which conclusions are derived. Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic and procedural rules in both Artificial intelligence and Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived. Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for their position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for their argument. For example, consider the following exchange, illustrating the No true Scotsman fallacy: The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Begriffsschrift, 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in…

Argumentation can play an important role in medical consultation. A doctor could, for instance, argue in support of a treatment advice to overcome a patient’s hesitance about it. In this argumentation, the doctor might explicitly present him- or herself as an authority, thereby presenting an argument by authority. Depending on the specific conditions under which the doctor advances such an argument, the doctor’s argument by authority can constitute a sound or a fallacious contribution to the discussion. In this chapter, I shall determine what the specific soundness conditions are that apply to a doctor’s argumentation by authority in medical consultation.

The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue | Argumentation | Springer Nature Link # The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue - Original Research - Open access - Published: 27 May 2017 - Volume 31, pages 535–554 (2017) - Cite this article You have full access to this open access article ## Abstract Dialogical egalitarianism is the thesis that any proposition asserted in dialogue, if questioned, must be supported or else retracted. Dialogical foundationalism is the thesis that some propositions are privileged over this burden of proof, standing in no need of support unless and until support for their negation is provided. I first discuss existing arguments for either thesis, dismissing each one of them. Absent a successful principled argument, I then examine which thesis it is pragmatically more advantageous to adopt in analytic philosophical dialogue. This requires identifying the goal of such dialogue, to the attainment of which the thesis would be so advantageous. To identify this goal, I draw on Douglas Walton’s typology of dialogues for an analysis of the types of dialogue of 110 representatively selected journal articles in current analytic p