Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T10:29:49.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Douglas Walton
Douglas Walton
Affiliation:
University of Windsor, Ontario
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Informal Logic
A Pragmatic Approach
 , pp. 333 - 338
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Jerry. 1994. ‘The Numbers Game.’ Newsweek, July 25, pp. 56–58.Google Scholar
Alter, Jonathan. 1985. ‘Round Up the Usual Suspects.’ Newsweek, March 25, p. 69.Google Scholar
Apostel, L. 1982. ‘Towards a General Theory of Argumentation.’ In Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation, ed. Barth, E. M. and Martens, J. L.. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aqvist, Lennart. 1965. A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives. Uppsala: Filosofiska Studier.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1958. Topica et Sophistici Elenchi, trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, ed. Ross, W. D.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, F. G. 1983. The Tactical Uses of Passion. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., and Krabbe, E. C. W.. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue; A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, E. M., and Martens, J. L.. 1977. ‘Argumentum ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectic.’ Logique et Analyse77–8: 76–96.Google Scholar
Bateson, L. ‘The Message “This is Play.”’ 1956. In Group Processes: Transactions, of the Second Conference, ed. Schaffner, B. (New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation), 145–242.Google Scholar
Begley, Sharon. 1985. ‘Science Contra Darwin.’ Newsweek, April 8, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel D., and Steel, Thomas B. Jr. 1976. The Logic of Questions and Answers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1962. The Book of Fallacies, vol. 2 of The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. Bowring, John. New York: Russell & Russell (originally published in 1838).Google Scholar
Best, Joel. 2001. Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Peter J., Eugene A. Hammel, and William J. O'Connell. 1977. ‘Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley.’ In Statistics and Public Policy, ed. William, B. Fairley and Mosteller, Frederick (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley). First printed in Science 187 (1975: 398–404).Google Scholar
Bowler, Peter. 1984. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Alan. 1985. ‘A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Stephen K. 1974. Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cederblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W.. 1982. Critical Reasoning. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Clements, Colleen D., and Richard, Ciccone. 1984. ‘Ethics and Expert Witnesses.’ Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 12: 127–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, David. 1973. The Crucial 10% That Really Counts for Trial Victories. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Executive Reports.Google Scholar
Copi, Irving M. 1982. Introduction to Logic, 6th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crossen, Cynthia. 1994. Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Croxton, Frederick E., and Dudley J. Cowden. 1955. Applied General Statistics, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cushing, S. 1994. Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Damer, T. Edward. 1980. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kruif, Paul. 1932. Men against Death. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
DeMorgan, Augustus. 1847. Formal Logic. London: Taylor and Walton.Google Scholar
Dunne, Paul E., and Trevor, J. M.Bench-Capon, , eds. 2006. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard L. 1979. ‘Relatedness and Implication.’ Philosophical Studies 36: 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, David Hackett. 1970. Historians' Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fisher, Alan C., and Wendy, North. 1986. ‘Cancer Survival Rates: What the Media Haven't Told You.’ American Council on Science and Health News & Views 7: 1–7.Google Scholar
Freedman, David, Robert, Pisani, and Roger, Purves. 1978. Statistics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 1988. Thinking Logically. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Froman, Lewis A. Jr. 1967. The Congressional Process. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Gevarter, William B. 1983. An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, NASA Technical Memorandum 855838. Houston: NASA Headquarters, Scientific and Technical Information Branch.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1979. Understanding Scientific Reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Godden, David M., and Walton, Douglas. 2006. ‘Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.’ Ratio Juris 19: 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1983. ‘Ad Hominem: Revising the Textbooks.’ Teaching Philosophy 6: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1985. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1987. Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Graham, Michael H. 1977. ‘Impeaching the Professional Expert Witness by a Showing of Financial Interest.’ Indiana Law Journal 53: 35–53.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In The Logic of Grammar, ed. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert (Encino, Calif.: Dickenson), 64–75.
