Books by Michael A Gilbert
Con frecuencia se oyen quejas de los profesores de educación superior y media superior sobre la b... more Con frecuencia se oyen quejas de los profesores de educación superior y media superior sobre la baja calidad de los textos escritos por los estudiantes o la escasa comprensión de los textos que leen como parte de sus cursos. Desgraciadamente esas quejas rara vez se dirigen al aspecto fundamental de un texto académico, a saber la claridad y solidez de la argumentación. Los textos académicos tienen el propósito de demostrar proposiciones, poner a prueba conjeturas, establecer hechos y relaciones causales o recomendar un método o procedimiento como más apropiado para obtener un fin; es decir, argumentar. Pero son leídos por los estudiantes como si se tratase solamente de aprender palabras nuevas de memoria, repetir las definiciones de ellas, conocer los nombres de autores y autoridades, exponer opiniones más o menos discutibles o contestar preguntas de opción múltiple. No leyéndolos como lo que son, es decir como argumentaciones, no entienden lo que leen. Cuando escriben, ocurre lo mismo: repiten palabras, frases, definiciones, datos o acontecimientos; pero no argumentan, no prueban, no demuestran nada; y ni siquiera entienden que se trata de argumentar, y que todas las demás cosas (el vocabulario técnico, los principios, los resultados, las informaciones) tienen sentido solamente en vista de una argumentación. El problema de la lectura no es pues (como se suele decir) un problema de leer poco, sino de leer mal, de fijarse en lo que no es importante y descuidar lo único que cuenta en un texto académico, sus argumentos; y el problema de la escritura no es un problema de ortografía o de puntuación, sino de no saber argumentar ni evaluar un argumento. De allí la importancia de este libro que pretende ofrecer una selección de textos por expertos en el tema de la argumentación dirigido en primerísimo lugar a los estudiantes de preparatoria y universidad, pero igualmente a sus maestros.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gilbert’s Arguing with People interjects the person-centeredness of argumentation studies into th... more Gilbert’s Arguing with People interjects the person-centeredness of argumentation studies into the rigor of critical thinking projects. Gilbert is both a philosopher and a novelist, and this book displays both precision and intuitive insight. – Dale Hample, University of Maryland
Arguing With People makes good reading. It is a practical introduction to the background that Argumentation Theory provides to Critical Thinking. In addition, a series of useful exercises aimed at improving argument skills is included. This combination makes Michael A. Gilbert’s book unique in its kind. – Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam & Leiden University
Arguing with People brings developments from the field of Argumentation Theory to bear on critical thinking in a clear and accessible way. This book expands the critical thinking toolkit, and shows how those tools can be applied in the hurly-burly of everyday arguing. Gilbert emphasizes the importance of understanding real arguments, understanding just who you are arguing with, and knowing how to use that information for successful argumentation. Interesting examples and partner exercises are provided to demonstrate tangible ways in which the book’s lessons can be applied.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
How to Win an Argument is designed to provide you with the tools you need to improve your rhetori... more How to Win an Argument is designed to provide you with the tools you need to improve your rhetorical and critical skills. Since we constantly argue at work, home, and even in casual conversation, improving that ability is extremely important. This book will enable you to choose your arguments carefully and prevent you from being misled by fallacies and empty rhetoric. It will increase your insight into and perception of the positions presented to you, decrease your gullibility, and replace it with a healthy skepticism. The practical information in this guide will sharpen both your ears and your mind, making it more likely that the right response will not occur to you hours later. The third edition contains a new chapter on emotion and additional examples. Using this book will aid you in communicating effectively, avoiding conflict, and understanding the myriad arguments you are exposed to every day.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Coalescent Argumentation is based on the concept that arguments can function from agreement, rath... more Coalescent Argumentation is based on the concept that arguments can function from agreement, rather than disagreement. To prove this idea, Gilbert first discusses how several components--emotional, visceral (physical) and kisceral (intuitive) are utilized in an argumentative setting by people everyday. These components, also characterized as "modes," are vital to argumentative communication because they affect both the argument and the resulting outcome.
