Notice of Books Received BOOKS RECEIVED Notice of BOOKS RECEIVED Policy Informal Logic no longer invites descriptive book reviews. However, at the end of each issue of the journal, Informal Logic will print, and re- print, notices of monographs, collected papers, proceedings of confer- ences, anthologies and any similar scholarly books (not textbooks) pub- lished during the previous four years on topics related to informal logic, critical thinking, argument (logic, dialectic, rhetoric) theory or practice. The notice, to be supplied by the author(s) or editor(s) or publisher, may simply describe the work or shamelessly promote it, or both, but must not exceed 150 words. Each notice will be reprinted in each issue of the jour- nal until four years after the year the edition of the book was first pub- lished. (Be sure to include at least the author’s or editor’s name, the title of the book, the year of publication, the publisher and the number of pag- es.) We hope this department of the journal will serve as a resource for researchers wanting to know of recent work in the field. Send notices to: tblair@uwindsor.ca. A reader may apply to the editors to publish a critical review of a book on the notices list, and the editors may from time to time commission such a critical review. Books Received (by date): HANSEN, HANS V., FRED J. KAUFFELD, JAMES B. FREEMAN, AND LILIAN BERMEJO-LUQUE (Eds.). (2019). Presumptions and Burdens of Proof: An Anthology of Argumentation and the Law. University of Alabama Press. pp. 320. ISBN: 978-0-8173-2017-1 In the last fifty years, the study of argumentation has become one of the most exciting intellectual crossroads in the modern academy. Two of the most central concepts of argumentation theory are pre- sumptions and burdens of proof. Their functions have been explic- itly recognized in legal theory since the middle ages, but their per- vasive presence in all forms of argumentation and in inquiries be- yond the law—including politics, science, religion, philosophy, and interpersonal communication—have been the object of study since the nineteenth century. mailto:tblair@uwindsor.ca 2 However, the documents and essays central to any discussion of presumptions and burdens of proof as devices of argumentation are scattered across a variety of remote sources in rhetoric, law, and philosophy. Presumptions and Burdens of Proof: An Anthology of Argumentation and the Law brings together for the first time key texts relating to the history of the theory of presumptions along with contemporary studies that identify and give insight into the issues facing students and scholars today. RIGOTTI, EDDO AND SARA GRECO (2019). Inference in Argumenta- tion. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. xxx, 325. ISBN13: 978-3- 030-04566-1. This book investigates the role of inference in argumentation, con- sidering how arguments support standpoints on the basis of differ- ent loci. The authors propose and illustrate a model for the analysis of the standpoint-argument connection, called Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT). A prominent feature of the AMT is that it distin- guishes, within each and every single argumentation, between an inferential-procedural component, on which the reasoning pro- cess is based; and a material-contextual component, which anchors the argument in the interlocutors’ cultural and factual common ground. The AMT explains how these components differ and how they are intertwined within each single argument. This model is introduced in Part II of the book, following a careful reconstruction of the enormously rich tradition of studies on inference in argumen- tation, from the antiquity to contemporary authors, without neglect- ing medieval and post-medieval contributions. The AMT is a con- temporary model grounded in a dialogue with such tradition, whose crucial aspects are illuminated in this book. AL-JUWAID, WALEED RIDHA HAMMOODI (2019). The Pragmatics of Cogent Argumentation in British and American Political Debates. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 432. Since the time of Aristotle, various approaches have been offered to tackle what makes language stronger. Some approaches have 3 focused on rhetoric, while others have given attention to logic. Still others have concentrated on dialectics. This book takes into ac- count a full-fledged comprehensive model of analysis that brings these three perspectives together. Throughout, it investigates the presence of pragmatic criteria and the utilization of pragmatic strat- egies that make language stronger in the context of argumentation. Cogent argumentation is a pragmatic communicative interactional process that goes through stages, and is regarded as a communica- tive exchange of arguments. The cogency of these arguments is at- tained according to the availability of pragmatic criteria and the utilization of pragmatic strategies, and determined throughout the whole process of argumentation. The book will be of interest to anyone interested in the fields of pragmatics, communication, and politics, and will widen their un- derstanding of the pragmatic structure and criteria which constitute cogent argumentation. BLAIR, J. ANTHONY (Ed.). (2019). Studies in Critical Thinking. Windsor