Diversity of judgments: reason and emotions in forensic practice

Serena Tomasi, University of Trento

Room 1

8:00 AM - 9:00 AM

Commentary on John Woods’ “Evidence, Probativity and Knowledge: A Troubled Trio”

Fabio Paglieri, Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR Roma

Room 2

8:01 AM - 9:00 AM

Commentary on: Jiaming Li & Jidong Li’s “Wang Chong’s thoughts on argumentation”

Min Ghui Xiong, Sun Yat-sen University, Institute of Logic and Cognition, Department of Philosophy

Room 3

8:01 AM - 9:00 AM

Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, and Cultural Diversity

Jianfeng Wang, University of Windsor

Room 3

9:00 AM - 10:00 AM

A new typology for arguments from authority

Frank Zenker, Lund University
Shiyang Yu, Nankai University, China

Room 2

9:00 AM - 10:00 AM

Commentary on: Jianfeng Wang’s “Deep disagreement, deep rhetoric, and cultural diversity"

Jean Goodwin, North Carolina State University

Room 3

9:01 AM - 10:00 AM

Commentary on Daniel Mejia Saldarraiaga: „Does taste counts as evidence in argumentation?”

Gabrijela Kisicek, University of Zagreb

Room 1

9:01 AM - 10:00 AM

How Do People Feel About Arguing in Cameroon?

Dale Hample, dhample@umd.edu
Diana Njweipi-Kongor, St Jerome Catholic University Institute, Douala Cameroon

Room 3

10:00 AM - 11:00 AM

Evidence in Health Controversies

Sally Jackson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Room 2

10:00 AM - 11:00 AM

Commentary: Jackson, Sally. 2020. Arguing Over Evidence in Health Controversies

Michael A. Gilbert, York University

Room 2

10:01 AM - 11:00 AM

Commentary: How do people feel about arguing – and how should we study it?

Jens E. Kjeldsen

Room 3

10:01 AM - 11:00 AM

Broadening “in situ” for improving argument evaluation?

Haavard Koppang, BI Norwegian Business School

Room 1

11:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

Harry Weger Jr., University of Central Florida
John S. Seiter, Utah State University

Room 3

11:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Commentary on Harry Weger and John Seiter’s “Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates”

Christopher Tindale, University of Windsor

Room 3

11:01 AM - 12:00 PM

Commentary: Teaching Rational Decision Making: A Commentary on Mark Battersby’s “Practical Rationality: Critical Questions for Rational Decision Making”

Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary's University - Canada

Room 2

11:01 AM - 12:00 PM

Argument, Inference, and Persuasion

Matthew W. McKeon, Michigan State University

Room 2

2:00 PM - 3:00 PM

Persuading Annoying Turtles: Blocking Conspiracies from Taking our Rationality

Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary's University - Canada

Room 3

2:00 PM - 3:00 PM

Commentary on McKeon on argument, inference, and persuasion

Daniel H. Cohen

Room 2

2:01 PM - 3:00 PM

A response to Sheldon Wein’s “Persuading annoying turtles: Blocking conspiracies from taking our rationality”

John Woods, University of British Columbia, King’s College, London

Room 3

2:01 PM - 3:00 PM

Doing Things with Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance

Blake D. Scott, Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven

Room 3

3:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Warranting evidence in diverse evidentiary settings

Mark Weinstein, Montclair State University

Room 2

3:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Commentary on: Mark Weinstein’s “Warranting Evidence in Diverse Evidentiary Settings”

Maurice A. Finocchiaro, University of Nevada Las Vegas

Room 2

3:01 PM - 4:00 PM

Commentary: Peitho and the Consolation of Philosophy: A Reply to Blake D. Scott

G Thomas Goodnight, University of Southern California

Room 3

3:01 PM - 4:00 PM