In addition to the components/modes, this book also stresses the goals in argumentation as a means for understanding one's own and one's opposer's positions. Gilbert argues that by viewing positions as complex human events involving a variety of communicative modes, we are better able to find commonalities across positions, and, therefore, move from conflict to resolution. By focusing on agreement and shared goals in all modes, arguers can coalesce diverse positions and more easily distinguish between minor or unrelated differences and core disagreements. This permits much greater latitude for locating shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that will lead to conflict resolution.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scholarly Papers by Michael A Gilbert
Informal Logic, 2022
My essay, "Multi-modal argumentation" was published in the journal, Philosophy of the Social Scie... more My essay, "Multi-modal argumentation" was published in the journal, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, in 1994. This information appeared again in my book, Coalescent argumentation in 1997. In the ensuing twenty years, there have been many changes in argumentation theory, and I would like to take this opportunity to examine my now middle-aged theory in light of the developments in our discipline. I will begin by relating how a once keen intended lawyer and then formal logician ended up in argumentation theory. (If you do not care to read this bit of autobiography, skip to Section 2).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gilbert has introduced and expanded on the concept of
“familiars”. This talk argues that the conc... more Gilbert has introduced and expanded on the concept of
“familiars”. This talk argues that the concept is central to the
idea of everyday argumentation. Using Grice’s ideas on
cooperation it is argued that cultures and fields may have
differing rule sets dictated by meta-maxims or Super-Duper
maxims. These must be considered for successful
argumentation.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In this chapter I want to examine the nature of personal ethotic standings that we, as individual... more In this chapter I want to examine the nature of personal ethotic standings that we, as individual arguers, apply to others and seek to have applied to us. Toward this end three core concepts of Persuasion Theory, knowledgeability, trustworthiness, and liking will be used as meta-concepts in an analysis of Grice’s maxims as they apply to individual judgments of ethos. Grice’s maxims, and adherence to them, provide a ready and familiar frame for those traits that tend to create positive ethos. In addition, it will be argued that Grice’s maxims need to be localized for both cultural and specific context. Using Gilbert’s notion of familiars we will examine how the maxims apply both across the board and in specific contexts in forming and maintaining personal ethotic standing.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
One question in the debate between the rhetorical and dialectical approaches concerns the availab... more One question in the debate between the rhetorical and dialectical approaches concerns the availability of rules and standards. Are there objective standards, or are they changeable and situational? In Part One I briefly identify three concepts, context, audience and ethos. In Part Two I focus on ethos and how it is endemic to argument with familiars. Part Three shows that ethos concerns many local factors is situational. Finally, in Part Four, it is shown how the pragma-dialectical Rule 1 is situational.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In Mohammed, D., & Lewiński, M. (Eds.). Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1-8.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Michael A Gilbert
Arguing With People makes good reading. It is a practical introduction to the background that Argumentation Theory provides to Critical Thinking. In addition, a series of useful exercises aimed at improving argument skills is included. This combination makes Michael A. Gilbert’s book unique in its kind. – Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam & Leiden University
Arguing with People brings developments from the field of Argumentation Theory to bear on critical thinking in a clear and accessible way. This book expands the critical thinking toolkit, and shows how those tools can be applied in the hurly-burly of everyday arguing. Gilbert emphasizes the importance of understanding real arguments, understanding just who you are arguing with, and knowing how to use that information for successful argumentation. Interesting examples and partner exercises are provided to demonstrate tangible ways in which the book’s lessons can be applied.
In addition to the components/modes, this book also stresses the goals in argumentation as a means for understanding one's own and one's opposer's positions. Gilbert argues that by viewing positions as complex human events involving a variety of communicative modes, we are better able to find commonalities across positions, and, therefore, move from conflict to resolution. By focusing on agreement and shared goals in all modes, arguers can coalesce diverse positions and more easily distinguish between minor or unrelated differences and core disagreements. This permits much greater latitude for locating shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that will lead to conflict resolution.
Scholarly Papers by Michael A Gilbert
“familiars”. This talk argues that the concept is central to the
idea of everyday argumentation. Using Grice’s ideas on
cooperation it is argued that cultures and fields may have
differing rule sets dictated by meta-maxims or Super-Duper
maxims. These must be considered for successful
argumentation.
Arguing With People makes good reading. It is a practical introduction to the background that Argumentation Theory provides to Critical Thinking. In addition, a series of useful exercises aimed at improving argument skills is included. This combination makes Michael A. Gilbert’s book unique in its kind. – Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam & Leiden University
Arguing with People brings developments from the field of Argumentation Theory to bear on critical thinking in a clear and accessible way. This book expands the critical thinking toolkit, and shows how those tools can be applied in the hurly-burly of everyday arguing. Gilbert emphasizes the importance of understanding real arguments, understanding just who you are arguing with, and knowing how to use that information for successful argumentation. Interesting examples and partner exercises are provided to demonstrate tangible ways in which the book’s lessons can be applied.
In addition to the components/modes, this book also stresses the goals in argumentation as a means for understanding one's own and one's opposer's positions. Gilbert argues that by viewing positions as complex human events involving a variety of communicative modes, we are better able to find commonalities across positions, and, therefore, move from conflict to resolution. By focusing on agreement and shared goals in all modes, arguers can coalesce diverse positions and more easily distinguish between minor or unrelated differences and core disagreements. This permits much greater latitude for locating shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that will lead to conflict resolution.
“familiars”. This talk argues that the concept is central to the
idea of everyday argumentation. Using Grice’s ideas on
cooperation it is argued that cultures and fields may have
differing rule sets dictated by meta-maxims or Super-Duper
maxims. These must be considered for successful
argumentation.
Translated by Fernando Leal