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Harrah, David. 1984. ‘The Logic of Questions.’ In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, ed. Gabbay, D. and Guenther, F. (Dordrecht: Reidel), 715–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinman, Lawrence M. 1982. ‘The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1976. The Semantics of Questions and the Questions of Semantics, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 28. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1981. ‘The Logic of Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model.’ In Konzepte der Dialektik, ed. Becker, Werner and Wilhelm, K. Essler (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann), 212–231.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1988. ‘What is the Logic of Experimental Inquiry?’ Synthese 74: 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooke, Robert. 1983. How to Tell the Liars from the Statisticians. New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
Horty, John. 2001. ‘Nonmonotonic Logic.’ In The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. Goble, L. (Oxford: Blackwell), 336–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, Darrel. 1954. How to Lie with Statistics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hurley, Patrick J. 2003. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Imwinkelried, Edward J. 1981. Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Practicing Law Institute.Google Scholar
Imwinkelried, Edward J. 1986. ‘Science Takes the Stand: The Growing Misuse of Expert Testimony.’ The Sciences 26: 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, C. 1982. An Introduction to Plant Taxonomy, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H., and Blair, J. Anthony. 1983. Logical Self-Defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Henry W. Jr. 1978. Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument. University Park, Pa.: Dialogue Press of Man and World.Google Scholar
Jones, Andrew J. I. 1983. Communication and Meaning. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesterton, Michael. 1995. ‘Social Studies.’ The Globe and Mail June 8, p. A24.Google Scholar
Kielkopf, Charles. 1980. ‘Relevant Appeals to Force, Pity and Popular Pieties.’ Informal Logic Newsletter 2: 2–5.Google Scholar
King, John L. 1979. ‘Bivalence and the Law of Excluded Middle.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 17–25.Google Scholar
Kozinski, Alex. 2001. ‘How I Narrowly Escaped Insanity.’ U.C.L.A. Law Review 48: 1293–1304.Google Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C. W. 1985. ‘Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules.’ Synthese 63: 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1961. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. John, W. Yolton, 2 vols. London: Dent (originally published in 1690).Google Scholar
Lorenzen, Paul. 1969. Normative Logic and Ethics. Mannheim: Hochschultaschenbücher.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1967. ‘Fallacies.’ In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3, ed. Edwards, Paul. New York: Macmillan, 169–179.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. 1988. ‘Dialogue Games: Conventions of Human Interaction.’ Argumentation 2: 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, Ruth. 1979. ‘A Language for Questions and Answers.’ Theoretical Linguistics, 6: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, Ruth. 1981. ‘Dialogues and the Logics of Questions and Answers.’ Linguistische Berichte 73: 1–28.Google Scholar
Marlin, Randal. 2002. Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Moore, Christopher W. 1986. The Mediation Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Moore, David S. 1979. Statistics: Concepts and Controversies. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Moore, David W. 1992. The Superpollsters. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. 1985. Logic: An Introductory Course. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoloff, Franck. 1989. ‘Threats and Illocutions.’ Journal of Pragmatics 13: 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Stanley L. 1951. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prakken, Henry. 2006. ‘Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue.’ The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Chris, and Glenn, Rowe. 2002. ‘Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML.’ Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee. Http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria.Google Scholar
Reed, Chris, and Glenn, Rowe. 2006. Araucaria, Version 3_1, User Manual. Http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria.
Reiter, Raymond. 1987. ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning.’ Annual Review of Computer Science 2: 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1964. Introduction to Logic. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1976. Plausible Reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1977. Dialectics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert S. 1987. Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Stanley, Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, Daniel. 1961. ‘We're Drowning in Phony Statistics.’ Fortune, November, 146–171.Google Scholar
Sell, Peter S. 1985. Expert Systems: A Practical Introduction. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Robert Gordon, and Erich, Goode. 1977. ‘Scientists in the Popular Press.’ New Scientist 76: 482–484.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1954. ‘Spurious Correlation: A Causal Interpretation.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association 49: 467–492.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stebbing, L. Susan. 1939. Thinking to Some Purpose. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tindale, Christopher W. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, D. D. 1987. ‘Begging the Question.’ Globe and Mail (Letters to the Editor), February 24, p. 6.Google Scholar
Trankell, Arne. 1972. Reliability of Evidence. Stockholm: Beckmans.Google Scholar
