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 conferences, an- thologies and any similar scholarly books (not textbooks) published 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 journal until four years after the year the edition of the book was first published. (Be sure to in- clude at least the author’s or editor’s name, the title of the book, the year of publication, the publisher and the number of pages.) We hope this de- partment 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): AIKIN, SCOTT AND ROBERT TALISSE (2020) Political Argument in a Polarized Age: Reason and Democratic Life. Polity Books. The authors show that disagreeing civilly, even with your sworn en- emies, is a crucial part of democracy. Rejecting the popular view that civility requires a polite and concessive attitude, they argue that our biggest challenge is not remaining calm in the face of an oppo- nent, but rather ensuring that our political arguments actually ad- dress those on the opposing side. Too often politicians and pundits merely simulate political debate, offering carefully structured cari- catures of their opponents. These simulations mimic political argu- ment in a way designed to convince citizens that those with whom they disagree are not worth talking to. 2 BLAIR, ANTHONY J. AND CHRISTOPHER W. TINDALE (Eds.). (2020) Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor Studies in Argumentation. This book collects essays in recognition of the career of Professor Hansen, whose contributions to the fields of informal logic and argument theory have earned the gratitude of his colleagues. Essays by scholars as John Woods, Douglas Walton, Trudy Govier, Derek Allen, Jean Goodwin, James B. Freeman, David Hitchcock, Christopher Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Patrick Bondy, Daniel Cohen, Marcin Lewiński, Yun Xie, Leo Groarke, Bruce Russell, and Christian Kock cover a range of topics in the history and theory of informal logic and argumentation theory. JULIO CABRERA (2019) Introduction to a Negative Approach Argu- mentation: Towards a New Ethic for Philosophical Debate. New- castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pp.200. ISBN: 978-1-52753968-6. This work deals with argumentation in philosophy. In the “affirma- tive” view of argumentation, each party thinks it is right while all other positions are wrong; argumentation is seen as guided by a set of rules that should lead to the resolution of the dispute in favor of one party. This book advances a critique of such an approach, pro- posing instead a negative one, the central idea of which is that each party organizes the elements of the problem concerning the defini- tion of terms, the assumptions to be accepted, and the types of logi- cal resources being used. The negative approach attempts to modify the ethics of philosophical discussions, moving towards pluralism, a diversity of perspectives, and the capacity to adopt a panoramic view where one’s own posture appears only as one among others. The book will particularly appeal to graduate and postgraduate stu- dents in philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and communication, as well as the general reader interested in philosophy. 3 HANSEN, HANS V., FRED KAUFFELD, AND LILIAN BERMEJO-LUQUE (Eds.). (2019). Presumptions and Burdens of Proof: An Anthology of Ar- gumentation 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. However, the documents and essays central to any discussion of pre- sumptions and burdens of proof as devices of argumentation are scattered across a variety of remote sources in rhetoric, law, and phi- losophy. Presumptions and Burdens of Proof: An Anthology of Ar- gumentation and the Law brings together for the first time key texts relating to the history of the theory of presumptions along with con- temporary 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- 3030-04566-1. This book investigates the role of inference in argumentation, con- sidering how arguments support standpoints on the basis of different 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 in- ferential-procedural component, on which the reasoning process is based; and a material-contextual component, which anchors the ar- gument in the interlocutors’ cultural and factual common ground. 4 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 enor- mously rich tradition of studies on inference in argumentation, from the antiquity to contemporary authors, without neglecting medieval and post-medieval contributions. The AMT is a contemporary model grounded in a dialogue with such tradition, whose crucial as- pects 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 fo- cused on rhetoric, while others have given attention to logic. Still others have concentrated on dialectics. This book takes into account 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 strategies that make language stronger in the context of argumentation. Cogent ar- gumentation is a pragmatic communicative interactional process that goes through stages and is regarded as a communicative ex- change of arguments. The cogency of these arguments is attained according to the availability of pragmatic criteria and the utilization of pragmatic strategies and determined throughout the whole pro- cess 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. 5 BLAIR, ANTHONY J. (Ed.). (2019) Studies in Critical Thinking. Windsor Studies in Argumentation. Critical thinking deserves both imaginative teaching and serious the- oretical 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 Albert van Laar, Sharon Bailin and Mark Battersby, there are chapters on: what critical thinking is, the nature of argument, definition, using the web, evaluation, argument schemes, abduction, generalizing, fallaciousness, logic and critical thinking, computer-aided argument mapping, and more—by such illustrious scholars as John Woods, Douglas Walton, Sally Jackson, Dale Hample, Robert Ennis, Beth Innocenti, David Hitchcock, Christopher Tindale, G. C. Goddu, Alec Fisher, Michael Scriven, Martin Davies, Ashley Barnett, Tim van Gelder and Mark Battersby. BATTERSBY, MATTERSBY, MARK AND BAILIN, SHARON (2018) In- quiry: A New Paradigm for Critical Thinking. Windsor Studies in Argumentation. 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, de- veloped primarily as a response to the inadequacies of formalism to represent actual argumentative practice and to provide useful argu- mentative skills to students. Because of this, the primary focus of the field has been on informal arguments rather than formal reason- ing. Yet the formalist history of the field is still evident in its em- phasis, with respect to both theory and pedagogy, on the structure 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 contending positions and arguments with the goal of reaching a reasoned judg- ment on an issue. As a consequence, traditional critical thinking in- struction is problematic in failing to provide the reasoning skills that 6 students need in order to accomplish this goal. Instead, the goal of critical thinking instruction has been seen largely as a defensive one: of learning to not fall prey to invalid, inadequate, or fallacious argu- ments. EEMEREN, FRANS H. VAN (2018) Argumentation Theory: A Pragma- Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation Library series. Springer. pp.199. The book offers a compact but comprehensive introductory over- view of the crucial components of argumentation theory. In present- ing this overview, argumentation is consistently approached from a pragma-dialectical perspective by viewing it pragmatically as a goaldirected communicative activity and dialectically as part of a regulated critical exchange aimed at resolving a difference of opin- ion. The book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation hang together. 