Studies in Argumentation. Critical thinking deserves both imaginative teaching and serious theoretical attention. Studies in Critical Thinking assembles an all- star cast to serve both. Besides five exercises teachers may copy or adapt, by Derek Allen, Tracy Bowell, Justine Kingsbury, Jan Al- bert van Laar, Sharon Bailin and Mark Battersby, there are chapters on: what critical thinking is, the nature of argument, definition, us- ing the web, evaluation, argument schemes, abduction, generaliz- ing, fallaciousness, logic and critical thinking, computer-aided ar- gument mapping, and more—by such illustrious scholars as John Woods, Douglas Walton, Sally Jackson, Dale Hample, Robert En- nis, Beth Innocenti, David Hitchcock, Christopher Tindale, G. C. Goddu, Alec Fisher, Michael Scriven, Martin Davies, Ashley Bar- nett, Tim van Gelder and Mark Battersby. BATTERSBY, MARK AND BAILIN, SHARON (2018). Inquiry: A New Paradigm for Critical Thinking. Windsor Studies in Argumenta- tion. 4 This volume reflects the development and theoretical foundation of a new paradigm for critical thinking based on inquiry. The field of critical thinking, as manifested in the Informal Logic movement, developed primarily as a response to the inadequacies of formalism to represent actual argumentative practice and to provide useful argumentative skills to students. Because of this, the primary focus of the field has been on informal arguments rather than formal rea- soning. Yet the formalist history of the field is still evident in its emphasis, with respect to both theory and pedagogy, on the struc- ture and evaluation of individual, de-contextualized arguments. It is our view that such a view of critical thinking is excessively narrow and limited, failing to provide an understanding of argumentation as largely a matter of comparative evaluation of a variety of con- tending positions and arguments with the goal of reaching a rea- soned judgment on an issue. As a consequence, traditional critical thinking instruction is problematic in failing to provide the reason- ing skills that students need in order to accomplish this goal. In- stead, the goal of critical thinking instruction has been seen largely as a defensive one: of learning to not fall prey to invalid, inade- quate, or fallacious arguments. VAN EEMEREN, FRANS. H. (2018). Argumentation Theory: A Prag- ma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation Library series. Spring- er. pp. 199. The book offers a compact but comprehensive introductory over- view of the crucial components of argumentation theory. In pre- senting this overview, argumentation is consistently approached from a pragma-dialectical perspective by viewing it pragmatically as a goal-directed communicative activity and dialectically as part of a regulated critical exchange aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation hang to- gether. The following topics are discussed: (1) argumentation theory as a discipline; (2) the meta-theoretical principles of pragma- dialectics; (3) the model of a critical discussion aimed at resolving 5 a difference of opinion; (4) fallacies as violations of a code of con- duct for reasonable argumentative discourse; (5) descriptive re- search of argumentative reality; (6) analysis as theoretically- motivated reconstruction; (7) strategic manoeuvring aimed at com- bining achieving effectiveness with maintaining reasonableness; (8) the conventionalization of argumentative practices; (9) prototypical argumentative patterns; (10) pragma-dialectics amidst other ap- proaches. HITCHCOCK, DAVID (2017). On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and Critical Thinking. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. xxvii, 553. This book brings together in one place David Hitchcock’s most significant published articles on reasoning and argument. In seven new chapters he updates his thinking in the light of subsequent scholarship. Collectively, the papers articulate a distinctive position in the philosophy of argumentation. Among other things, the author: • develops an account of “material consequence” that permits evaluation of inferences without problematic postulation of un- stated premises. • updates his recursive definition of argument that accommo- dates chaining and embedding of arguments and allows any type of illocutionary act to be a conclusion. • advances a general theory of relevance. • provides comprehensive frameworks for evaluating inferences in reasoning by analogy, means-end reasoning, and appeals to considerations or criteria. • argues that none of the forms of arguing ad hominem is a falla- cy. • describes proven methods of teaching critical thinking effec- tively. HAMPLE, DALE (2018). Interpersonal Arguing. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 301. 6 This book is an accessible review of scholarship on key elements of face-to-face arguing, which is the interpersonal exchange of rea- sons. Topics include frames for understanding the nature of argu- ing, argument situations, serial arguments, argument dialogues, and international differences in how people understand interpersonal arguing. This is a thorough survey of the leading issues involved in understanding how people argue with one another. MOHAMMED, DIMA (2018). Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time: Accusation of Inconsistency in Response to Criti- cism. John Benjamins Publishing Company. When political actors respond to criticism by pointing at an incon- sistency in the critic’s position, a tricky political practice emerges. Turning the criticism back to the critic can be a constructive move that restores coherence, but it may also be a disruptive move that silences the critical voice and obstructs accountability. What dis- tinguishes constructive cases from disruptive ones? This is the question this book sets out to answer. The question is addressed by adopting an argumentative perspec- tive. Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time focuses on the turnabout employed by the British Prime Minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition. The turnabout is characterised as a particular way of strategic manoeuvring. The manoeuvring is ana- lysed and evaluated by combining pragmatic, dialectical and rhe- torical insights with considerations from the realm of politics. The outcome is an account of the turnabout’s strategic functions and an assessment guide for evaluating its reasonableness. The book will be of interest to advanced students and researchers of argumentation, discourse analysis, communication and rhetoric. OLMOS, PAULA (Ed.). (2017). Narration as Argument. Cham, Swit- zerland: Springer. pp. xii, 234. This collection of essays has achieved to gather an international group of scholars, mainly, but not exclusively, from the field of 7 Argumentation Theory, and put together an anthology of eleven original chapters on Narration as Argument from different perspec- tives. It presents reflections on the relationship between narratives and argumentative discourse, focusing on their functional and structural similarities and dissimilarities, and offering diverse con- ceptual tools for analyzing the narratives’ potential power for justi- fication, explanation and persuasion. The first Part, under the title “Narratives as Sources of Knowledge and Argument”, includes five chapters addressing general, theoretical and philosophical issues, related to the argumentative analysis and understanding of narra- tives. The second Part, entitled “Argumentative Narratives in Con- text”, brings us six more chapters that concentrate on either particu- lar functions played by argumentatively-oriented narratives or par- ticular practices that may benefit from the use of special kinds of narratives. RAZINSKY, HILI (2017). Ambivalence: A philosophical exploration. London & New York: Rowman and Littlefield London: pp. 296. This book studies the relations between rationality and ambivalence (mental conflict). Ambivalence and its forms are central to subjec- tivity and communication, action and judgement. Defending a Da- vidsonian view about the constitutive rationality of mental atti- tudes, it argues that ambivalence is an important form of basic (constitutive) rationality and mental unity. Ambivalence can be ir- rational in a secondary sense, as in weakness of the will and self- deception. It can also be highly rational, including forms of appro- priate significant action with both opposed poles. Ambivalence of belief is possible, ordinary, basically rational and central to the log- ic of belief. The rationality of deliberation is also bound up with ambivalence. Rather than being the agnostic consideration of prop- ositions or practical options, deliberation usually assumes and em- ploys ambivalence, and may aptly end with it. Books reviewed since 2014 (in order of appearance): Hitchcock, David. (2017). On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in 8 Informal Logic and Critical Thinking. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Pp. xxvii, 553. Blair, J. A. (2012). Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair. Argumentation Library, Vol. 21. Dordrecht: Springer. Pp. xxi, 1-355. Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (2013). “Meta-argumentation, An Ap- proach to Logic and Argumentation Theory.” Studies in Logic, Logic and Argumentation, Vol. 42. London: College Publica- tions. Pp. vii, 1-279. Macagno, Fabrizio and Douglas Walton. (2014). Emotive Lan- guage in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge. Rubinelli, Sara and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.). (2012). “Argumentation and Health.” Special issue of the jour- nal Argumentation in Context, Vol. 1, No. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. vi, 1-142. Eemeren, Frans H. van and Bart Garssen (Eds.). (2015). Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Pp. xiv, 1-293. Amossy, Ruth. (2014). Apologie de la polémique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Coll. L’interogation philosophique. Pp. 1-240. Gilbert, Michael A. (2014). Arguing with People. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. Pp. 1-12, front matter; 13-137. Campbell, John Angus, Antonio de Velasco and David Henry (Eds.). (2016). Rethinking Rhetorical Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy: The Living Art of Michael C. Leff. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Pp. xxiv, 1-481. Tindale, Christopher W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xii, 1-244.