Hans, Meij. 1986. Questioning. The Hague: Selecta Reeks.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. 1986. ‘Dialectical Analysis as a Normative Reconstruction of Argumentative Discourse.’ Text 6: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob, Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., Rob, Grootendorst, and Tjark, Kruiger. 1987. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., Rob, Grootendorst, Blair, J. Anthony, and Willard, Charles A.. eds. 1987. Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2002. ‘Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.’ In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren (Amsterdam: Sic Sat), 13–28.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter, Houtlosser. 2006. ‘Strategic Maneuvering: a Synthetic Recapitulation.’ Argumentation 20: 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheij, Bart. 2003. ‘Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes.’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1980. ‘Why Is the Ad Populum a Fallacy?’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 13: 264–278.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1981. ‘The Fallacy of Many Questions.’ Logique et Analyse95–96: 291–313.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1982. Topical Relevance in Argumentation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1984. Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1985a. Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1985b. ‘New Directions in the Logic of Dialogue.’ Synthese 63: 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1987. Informal Fallacies. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1988. ‘Burden of Proof.’ Argumentation 2: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1998a. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1998b. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2000. Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht:Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2004. ‘Classification of Fallacies of Relevance.’ Informal Logic 24: 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2005. Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Series). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Krabbe, Erik C. W.. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany:State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Chris, Reed. 2005. ‘Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.’ Synthese 145: 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, O. J. 1981. ‘Attacking the Expert Witness.’ Federation of Insurance Counsel Quarterly 31: 299–313.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1826. Elements of Logic, 9th ed. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1836. Elements of Logic. New York: Jackson.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1846. Elements of Rhetoric, 7th ed. Ehninger, Douglas. Rpt. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Michael. 1990. ‘How to Read the Polls.’ In The Classics of Polling, ed. Michael, L. Young (Methuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press), 191–209.Google Scholar
Wilson, Patrick. 1983. Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1974. ‘Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.’Philosophy and Rhetoric 7: 135–153.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1976. ‘Ad Baculum.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 2: 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1977. ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.’ Review of Metaphysics 30: 569–593.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1978. ‘The Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam.’ Dialectica 32: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1979. ‘Equivocation and Practical Logic.’ Ratio 21: 31–43.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard A., and Ken, Tohinaka. 1984. Logical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Younger, Irving. 1982. ‘A Practical Approach to the Use of Expert Testimony.’ Cleveland State Law Review 31: 1–42.Google Scholar
Zeide, Janet S., and Jay, Leibowitz. 1987. ‘Using Expert Systems: The Legal Perspective.’ IEEE Expert 2(Spring): 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeisel, Hans. 1968. Say It with Figures, 5th ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Adler, Jerry. 1994. ‘The Numbers Game.’ Newsweek, July 25, pp. 56–58.Google Scholar
Alter, Jonathan. 1985. ‘Round Up the Usual Suspects.’ Newsweek, March 25, p. 69.Google Scholar
Apostel, L. 1982. ‘Towards a General Theory of Argumentation.’ In Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation, ed. Barth, E. M. and Martens, J. L.. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aqvist, Lennart. 1965. A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives. Uppsala: Filosofiska Studier.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1958. Topica et Sophistici Elenchi, trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, ed. Ross, W. D.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, F. G. 1983. The Tactical Uses of Passion. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., and Krabbe, E. C. W.. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue; A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, E. M., and Martens, J. L.. 1977. ‘Argumentum ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectic.’ Logique et Analyse77–8: 76–96.Google Scholar
Bateson, L. ‘The Message “This is Play.”’ 1956. In Group Processes: Transactions, of the Second Conference, ed. Schaffner, B. (New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation), 145–242.Google Scholar
Begley, Sharon. 1985. ‘Science Contra Darwin.’ Newsweek, April 8, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel D., and Steel, Thomas B. Jr. 1976. The Logic of Questions and Answers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1962. The Book of Fallacies, vol. 2 of The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. Bowring, John. New York: Russell & Russell (originally published in 1838).Google Scholar
Best, Joel. 2001. Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Peter J., Eugene A. Hammel, and William J. O'Connell. 1977. ‘Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley.’ In Statistics and Public Policy, ed. William, B. Fairley and Mosteller, Frederick (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley). First printed in Science 187 (1975: 398–404).Google Scholar
Bowler, Peter. 1984. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Alan. 1985. ‘A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Stephen K. 1974. Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cederblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W.. 1982. Critical Reasoning. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Clements, Colleen D., and Richard, Ciccone. 1984. ‘Ethics and Expert Witnesses.’ Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 12: 127–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, David. 1973. The Crucial 10% That Really Counts for Trial Victories. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Executive Reports.Google Scholar
Copi, Irving M. 1982. Introduction to Logic, 6th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crossen, Cynthia. 1994. Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Croxton, Frederick E., and Dudley J. Cowden. 1955. Applied General Statistics, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cushing, S. 1994. Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Damer, T. Edward. 1980. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kruif, Paul. 1932. Men against Death. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