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 a difference of opinion; (4) fallacies as violations of a code of conduct for rea- sonable argumentative discourse; (5) descriptive research of argu- mentative reality; (6) analysis as theoretically-motivated reconstruc- tion; (7) strategic manoeuvring aimed at combining achieving effec- tiveness with maintaining reasonableness; (8) the conventionaliza- tion of argumentative practices; (9) prototypical argumentative pat- terns; (10) pragma-dialectics amidst other approaches. HAMPLE, DALE (2018) Interpersonal Arguing. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 301. This book is an accessible review of scholarship on key elements of face-to-face arguing, which is the interpersonal exchange of reasons. Topics include frames for understanding the nature of arguing, ar- gument situations, serial arguments, argument dialogues, and inter- 7 national differences in how people understand interpersonal argu- ing. This is a thorough survey of the leading issues involved in un- derstanding how people argue with one another. MOHAMMED, DIMA (2018) Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Ques- tion Time: Accusation of Inconsistency in Response to Criticism. 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 distin- guishes constructive cases from disruptive ones? This is the question this book sets out to answer. The question is addressed by adopting an argumentative perspective. 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 partic- ular way of strategic manoeuvring. The manoeuvring is analysed and evaluated by combining pragmatic, dialectical and rhetorical in- sights with considerations from the realm of politics. The outcome is an account of the turnabout’s strategic functions and an assess- ment guide for evaluating its reasonableness. The book will be of interest to advanced students and researchers of argumentation, discourse analysis, communication and rhetoric. 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 sig- nificant published articles on reasoning and argument. In seven new 8 chapters he updates his thinking in the light of subsequent scholar- ship. 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 the- ory of relevance. • provides comprehensive frameworks for evaluating infer- ences 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 fallacy. • describes proven methods of teaching critical thinking effec- tively. MAGNANI, LORENZO (2017). Scientific Creativity: An Essay on the Ecology of Cognition. Springer. pp. 197. ISBN: 978-3-319-59256-5 This book employs a new eco-cognitive model of abduction to un- derline the distributed and embodied nature of scientific cognition. Its main focus is on the knowledge-enhancing virtues of abduction. What are the distinctive features that define the kind of knowledge produced by science? To provide an answer, the book first addresses the ideas of Aristotle, who stressed the essential inferential and dis- tributed role of external cognitive tools and epistemic mediators in abductive cognition. It is shown how the maximization of cognition, and of abducibility – two typical goals of science – are related to a number of fundamental aspects: the optimization of the eco-cogni- tive situatedness; the maximization of changeability for both the in- put and the output of the inferences involved; a high degree of in- formation-sensitiveness; and the need to record the “past life” of ab- ductive inferential practices. 9 OLMOS PAULA (Ed.). (2017). Narration as Argument. Cham, Swit- zerland: Springer. Pp. xii, 1-234. This collection of essays has achieved to gather an international group of scholars, mainly, but not exclusively, from the field of Ar- gumentation Theory, and put together an anthology of eleven origi- nal chapters on Narration as Argument from different perspectives. It presents reflections on the relationship between narratives and ar- gumentative discourse, focusing on their functional and structural similarities and dissimilarities, and offering diverse conceptual tools for analyzing the narratives’ potential power for justification, expla- nation and persuasion. The first Part, under the title “Narratives as Sources of Knowledge and Argument”, includes five chapters ad- dressing general, theoretical and philosophical issues, related to the argumentative analysis and understanding of narratives. The second Part, entitled “Argumentative Narratives in Context”, brings us six more chapters that concentrate on either particular functions played by argumentatively-oriented narratives or particular practices that may benefit from the use of special kinds of narratives. RAZINSKY, HILL (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 attitudes, it argues that ambivalence is an important form of basic (constitu- tive) rationality and mental unity. Ambivalence can be irrational in a secondary sense, as in weakness of the will and self-deception. It can also be highly rational, including forms of appropriate signifi- cant action with both opposed poles. Ambivalence of belief is pos- sible, ordinary, basically rational and central to the logic of belief. The rationality of deliberation is also bound up with ambivalence. Rather than being the agnostic consideration of propositions or prac- tical options, deliberation usually assumes and employs ambiva- lence, and may aptly end with it. 10 Books reviewed since 2014 (in order of appearance): John Woods, Truth in Fiction: Rethinking its Logic. Springer, 2018, 239 pp. ISBN: 978-3-319-72657-1. Frans H. van Eemeren Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialecti- cal Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018. (Argumen- tation Library, vol. 33). Pp. xi + 199. ISBN: 978-3-319-95380- 9. Hitchcock, David. (2017). On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in 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 Language in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge. Rubinelli, Sara and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.). (2012). “Argumentation and Health.” Special issue of the journal Argu- mentation in Context, Vol. 1, No. 1. Amsterdam: John Benja- mins. 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 uni- versitaires de France. Coll. L’interogation philosophique. Pp. 1240. 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. 11 Tindale, Christopher W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xii, 1-244. Notice of BOOKS RECEIVED Policy