Walton biblio 27.1 Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 135 © Informal Logic Vol. 27, No. 1 (2007): pp. 135-147. A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-2007 Produced by David Godden, this bibliography is based on the list of publications in Douglas Walton’s curriculum vitae. It is printed here with Professor Walton’s consent. For a complete list of Professor Walton’s publications, see his webpage: http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/. The 2007 entries include only January-April, 2007. Items are listed in reverse chronological order by calendar year. Within each year, items are listed in the following groups: B = Books J = Journal articles E = Contributions to edited volumes P = Published conference proceedings Within each group, items are listed alphabetically by title, first publications with no author named, which are authored by Douglas Walton alone, followed by co-authored items, listed alphabetically by co-author. Other abbreviations of journals referenced in the bibliography are: A&A = Argumentation and Advocacy AI&L = Artificial Intelligence and Law APQ = American Philosophical Quarterly Arg = Argumentation CJP = Canadian Journal of Philosophy IL = Informal Logic Inq = Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines JP = Journal of Pragmatics L&A = Logique et Analyse P&C = Pragmatics and Cognition P&R = Philosophy and Rhetoric Syn = Synthese J = Journal The following are abbreviations of publishers’ names: CUP = Cambridge University Press ISSA = International Society for the Study of Argumentation LEA = Lawrence Erlbaum Associates OUP = Oxford University Press OSSA = Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation PSUP = The Pennsylvania State University Press SUNY = State University of New York Press 136 Douglas Walton 2007 & Forthcoming B (forthcoming). Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York: CUP. (forthcoming). Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: CUP. Walton, D., Macagno, F. & Reed. C. (forthcoming). Argumentation Schemes. New York: CUP. J (forthcoming). A commitment search tool for the straw man fallacy. IL. (forthcoming). Evaluating practical reasoning. Syn. Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (2007). A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. P&C, 15, 313-346. Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (forthcoming). Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. IL. Walton, D., Gordon, T. & Prakken, H. (forthcoming).The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (forthcoming). Persuasion strategies of quotation manipulation. Inq. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (forthcoming). Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Arg. Walton, D., Macagno, F. & Reed, C. (forthcoming). Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review. 2006 B (2006). Character Evidence: An Abductive Theory. Berlin: Springer. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: CUP. J (2006). Argument from appearance: A new argumentation scheme. L&A, 195, 319-340. (2006). Epistemic and dialectical models of begging the question. Syn, 152, 237-284. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. JP, 38, 745-777. (2006). How to make and defend a proposal in deliberation dialogue. AI&L, 14, 177- 239. (2006). Poisoning the well. Arg, 20, 273-307. (2006). Rules for reasoning from knowledge and lack of knowledge. Philosophia, 34, 355-376. (2006). Using conversation policies to solve problems of ambiguity in argumentation and artificial intelligence. P&C, 14, 3-36. Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (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. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2006). Common knowledge in argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6, 3-26. Walton, D., Macagno, F., Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2006). Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 29, 111-124. Walton, D. & Schafer, B. (2006). Arthur, George and the mystery of the missing motive: Towards a theory of evidentiary reasoning about motives. International Commentary on Evidence, 4, 1-47. E Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (2006). The impact of argumentation on artificial intelligence. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 287-299). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. P (2006). Disagreement space, burden of proof and fallacies. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected Papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 426- 431). Washington DC: National Communication Association. Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 137 Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (2006). Alternatives to suspicion and trust as conditions for challenge in argumentative dialogue. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected Papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 438-444). Washington DC, National Communication Association. Walton, D. & Gordon, T. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI (European Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Riva del Garda, Italy, August 28 – September 1 (pp. 5-13). Trento, Italy: University of Trento. Walton, D. & Gordon, T. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. Dunne & T. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006 (pp. 195-207). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Walton, D. & Gordon, T. (2006). Pierson v. Post revisited. In P. Dunne & T. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006 (pp. 208-219). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2006). Argumentative reasoning patterns. Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI (European Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Riva del Garda, Italy, August 28 – September 1 (pp. 48-51). Trento, Italy: University of Trento. Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2006). Evaluating corroborative evidence. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the ISSA (pp. 881-885). Amsterdam: SicSat. 2005 B (2005). Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. Berlin: Springer. J (2005). An automated system for argument invention in law using argumentation and heuristic search procedures. Ratio Juris, 18, 434-463. (2005). Begging the question in arguments based on testimony. Arg, 19, 85-113. (2005). Deceptive arguments containing persuasive language and persuasive definitions. Arg, 19, 159-186 (2005). How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue M. Dascal et. al. (Eds.), Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 51-74. (2005). Justification of argumentation schemes. The Australasian J of Logic, 3, 1-13. (2005). Pragmatic and idealized models of knowledge and ignorance. APQ, 42, 59-69. Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (2005). Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution. AI&L, 13, 273-295. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2005). Common knowledge in legal reasoning about evidence. International Commentary on Evidence, 3, 1-42 Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Syn, 145, 339-370. Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2005). Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11, 173- 188. E (2005). Practical reasoning [revised version]. In P.H. Werhane & R.E. Freeman (Eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, 2nd ed., vol. 2 Business Ethics (pp. 414-415). Oxford: Blackwell. (2005). Practical reasoning and proposing: Tools for e-democracy. In M. Moens & P. Spyns (Eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 113-114). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2005). Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis & C. Reed (Eds.), Argumentation 138 Douglas Walton in Multi-Agent Systems: First International Workshop, ArgMAS 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers (pp. 19-30). Berlin: Springer. P (2005). Evaluating practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Norms, Knowledge and Reasoning in Technology Held at Huis Elzendaal, Boxmeer, the Netherlands, June 3-4, 2005. Eindhoven: Technical University of Eindhoven. Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (2005). The nature and status of critical questions in argumentation schemes. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University (pp. 476-484). Hamilton, ON: OSSA. Walton, D. & Gordon, T. (2005). Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In P. Dunne & T. Bench-Capon (Eds.), International Workshop on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law (IAAIL) Workshop Series (pp. 103-111). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. Walton, D. & Lodder, A.R. (2005). What role can rational argument play in ADR and Online Dispute Resolution? In J. Zelzniknow & A.R. Lodder (Eds.), IAAIL Workshop Series, Second International ODR Workshop (pp. 69-76). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. Walton, D., Prakken, H. & Reed, C. (2005). Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Held June 6-11, 2005 in Bologna, Italy (pp. 115-124). New York: The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). 2004 B (2004). Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AB: University of Alabama Press. (2004). Relevance in Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Walton, D., Lodder, A.R. et. al. (Eds.) (2004). Essays on Legal and Technical Aspects of Online Dispute Resolution: Papers from the ICAIL 2003 ODR Workshop, June 28, 2003, Edinburgh. Amsterdam: Centre for Electronic Dispute Resolution. J (2004). A new dialectical theory of explanation. Philosophical Explorations, 7, 71-89. (2004). Argumentation schemes and historical origins of the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Arg, 18, 359-368. (2004). Classification of fallacies of relevance. IL, 24, 71-103. Walton, D. & Godden, D.M. (2004). Denying the antecedent as a legitimate argumentative strategy: A dialectical model. IL, 24, 219-243. E (2004). Criteria of rationality for evaluating democratic public rhetoric. In B. Fontana, C.J. Nederman & G. Remer (Eds.), Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy (pp. 295-330). University Park, PA: PSUP. P Walton, D., Prakken, H. & Reed, C. (2004). Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In F. Grasso, C. Reed & G. Carenini (Eds.), Working Notes of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004). Valenca: CMNA. 2003 J (2003). Argumentation schemes: The basis of conditional relevance. Michigan State Law Review, 2003(4), 1205-1242. (2003). Defining conditional relevance using linked arguments and argumentation schemes. Michigan State DCL Law Review, 2003(4), 1305-1314. (2003). The interrogation as a type of dialogue. JP, 35, 1771-1802. (2003). Is there a burden of questioning? AI&L, 11, 1-43. Walton, D., Bex, F., Prakken, H. & Reed, C. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence, argument schemes and generalizations. AI&L, 11, 125-165. E Walton, D., Carbogim, D.V., Krabbe, E.C.W. & Norman, T. (2003). Argument and multi-agent systems. In C. Reed & T.J. Norman (Eds.) Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation (pp. 15-54). Dordrect: Kluwer. Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 139 Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2003). Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In F.H. van Eemeren et. al. (Eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation (pp. 195-211). Dordrecht: Kluwer. P (2003). Commentary on E. Feteris: ‘Arguments from unacceptable consequences and a reasonable application of law’. In J.A. Blair et. al. (Eds.), IL @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference, CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA. (2003). Informal logic 25 years later. In J.A. Blair et. al. (Eds.), IL @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference, CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA. Walton, D., Prakken, H. & Reed, C. (2003). Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings of the Conference: The 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, University of Edinburgh (pp. 32-41). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2003). Applications of argumentation schemes. In H.V. Hansen et. al. (Eds.), Argumentation and Its Applications: Proceedings of the 4th OSSA Conference, CD- ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA. Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2003). Argumentation schemes in argument-as-process and argument- as-product. In J.A. Blair et. al. (Eds.), IL @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference, CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA. Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2003). Diagramming argumentation schemes and critical questions. In F.H. van Eemeren et. al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the ISSA (pp. 881- 885). Amsterdam: SicSat. 2002 B (2002). Ethical Argumentation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: PSUP. J (2002). Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? IL, 22, 19-46. (2002). The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Arg, 16, 473-503. E (2002). Author’s preface. In Russian translation Ad Hominem Arguments [Originally published (1998) University of Alabama Press.] (pp. 13-14). Moscow: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2001 J (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. IL, 21, 141-169. (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge and plausible inference. P&R, 34, 93-112. (2001). Johnstone’s view of rhetorical and dialectical argument. IL, 21, 51-60. (2001). Persuasive definitions and public policy arguments. A&A, 37, 117-132. (2001). Searching for the roots of the circumstantial ad hominem. Arg, 15, 207-221. E (2001). Ad hominem argument. In T.O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp. 1-4). Oxford: OUP. (2001). Courage [revised version]. In L.C. Becker & C.B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (pp. 352-355). New York: Routledge. (2001). Practical reason(ing) [revised version]. In L.C. Becker & C.B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (pp. 1355-1358). New York: Routledge. (2001). Persuasive definition. In L.C. Becker & C.B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (pp. 1303-1305). New York: Routledge. 