DeMorgan, Augustus. 1847. Formal Logic. London: Taylor and Walton.Google Scholar
Dunne, Paul E., and Trevor, J. M.Bench-Capon, , eds. 2006. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard L. 1979. ‘Relatedness and Implication.’ Philosophical Studies 36: 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, David Hackett. 1970. Historians' Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fisher, Alan C., and Wendy, North. 1986. ‘Cancer Survival Rates: What the Media Haven't Told You.’ American Council on Science and Health News & Views 7: 1–7.Google Scholar
Freedman, David, Robert, Pisani, and Roger, Purves. 1978. Statistics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 1988. Thinking Logically. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Froman, Lewis A. Jr. 1967. The Congressional Process. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Gevarter, William B. 1983. An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, NASA Technical Memorandum 855838. Houston: NASA Headquarters, Scientific and Technical Information Branch.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1979. Understanding Scientific Reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Godden, David M., and Walton, Douglas. 2006. ‘Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.’ Ratio Juris 19: 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1983. ‘Ad Hominem: Revising the Textbooks.’ Teaching Philosophy 6: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1985. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1987. Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Graham, Michael H. 1977. ‘Impeaching the Professional Expert Witness by a Showing of Financial Interest.’ Indiana Law Journal 53: 35–53.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In The Logic of Grammar, ed. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert (Encino, Calif.: Dickenson), 64–75.
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Harrah, David. 1984. ‘The Logic of Questions.’ In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, ed. Gabbay, D. and Guenther, F. (Dordrecht: Reidel), 715–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinman, Lawrence M. 1982. ‘The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1976. The Semantics of Questions and the Questions of Semantics, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 28. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1981. ‘The Logic of Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model.’ In Konzepte der Dialektik, ed. Becker, Werner and Wilhelm, K. Essler (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann), 212–231.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1988. ‘What is the Logic of Experimental Inquiry?’ Synthese 74: 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooke, Robert. 1983. How to Tell the Liars from the Statisticians. New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
Horty, John. 2001. ‘Nonmonotonic Logic.’ In The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. Goble, L. (Oxford: Blackwell), 336–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, Darrel. 1954. How to Lie with Statistics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hurley, Patrick J. 2003. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Imwinkelried, Edward J. 1981. Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Practicing Law Institute.Google Scholar
Imwinkelried, Edward J. 1986. ‘Science Takes the Stand: The Growing Misuse of Expert Testimony.’ The Sciences 26: 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, C. 1982. An Introduction to Plant Taxonomy, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H., and Blair, J. Anthony. 1983. Logical Self-Defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Henry W. Jr. 1978. Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument. University Park, Pa.: Dialogue Press of Man and World.Google Scholar
Jones, Andrew J. I. 1983. Communication and Meaning. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesterton, Michael. 1995. ‘Social Studies.’ The Globe and Mail June 8, p. A24.Google Scholar
Kielkopf, Charles. 1980. ‘Relevant Appeals to Force, Pity and Popular Pieties.’ Informal Logic Newsletter 2: 2–5.Google Scholar
King, John L. 1979. ‘Bivalence and the Law of Excluded Middle.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 17–25.Google Scholar
Kozinski, Alex. 2001. ‘How I Narrowly Escaped Insanity.’ U.C.L.A. Law Review 48: 1293–1304.Google Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C. W. 1985. ‘Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules.’ Synthese 63: 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1961. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. John, W. Yolton, 2 vols. London: Dent (originally published in 1690).Google Scholar
Lorenzen, Paul. 1969. Normative Logic and Ethics. Mannheim: Hochschultaschenbücher.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1967. ‘Fallacies.’ In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3, ed. Edwards, Paul. New York: Macmillan, 169–179.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. 1988. ‘Dialogue Games: Conventions of Human Interaction.’ Argumentation 2: 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, Ruth. 1979. ‘A Language for Questions and Answers.’ Theoretical Linguistics, 6: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, Ruth. 1981. ‘Dialogues and the Logics of Questions and Answers.’ Linguistische Berichte 73: 1–28.Google Scholar
Marlin, Randal. 2002. Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Moore, Christopher W. 1986. The Mediation Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Moore, David S. 1979. Statistics: Concepts and Controversies. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Moore, David W. 1992. The Superpollsters. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. 1985. Logic: An Introductory Course. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoloff, Franck. 1989. ‘Threats and Illocutions.’ Journal of Pragmatics 13: 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Stanley L. 1951. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prakken, Henry. 2006. ‘Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue.’ The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Chris, and Glenn, Rowe. 2002. ‘Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML.’ Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee. Http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria.Google Scholar
Reed, Chris, and Glenn, Rowe. 2006. Araucaria, Version 3_1, User Manual. Http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria.
