Case Study of Contextual and Emotional Modulation of Source-case Selection in Analogical Arguments

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2023-09-13 DOI:10.22329/il.v43i3.7802

Marcello Guarini

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In making analogical arguments about actions, is more similarity between the source and target cases always better? No: all things considered, more similarity is not always better, even if the similarities are all relevant. The reason is that the context of the argument, including emotional considerations, modulates the selection of the source case to service the goals of the argument. If the goals of the argument include persuasion and even modifying someone’s emotional state, increasing the overall similarity between the source and target may be counterproductive.

查看原文本刊更多论文

类比论证中源格选择的语境和情绪调节的个案研究

在对行为进行类比论证时，源案例和目标案例之间的相似性是否越高越好?不:考虑到所有的事情，更多的相似并不总是更好，即使相似之处都是相关的。原因是论证的语境，包括情感上的考虑，调整了源案例的选择，以服务于论证的目标。如果争论的目标包括说服甚至改变某人的情绪状态，那么增加源和目标之间的总体相似性可能会适得其反。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.