2000 B (2000). Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Walton, D., Irvine, A. & Woods, J. (2000). Argument, Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies.Toronto:PrenticeHall. [Revised and expanded edition of Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies (1982).] 140 Douglas Walton J (2000). Alfred Sidgwick: A little-known precursor of informal logic and argumentation. Arg, 14, 175-179. (2000). Case study of the use of the circumstantial ad hominem in political argumentation. P&R, 33, 101-115. (2000). Evaluating appeals to popular opinion. Inq, 20, 33-45. (2000). New dialectical rules for ambiguity. IL, 20, 261-274. (2000). Problems and useful techniques: My experience in teaching courses in argumentation, informal logic and critical thinking. IL, 20, TS35-TS38. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Syn, 123, 327-346. (2000). Use of ad hominem argument in political discourse: The Battalino case from the impeachment trial of President Clinton. A&A, 36, 179-195. E (2000). Argumentation and theory of evidence. In C.M. Breur et. al. (Eds.), New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence, vol. 2 (pp. 711-732). Antwerp: Intersentia. (2000). Conversational logic and appeals to emotion. In C. Plantin, M. Doury & V. Traverso (Eds.), Les Emotions dans les Interactions (pp. 295-312). Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon. 1999 B (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, PA: PSUP. (1999). One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. Albany, NY: SUNY. (1999). Slippery Slope Arguments. Newport News, VA: Vale Press. [Reprint of Slippery Slope Arguments (1992).] J (1999). Applying labelled deductive systems and multi-agent systems to source-based argumentation. J of Logic and Computation, 9, 63-80. (1999). Can an ancient argument of Carneades on cardinal virtues and divine attributes be used to disprove the existence of God? Philo, 2, 5-13. (1999). Dialectical relevance in persuasion dialogue. IL, 19, 119-143. (1999). Ethotic arguments and fallacies: The credibility function in multi-agent dialogue systems. P&C, 7, 177-203. (1999). Francis Bacon: Human bias and the four idols. Arg, 13, 385-389. (1999). Historical origins of argumentum ad consequentiam. Arg, 13, 251-264. (1999). Peter Ramus. Arg, 13, 391-392. (1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Arg, 13, 53-71. (1999). Rethinking the fallacy of hasty generalization. Arg, 13, 161-182. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Arg, 13, 367-377. (1999). The fallacy of many questions: On the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory. Arg, 13, 379-383. (1999). The new dialectic: A method of evaluating an argument used for some purpose in a given case. Protosociology, 13, 70-91. E (1999). Informal fallacy [Entry for]. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (pp. 431-435). New York: CUP. (1999). Informal logic [Entry for]. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. 2nd ed. (p. 435). New York: CUP. P (1999). The identity crisis of informal logic. In F.H. van Eemeren et. al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the ISSA (pp. 853-857). Amsterdam: SicSat. 1998 B (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa, AB: University of Alabama Press. Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 141 (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. J (1998). A pragmatic model of legal disputation. Notre Dame Law Review, 73, 711-735. E (1998). Fallacies. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3 (pp. 544- 545). London: Routledge. (1998). Formal and informal logic. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3 (pp. 701-703). London: Routledge. 1997 B (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA: PSUP. (1997). Appeal to Pity: Argumentum Ad Misericordiam. Albany, NY: SUNY. Walton, D. & Brinton, A. (Eds.). (1997). Historical Foundations of Informal Logic. Aldershot, GB: Ashgate Publishing. J (1997). How can logic best be applied to arguments? Logic J of the IGPL (Interest Group on Pure and Applied Logic), 5, 603-614. (1997). Judging how heavily a question is loaded: A pragmatic method. Inq, 17, 53-71. (1997). What is propaganda, and exactly what is wrong with it? Public Affairs Quarterly, 11, 383-413. E (1997). Actions and inconsistency: The closure problem of practical reasoning. In G. Holmstrom- Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary Action Theory, vol. 1 (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht: Kluwer. (1997). Practical reasoning. In P.H. Werhane & R.E. Freeman (Eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics (pp. 495-496). Oxford: Blackwell. Walton, D. & Brinton, A. (1997). Introduction. In D. Walton & A. Brinton (Eds.), Historical Foundations of Informal Logic (pp. 1-11). Aldershot, GB: Ashgate Publishing. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1997). Argumentum ad verecundiam. In F.H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies Over Argumentatie (pp. 191-210). Amsterdam: Boom. [Dutch translation of Walton and Woods (1974).] 1996 B (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. (1996). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park, PA: PSUP. (1996). Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht: Kluwer. J (1996). New methods for evaluating arguments. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 15, 44-65 (1996). Plausible deniability and the evasion of burden of proof. Arg, 10, 47-58. (1996). Practical reasoning and the structure of fear appeal arguments. P&R, 29, 301-313. (1996). The argument of the beard. IL, 18, 235-259. (1996). The witch hunt as a structure of argumentation. Arg, 10, 389-407. E (1996). The straw man fallacy. In J. van Bentham et. al. (Eds.), Logic and Argumentation (pp. 115-128). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1996). Fallacies and formal logic. In F.H. van Eemeren, et. al. (Eds.), Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory (pp. 389-407). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. 1995 B (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Walton, D. & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: SUNY. J (1995). Appeal to pity: A case study of the argumentum ad misericordiam. Arg, 9, 769-784. 142 Douglas Walton E (1995). Arguments, types of. In T. Honderich (Ed.), Oxford Companion to Philosophy (pp. 48-49). New York: OUP. (1995). The essential ingredients of the fallacy of begging the question. In H.V. Hansen & R.C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 229-239). University Park, PA: Penn Sate University Press. (1995). Informal fallacy [Entry for]. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (pp. 372-376). New York: CUP. (1995). Informal logic [Entry for]. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (p. 376). New York: CUP. P (1995). The straw man fallacy. In F.H. van Eemeren et. al. (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation, vol. 2 of Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 421-434). Amsterdam: SicSat. 1994 J (1994). Begging the question as a pragmatic fallacy. Syn, 100, 95-131. 1993 J (1993). Alethic, epistemic, and dialectical models of argument. P&R, 26, 302-310. (1993). Commitment, types of dialogue, and fallacies. IL, 14, 93-103. (1993). Introduction to philosophy and the argumentum ad hominem. Inq, 12, 24. (1993). The normative structure of case study argumentation. Metaphilosophy, 24, 207-226. (1993). The speech act of presumption. P&C, 1, 125-148. Walton, D. & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1993). It’s all very well for you to talk! Situationally disqualifying ad hominem attacks. IL, 15, 79-91. 1992 B (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany, NY: SUNY. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: OUP. [Reprinted by Vale Press in 1999.] (1992). The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, PA: PSUP. J (1992). After analytic philosophy, what’s next? An analytic philosopher’s perspective. J of Speculative Philosophy, 6, 123-142. (1992). Correctness of argument as a function of respondent’s commitment. Canadian J of Rhetorical Studies, 2, 52-72. (1992). Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. APQ, 29, 381-387. (1992). Rules for plausible reasoning. IL, 14, 33-51. (1992). Which of the fallacies are fallacies of relevance? Arg, 6, 237-250. E (1992). Burden of proof [Entry for]. In J. Dancy & E. Sosa (Eds.), A Companion to Epistemology (p. 55). Oxford: Blackwell. (1992). Circular reasoning [Entry for]. In J. Dancy & E. Sosa (Eds.), A Companion to Epistemology (p. 66). Oxford: Blackwell. (1992).Courage [Entry for]. In Encyclopedia of Ethics (pp. 220-223) New York: Garland Publishing Co. (1992). Genetic fallacy [Entry for]. In J. Dancy & E. Sosa (Eds.), A Companion to Epistemology (pp. 154-155). Oxford: Blackwell. (1992). Informal fallacies [Entry for]. In J. Dancy & E. Sosa (Eds.), A Companion to Epistemology (pp. 212-216). Oxford: Blackwell. (1992). Practical reasoning [Entry for]. In Encyclopedia of Ethics (pp. 996-1000). New York: Garland Publishing Co. (1992). Questionable questions in question period: Prospects for an informal logic of Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 143 parliamentary discourse. In E.M. Barth & E.C.W. Krabbe (Eds.), Logic and Political Culture (pp. 87-95). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. (1992). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In F.H. van Eemeren et. al. (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (pp. 133-147). Amsterdam: SicSat. 1991 B (1991). Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press. J (1991). Bias, critical doubt, and fallacies. A&A, 28, 1-22. (1991). Critical faults and fallacies of questioning. JP, 15, 337-366. (1991). Hamblin on the standard treatment of fallacies. P&R, 24, 353-361. Walton, D. & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1991). Gemakkelijk Praten! Situationeel Diskwalificerende Aanvallen Ad Hominem. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 13, 108-119. E (1991). Les violations des règles du dialogue raisonné. In H. Parret (Ed.), La Communauté en Paroles: Communication, Consensus, Ruptures (pp. 245-265). Liège: Editions Pierre Mardaga. 1990 B (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. J (1990). Courage, relativism and practical reasoning. Philosophia, 20, 227-240. (1990). Ignoring qualifications (secundum quid) as a subfallacy of hasty generalization. L&A, 129/130, 113-154. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The J of Philosophy, 87, 399-419. E (1990). Types de dialogue et glissements dialectiques en argumentation. In M. Meyer & A. Lempereur (Eds.), Figures et Conflicts Rhétoriques (pp. 227-239). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles. 1989 B (1989). Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. New York: CUP. (1989). Question-Reply Argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1989). Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982. Dordrecht: Foris. J (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Arg, 3, 169-184. (1989). Problems in the use of expert opinion in argumentation. Communication & Cognition, 22, 383-389. (1989). Reasoned use of expertise in argumentation. Arg, 3, 59-73. E (1989). Question-asking fallacies. In M. Meyer (Ed.), Questions and Questioning (pp. 195- 221). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1988 J (1988). Burden of Proof. Arg, 2, 233-254. (1988). Reply to Thomas on models of courage. Dialogue, 27, 697-699. P (1988). Argumentation and fallacies: The problems in teaching. In Philosophie et Culture, Actes/Proceedings: XVIIe Congrès Mondiale de Philosophie, vol. 5 (pp. 373-381). Montreal: Editions Montmorency. 1987 B (1987). Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. J (1987). The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Arg, 1, 317-331. (1987). The virtue of courage. The World & I, 12, 595-609. 144 Douglas Walton 1986 B (1986). Courage: A Philosophical Investigation. Los Angeles: University of California Press. J Walton, D. and Donen, N. (1986). Ethical decision-making and the critical care team. Critical Care Clinics, 2, 101-109. Walton, D. & Hobbs, D.C. (1986). Non-treatment of spina bifida babies. Philosophy Research Archives, 11, 463-480. E (1986). Chisholm’s theory of action. In R.J. Bogdan (Ed.), Roderick Chisholm (pp. 169-913). Dordrecht: Reidel. P (1986). What is a fallacy? In F.H. van Eemeren et. al. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline (pp. 323-330). Dordrecht: Foris. 1985 B (1985). Arguer’s Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation and Fallacy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (1985). Physician-Patient Decision-Making: A Study in Medical Ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. J (1985). Are circular arguments necessarily vicious? APQ, 22, 263-274. (1985). New directions in the logic of dialogue. Syn, 63, 259-274. (1985). Pragmatic inferences about actions. Syn, 65, 211-233. 1984 B (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. J (1984). Cans, advantages and possible worlds. Philosophia, 14, 83-97. (1984). Death and dying in medicine: What questions are still worth asking? Theoretical Medicine, 5, 121-139. Walton, D. & Batten, L.H. (1984). Games, graphs and circular arguments. L&A, 106, 133-164. 1983 B (1983). Ethics of Withdrawal of Life-Support Systems: Case Studies on Decision-Making in Intensive Care. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. J (1983). Enthymemes. L&A, 103/104, 395-410. 1982 B (1982). Topical Relevance in Argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1982). Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies. Toronto & New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. J (1982). Comments on a medical ethics for the future. Metamedicine, 3, 121-124. (1982). Neocortical versus whole-brain conceptions of personal death. Omega: The J of Death and Dying, 12, 339-344. (1982). Philosophy of medicine in Canada. Metamedicine, 3, 263-277. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1982). Question-begging and cumulativeness in dialectical games. Noûs, 4, 585-605. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1982). The petitio: Aristotle’s five ways. CJP, 12, 77-100. 1981 J (1981). Epistemology of brain death determination. Metamedicine, 2, 21-36. (1981). Splitting the difference: Killing and letting die. Dialogue, 20, 68-78. (1981). The fallacy of many questions. L&A, 95/96, 291-313. (1981). What is logic about? IL, 4(1), 2-4. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1981). More on fallaciousness and invalidity. P&R, 14, 168-172. Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 145 E (1981). Lehrer on action, freedom and determinism. In R.J. Bogdan (Ed.). Keith Lehrer (pp. 107-128). Dordrecht: Reidel. 1980 B (1980). Brain Death: Ethical Considerations. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. J (1980). Cans and counterfactuals. CJP, 10, 489-496. (1980). Critical study of Ingmar Pörn. Syn, 43, 421-431. (1980). Ignoratio elenchi: The red herring fallacy. IL, 2(3), 3-7. (1980). Omissions and other negative actions. Metamedicine, 1, 305-324. (1980). Omitting, refraining, and letting happen. APQ, 17, 319-326. (1980). On allowing something to happen. Man & Medicine, 5, 167-176. (1980). On the logical form of some commonplace action expressions. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 10, 141-148. (1980). Reply to commentaries. Man & Medicine, 5, 185-188. (1980). The ethical force of definitions. J of Medical Ethics, 6, 16-18. (1980). Why is the ad populum a fallacy? P&R, 13, 264-278. Walton, D. & Fleming, W.H. (1980). Responsibility for discontinuation of treatment. Essence, 4, 57-61. P (1980). Petitio principii and argument analysis. In R.H. Johnson & J.A. Blair (Eds.), Informal Logic: The First International Symposium (pp. 41-54). Reyes, CA: Edgepress. 1979 B (1979). On Defining Death: An Analytic Study of the Concept of Death in Philosophy and Medical Ethics. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press. J (1979). Critical study on some recent action theory. Philosophia, 8, 719-740. (1979). Philosophical basis of relatedness logic. Philosophical Studies, 36, 115-136. (1979). Relatedness in intensional action chains. Philosophical Studies, 36, 175-223. (1979). The active-passive distinction in ethical decision-making. Philosophy Research Archives, 5, no. 1350. Walton, D. & Epstein, R. (1979). Preface to relatedness logic issue. Philosophical Studies, 36, 113-114. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1979). A brief guide to studying and teaching on the fallacies. Australian Logic Teacher’s J, 3, 1-3. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1979). Circular demonstration and von Wright-Geach entailment. Notre Dame J of Formal Logic, 20, 768-772. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1979). Equivocation and practical logic. Ratio, 21, 31-43. [A German translation appears in the same issue.] Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1979). Laws of thought and epistemic proofs. Idealistic Studies, 9, 55-65. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1979). What type of argument is an ad verecundiam? IL, 2(1), 5-6. 1978 B Walton, D. & Urban, L. (Eds.). (1978). The Power of God: Readings on Omnipotence and Evil. New York: OUP. J (1978). The circle in the ontological argument. International J for Philosophy of Religion, 9, 193-218. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1978). Arresting circles in formal dialogues. J of Philosophical Logic, 7, 73-90. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1978). Puzzle for analysis: Find the fallacy. IL, 1, 5-6. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1978). The fallacy of ad ignorantiam. Dialectica, 32, 87-99. 146 Douglas Walton E (1978). Modalities in the free will defence. In D. Walton & L. Urban (Eds.), The Power of God: Readings on Omnipotence and Evil (pp. 240-248) New York: OUP. [Reprinted from Religious Studies, 10, 1974, 325-331.] Walton, D. & Urban, L. (1978). Freedom within omnipotence. In D. Walton & L. Urban (Eds.), The Power of God: Readings on Omnipotence and Evil (pp. 192-207) New York: OUP. 1977 J (1977). Mill and DeMorgan on whether the syllogism is a petitio. International Logic Review, 8, 57-68. (1977). Obstacles and opportunities. Philosophical Papers, 6, 11-20. (1977). Performative and existential self-verifyingness. Dialogue, 16, 128-138. (1977). Purtill on power and evil. International J for Philosophy of Religion, 8, 263-267. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1977). Ad hominem. The Philosophical Forum, 8, 1-20. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1977). Ad hominem contra Gerber. The Personalist, 58, 141-144. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1977). Composition and division. Studia Logica, 36, 381-406. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1977). Petitio and relevant many-premissed arguments. L&A, 20, 97- 110. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1977). Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Review of Metaphysics, 30, 569- 593. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1977). Towards a theory of argument. Metaphilosophy, 8, 299-315. 1976 B Walton, D. & Brand, M. (Eds.). (1976). Action Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel. J (1976). A note on motives, consequences and value. The J of Value Inquiry, 10, 149-150. (1976). Active and passive euthanasia. Ethics, 86, 269-274. (1976). Intensional action theory. Philosophy Research Archives, 2, No. 1149. (1976). Logical form and agency. Philosophical Studies, 29, 75-89. (1976). On logic and methodology in the study of death. Ethics in Science and Medicine, 3, 135-147. (1976). On the rationality of fear of death. Omega: The J of Death and Dying, 7, 1-10. (1976). Principles of interpersonal agency in the free will defense. Bijdragen; Tijdschrift Voor Filosophie en Theologie, 37, 36-46. (1976). Some considerations on the nihil obstat analysis of the modal auxiliary verb can. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 8, 55-63. (1976). St. Anselm and the logical syntax of agency. Franciscan Studies, 36, 298-312. (1976). Some theorems of Fitch on omnipotence. Sophia, 15, 20-27. (1976). The formalities of evil. Critica, 8, 3-9. (1976). The logic of ability. Philosophy Research Archives, 2, No. 1068. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1976). Ad baculum. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 2, 133-140. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1976). Fallaciousness without invalidity? P&R, 9, 52-54. E (1976). Time and modality in the ‘can’ of opportunity. In M. Brand & D. Walton (Eds.), Action Theory, (pp. 271-287). Dordrecht: Reidel. 1975 J (1975). Can, determinism, and modal logic. The Modern Schoolman, 52, 381-390. (1975). Ifs and cans: Pros and cons. The Personalist, 56, 242-249. (1975). Language, God and evil. International J for Philosophy of Religion, 6, 154-162. Bibliography of Published Works 1971-2007 147 (1975). Modal logic and agency. L&A, 69/70, 103-111. (1975). Philosophical perspectives on the insanity defense. The Human Context, 7, 546-560. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1975). Is the syllogism a petitio principii? Mill News Letter, 10, 13- 15. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1975). Moral expertise. J of Moral Education, 5, 13-18. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1975). Petitio principii. Syn, 31, 107-127. 1974 J (1974). Control. Behaviorism, 2, 162-171. (1974). Modalities in the free will defence. Religious Studies, 10, 325-331. Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1974). Argumentum ad verecundiam. P&R, 7, 135-153. [Dutch translation in (1997), F.H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies Over Argumentatie (pp. 191-210). Amsterdam: Boom.] Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1974). Informal logic and critical thinking. Education, 95, 84-86. P (1974). St. Anselm on the verb ‘to do’ (facere). Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Manitoba and North Dakota, 14, 9-12. 1973 J (1973). Issues of explanation in linguistic theory. Manitoba Modern Languages Association Bulletin, 8, 19-25. (1973). Power and causal possibility. CJP, 3, 281-284. (1973). The contemporary relevance of Hume’s remarks on liberty and necessity. J of Thought, 8, 183-188. Walton, D. & Shamburg, N. (1973). The principles of freedom and dignity in social technology. J of Social Philosophy, 4, 8-11. 1972 J Walton, D. & Woods, J. (1972). On fallacies. The J of Critical Analysis, 4, 103-111. P (1972). Mathematical logic and empirical linguistics. Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Manitoba and North Dakota, 12, 13-15. 1971 P (1971). The modal auxiliary verb can: Some semantic problems. Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Manitoba and North Dakota, 11, 17-19. 2 1