WPA MANDATE

The WPA began as an informal alumni society for the Department of Philosophy at the University of Windsor. Shortly after the inception of the WPA it became a loose knit association of alumni from the department of philosophy, philosophers located in Windsor, and generally friends of philosophy within the region. This more general association was intended to be an open group that supports the development of a critical community of the philosophically minded within the region. The WPA supported both student and independent scholarship and encourages philosophers to bring their research beyond the bounds of the university and into the public sphere.
In May of 2013, the WPA transformed again into the WP(A)A, a registered Non-Profit Corporation and Charitable Organization in Ontario. The notion behind this latest transformation is to establish a non-profit artist organization (akin to Artcite, Windsor) dedicated to supporting independent philosophical scholarship and philosophers intervention events within the greater Windsor region.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

CRRAR Talk Today: “How Do You Argue? Let Us Count the Ways” The Ontario Provincial Election, 2011

Today: Another World Philosophy Day event presented by CRRAR Fellows: Dr. Hans V. Hansen and Dr. Douglas Walton and FASS students:  Sam Atkin, Dillon Fowler, Laura Nicola & Shane Perron


November 17, Thursday, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. at Memorial Hall, room 105.

The title of the talk is:   “How Do You Argue? Let Us Count the Ways”  The Ontario Provincial Election, 2011

Abstract:  
     This is a report on a study of the arguments used during the Ontario provincial election, September 7 to October 6, 2011. The primary purpose of the study is to investigate what kinds of arguments (e.g., analogical argument, ad hominem argument, etc.) were used by the candidates for political office. We also consider what dialectical roles the arguments played, i.e., whether they were used to present a policy or solution, or criticize an opponent’s position, or criticize an opponent him or her self. Our source was the main print media, the Globe and MailToronto Star, and Windsor Star. More than 250 entries were made in our database for the election period. Early analysis of the data allows us to report on (a) what kinds of arguments were used, (b) the relative and comparative frequency of the kinds of argument that were used, and (c) the relative and comparative frequency of the different dialectical roles that can be attributed. A further finding leads to (d) a suggestion about modification to the list of argument kinds (or schemes): what might be added, or deleted, to the list for the context of political argumentation? 

No comments:

Post a Comment