      Abstract: Abstract Dialogical egalitarianism is the thesis that any proposition asserted in dialogue, if questioned, must be supported or else retracted. Dialogical foundationalism is the thesis that some propositions are privileged over this burden of proof, standing in no need of support unless and until support for their negation is provided. I first discuss existing arguments for either thesis, dismissing each one of them. Absent a successful principled argument, I then examine which thesis it is pragmatically more advantageous to adopt in analytic philosophical dialogue. This requires identifying the goal of such dialogue, to the attainment of which the thesis would be so advantageous. To identify this goal, I draw on Douglas Walton’s typology of dialogues for an analysis of the types of dialogue of 110 representatively selected journal articles in current analytic philosophy. 95% of articles are found to instantiate persuasion dialogue. In light of the thus prevalent goal of persuading one’s opponent, I argue that the adoption of dialogical egalitarianism in analytic philosophical dialogue is pragmatically inescapable.
      PubDate: 2017-05-27
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9432-z
  • Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New
           Dialogical Theory
    • Authors: Petar Bodlović
      Abstract: Abstract According to Douglas Walton, the concept of presumption relates to both logical and dialogical components. Logically, a presumption is the conclusion of a presumptive defeasible inference. Dialogically, the function of a presumptions to shift the burden of proof to the respondent in order to move the dialogue forward when the proponent, due to an objective lack of evidence, cannot present a sufficiently persuasive proposition. Presumptive status, assigned only at the argumentation stage of dialogue, is provisional: a particular presumption stands until further counter-indications are found. This paper points out some possible difficulties pertaining to Walton’s dialogical model of presumption. Firstly, once a presumption's typical practical function is made precise, Walton’s idea of presumption starts to lose its conceptual cohesion, thereby becoming applicable in the opening stage of dialogue, as well. Secondly, cohesion is lost also in practical contexts, since Walton's "seat belts" example might indicate that presumptions are not evidentially defeasible if the practical stakes are raised high enough. Most importantly, contextual evaluation may reveal that presumptions do not shift the burden of proof in any specific or genuine way.
      PubDate: 2017-05-22
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9431-0
  • Introduction for a Special Volume of Argumentation on Presumptions,
           Presumptive Inferences and Burdens of Proof
    • Authors: Lilian Bermejo-Luque; Cristina Corredor
      Abstract: Abstract From 26th to 28th of April 2016, it took place in the University of Granada a conference on presumptions, presumptive inferences and burdens of proof that, joint with other ongoing initiatives, has contributed to renew the interest of the argumentation community in analysing these notions and the relationships between them. This special volume of Argumentation consists of a selection of papers presented at this conference.
      PubDate: 2017-04-06
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9430-1
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016