Kód: 04700612
We often feel that an argument should be doubted or held as suspicious because it has a bias. But bias isn't always wrong. It is a normal phenomenon in advocacy argumentation, and in many cases it is to be expected. Yet sometimes ... celý popis
Angličtina
909 Kč
Dostupnost:
50 % šance
Máme informaci, že by titul mohl být dostupný. Na základě vaší objednávky se ho pokusíme do 6 týdnů zajistit.
Zadejte do formuláře e-mailovou adresu a jakmile knihu naskladníme, zašleme vám o tom zprávu. Pohlídáme vše za vás.
Nákupem získáte 91 bodů
Anotace knihy
We often feel that an argument should be doubted or held as suspicious because it has a bias. But bias isn't always wrong. It is a normal phenomenon in advocacy argumentation, and in many cases it is to be expected. Yet sometimes bias can be quite harmful in argumentation. In this book, bias is defined as one-sided advocacy of a point of view in argumentation. It is shown to be harmful, or properly subject to critical condemnation, only when the dialogue exchange is supposed to be a balanced, two-sided exchange of viewpoints.The book concedes the postmodernist premise that bias is quite normal in everyday conversational arguments, and that a finding of bias should not, by itself, constitute grounds for criticizing an argument as critically deficient or fallacious. But the book strongly disagrees with the postmodernist conclusion that no standard of rationality can be brought to bear to condemn narrowly interest-based or one-sided arguments as biased. It is argued that in some cases narrow, one-sided partisanship in an argument is justifiably a basis for negative criticism of the worth of the argument.
Parametry knihy
Zařazení knihy Knihy v angličtině Humanities Philosophy History of Western philosophy
909 Kč
Angličtina
Osobní odběr Praha, Brno a 47405 dalších
Copyright ©2008-26 nejlevnejsi-knihy.cz Všechna práva vyhrazenaSoukromíCookies
Vrácení do měsíce
571 999 099 (8-15.30h)Nákupní košík ( prázdný )