Reiter, Raymond. 1987. ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning.’ Annual Review of Computer Science 2: 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1964. Introduction to Logic. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1976. Plausible Reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1977. Dialectics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert S. 1987. Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Stanley, Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, Daniel. 1961. ‘We're Drowning in Phony Statistics.’ Fortune, November, 146–171.Google Scholar
Sell, Peter S. 1985. Expert Systems: A Practical Introduction. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Robert Gordon, and Erich, Goode. 1977. ‘Scientists in the Popular Press.’ New Scientist 76: 482–484.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1954. ‘Spurious Correlation: A Causal Interpretation.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association 49: 467–492.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stebbing, L. Susan. 1939. Thinking to Some Purpose. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tindale, Christopher W. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, D. D. 1987. ‘Begging the Question.’ Globe and Mail (Letters to the Editor), February 24, p. 6.Google Scholar
Trankell, Arne. 1972. Reliability of Evidence. Stockholm: Beckmans.Google Scholar
Hans, Meij. 1986. Questioning. The Hague: Selecta Reeks.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. 1986. ‘Dialectical Analysis as a Normative Reconstruction of Argumentative Discourse.’ Text 6: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob, Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., Rob, Grootendorst, and Tjark, Kruiger. 1987. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., Rob, Grootendorst, Blair, J. Anthony, and Willard, Charles A.. eds. 1987. Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2002. ‘Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.’ In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren (Amsterdam: Sic Sat), 13–28.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter, Houtlosser. 2006. ‘Strategic Maneuvering: a Synthetic Recapitulation.’ Argumentation 20: 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheij, Bart. 2003. ‘Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes.’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1980. ‘Why Is the Ad Populum a Fallacy?’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 13: 264–278.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1981. ‘The Fallacy of Many Questions.’ Logique et Analyse95–96: 291–313.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1982. Topical Relevance in Argumentation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1984. Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1985a. Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1985b. ‘New Directions in the Logic of Dialogue.’ Synthese 63: 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1987. Informal Fallacies. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1988. ‘Burden of Proof.’ Argumentation 2: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1998a. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1998b. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2000. Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht:Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2004. ‘Classification of Fallacies of Relevance.’ Informal Logic 24: 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2005. Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Series). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Krabbe, Erik C. W.. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany:State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Chris, Reed. 2005. ‘Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.’ Synthese 145: 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, O. J. 1981. ‘Attacking the Expert Witness.’ Federation of Insurance Counsel Quarterly 31: 299–313.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1826. Elements of Logic, 9th ed. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1836. Elements of Logic. New York: Jackson.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1846. Elements of Rhetoric, 7th ed. Ehninger, Douglas. Rpt. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Michael. 1990. ‘How to Read the Polls.’ In The Classics of Polling, ed. Michael, L. Young (Methuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press), 191–209.Google Scholar
Wilson, Patrick. 1983. Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1974. ‘Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.’Philosophy and Rhetoric 7: 135–153.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1976. ‘Ad Baculum.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 2: 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1977. ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.’ Review of Metaphysics 30: 569–593.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1978. ‘The Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam.’ Dialectica 32: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas, Walton. 1979. ‘Equivocation and Practical Logic.’ Ratio 21: 31–43.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard A., and Ken, Tohinaka. 1984. Logical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Younger, Irving. 1982. ‘A Practical Approach to the Use of Expert Testimony.’ Cleveland State Law Review 31: 1–42.Google Scholar
Zeide, Janet S., and Jay, Leibowitz. 1987. ‘Using Expert Systems: The Legal Perspective.’ IEEE Expert 2(Spring): 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeisel, Hans. 1968. Say It with Figures, 5th ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Douglas Walton, University of Windsor, Ontario
  • Book: Informal Logic
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808630.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Douglas Walton, University of Windsor, Ontario
  • Book: Informal Logic
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808630.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Douglas Walton, University of Windsor, Ontario
  • Book: Informal Logic
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808630.012
Available formats
×