Chapter published in:
Controversies and Interdisciplinarity: Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model
Edited by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 16] 2020
► pp. 5374


Berker, S.
(2007) Particular Reasons. Ethics, 118(1), 109–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birdsell, D. S. – Groarke, L.
(1996) Toward a Theory of Visual. Argument Argumentation and Advocacy. Summer 1996 33. 1–10.Google Scholar
Blair, J. A.
(1996) The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 1996 33. 23–39.Google Scholar
(2014) Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Burks, A. W.
(1949) SocietyIcon, Index, and Symbol. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 9, No. 4 pp. 673–689. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, R.
(2000) Particularizing particularism. In B. Hooker & M. O. Little (Eds.), Moral Particularism (pp. 23–47). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, J.
(1983) Ethical particularism and morally relevant properties. Mind, 92(368), 530–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Moral Reasons. Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2004) Ethics Without Principles (Vol. 116). Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Moral Particularism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013) Retrieved from http://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/archives​/fall2013​/entries​/moral​-particularism/
Eemeren, F. H. van et al.
(2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Fleming, D.
(1996) Can there be Visual Arguments? Argumentation & Advocacy. 33 (1996), 11–22.Google Scholar
Groarke, L. P. C. H., Godden, D.
(2016) Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument. Argumentation and Advocacy. Vol. 52. 217–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groarke, L.
(1996) Logic, Art and Argument. Informal Logic. Vol. 18, Nos. 2&3 pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
(2002) Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In: Van Eemeren, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: SicSat, and Newport News:Vale Press.Google Scholar
Holton, R.
(2002) Principles and particularisms. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 67(1), 191–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. H.
Kirchin, S.
(2010) The Shapelessness Hypothesis. Philosophers’ Imprint, 10(04).Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D.
(1982) Two concepts of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox, & C. A. Willard (Eds.). Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Potrc, M., Strahovnik, V., & Lance, M.
(2007) Challenging Moral Particularism. Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsu, P. S.-H.
(2010) Can Morality Be Codified. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 11(1&2), 145–154.Google Scholar
(2013) Shapelessness and predication supervenience: a limited defense of shapeless moral particularism. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 51–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming). Can the Canberrans’ Supervenience Argument Refute Shapeless Moral Particularism? Erkenntnis, 1–16.
Walton, D. N.
(2014) Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy, in H. J. Ribeiro (ed.), Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.
(2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar