Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument

Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 73–78, 2001. Book Review Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument,Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999. 245 pages. ISBN 0-7914- 4388-4 [R]hetorical argumentation (...) is the branch of argumentation that has been most overlooked in a tradition that has stressed the logical, and it has still been undervalued in the recent welcome rehabilitation of dialectical argumentation. At the least, it stands together with logical and dialectical perspectives as an equal partner providing a complete and comprehensive picture. The above quote can be found on p. 207 of Acts of Arguing.In AI and Law, the logical perspective has always played an important role, and the dialectical perspective has gained growing attention over the last 10 years. Although Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s The New Rhetoric is an often quoted source, so far the rhet- orical perspective has not received that much attention in AI and Law. In rhetoric, a key concept is the audience the argumentation is directed towards. I might not be the most critical audience for Acts of Arguing, since I am convinced of the importance of rhetoric in argumentation, as for example the back cover of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument

Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 9 (1) – Oct 19, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/christopher-w-tindale-acts-of-arguing-a-rhetorical-model-of-argument-bpD1CTu9Lh
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1023/A:1011264731135
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 73–78, 2001. Book Review Christopher W. Tindale, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument,Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999. 245 pages. ISBN 0-7914- 4388-4 [R]hetorical argumentation (...) is the branch of argumentation that has been most overlooked in a tradition that has stressed the logical, and it has still been undervalued in the recent welcome rehabilitation of dialectical argumentation. At the least, it stands together with logical and dialectical perspectives as an equal partner providing a complete and comprehensive picture. The above quote can be found on p. 207 of Acts of Arguing.In AI and Law, the logical perspective has always played an important role, and the dialectical perspective has gained growing attention over the last 10 years. Although Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s The New Rhetoric is an often quoted source, so far the rhet- orical perspective has not received that much attention in AI and Law. In rhetoric, a key concept is the audience the argumentation is directed towards. I might not be the most critical audience for Acts of Arguing, since I am convinced of the importance of rhetoric in argumentation, as for example the back cover of

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 19, 2004

References