Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:3 (2019) ► pp. 317335
References

References

Aydede, M.
1997Language of Thought: The Connectionist Contribution. Minds and Machines, 7, 57–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R.
1993Metaphor and Theory Change: What is “Metaphor” and Metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition, 481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brook, A.
2008Phenomenology: Contribution to Cognitive Science. Abstracta, Special Issue II, 54–70.Google Scholar
Cisek, P.
1999Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behavior as interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11–12, 125–142.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. & Zahavi, D.
2012The Phenomenological Mind (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
2008The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P.
2003Theory and Reality. An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 334 ]
Govier, T.
2010aA Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
2010bReflections on Fact, Values, and Argument. In C. Reed & C. Tindale, (Eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argumentation (pp. 19–29). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Jansen, H.
2016The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning. In P. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–10). Windsor: Scholarship at UWindsor.Google Scholar
Juthe, A.
2005Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, M.
n.d.). The Language of Thought Hypothesis. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://​www​.iep​.utm​.edu​/lot​-hypo/
Kaufer, S. & A. Chemero
2015Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Oswald, S. & Rihs, A.
2014Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation, 28, 133–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, Gualtiero
2009Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 4, 515–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, G. & Scarantino, A.
2011Information processing, computation and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 37, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
2005So how does the mind work? Mind and Language, 20, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H.
1938Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
1984Minds, Brains and Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shiyang, Y. & Zenker, F.
2018Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE – A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 32, 569–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
2011aGenre between the humanities and the social sciences. In M. Callies, W. R. Keller & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the Cognitive Sciences. Avenue, challenges, and limitations (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011bThe contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013aDeliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–2, 179–197.Google Scholar
2013bThe cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–142). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
2017aAttention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse (pp. 279–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017bDeliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P.
1978The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 76–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 335 ]
van Eemeren, F.
2016Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F.
2001Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Verbrugge, R., Szymanik, J., & Isaac, A.
2014Logic and complexity in cognitive science. In A. Baltag, & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics: Trends in Logic, Outstanding Contributions to Logic (Vol. 5, pp. 787–824). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wagemans, J. H. M.
2014The assessment of argumentation based on abduction. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) 22–26 May 2013 (pp. 1–8). Windsor: OSSA.Google Scholar
2016aAnalyzing Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10, 79–94.Google Scholar
2016bArgumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 30, 97–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016cCriteria for deciding what is the ‘best’ scientific explanation. in D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (pp. 43–54). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
2001Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21, 141–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Xu, C. & Wu, Y.
2014Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 68–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bilstrup Finsen, Andreas, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2021. How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2  pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
van Poppel, Lotte
2021. The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1  pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.