dhr. dr. J.H.M. (Jean) Wagemans


  • Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen
    Capaciteitsgroep Taalbeheersing, Argumentatietheorie en Retorica
  • Bezoekadres
    P.C. Hoofthuis
    Spuistraat 134  Amsterdam
    Kamernummer: 511
  • Postadres:
    Spuistraat  134
    1012 VB  Amsterdam
  • J.H.M.Wagemans@uva.nl
    T: 0205254704
    T: 0205254716

Please follow the link below for Wagemans' personal page on academia.edu

 

Keynote at PhiLang 2017

May 12, 2017

Wagemans presented the Periodic Table of Arguments in a plenary lecture at the PhiLang 2017 conference in Łódz, addressing an audience of philosophers of language, linguists, and argumentation theorists. After a general explanation of the state-of-the-art in argument classification, he expounded the theoretical framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments, focusing on the characteristics of arguments based on the concept of analogy (and adjacent concepts such as comparison, metaphor, parallel, proportion, similarity, and resemblance).

 

From fact-checking to rhetoric-checking

March 16, 2017

Dutch philosopher Jean Wagemans pleaded for what he coined ’rhetoric-checking’ in a lecture for the interdisciplinary student society Kairos. According to Wagemans, fact-checking is very useful, but it only produces information about the truth of statements and not about their relevance. Moreover, fact-checking does not apply to propositions of value nor to propositions of policy, both of which play an important role in politics and the public debate. After having explained a method for rhetoric-checking, Wagemans performed a rhetoric-check of statements taken from campaign ads and speech fragments of Joe the Plumber and Donald Trump.

 

Taal en communicatie studeren aan de UvA? 

January 10, 2017

Dat is een heel goed idee! Want wie de retorica niet bestudeert, wordt er zelf het slachtoffer van. Lees het interview met Jean Wagemans.

 

Rhetoric and public debate

October 20, 2016

Wagemans contributed to a documentary on the Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum by giving his expert opinion on the role of rhetoric in the public debate preceding the referendum. The documentary was made by Misja Pekel and Judith Konijn and was broadcasted on Dutch national television.  

 

Rhetorical strategies of talk show debaters

August 22, 2016

On the occasion of the start of the talk show season on Dutch national television Wagemans was invited to analyze rhetorical manoeuvres in an exemplary talk show debate broadcasted during the previous season. The infamous debate was about the question whether soccer clubs should take measurements to prevent young players of Moroccan origine from joining the club. Wagemans' comments were incorporated in an article written by Haro Kraak that was published in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant.

 

Wagemans presents Periodic Table of Arguments in Croatia

April 27, 2016

Dutch philosopher Jean H.M. Wagemans of the University of Amsterdam presented his Periodic Table of Arguments on a conference on argumentation and rhetoric in Postira (Croatia) that was held last week. The table is an attempt to integrate philosophical (dialectical) and rhetorical accounts of the types of argument into a new standard model of argument.

Wagemans chose the Days of Ivo Škarić International Conference on Rhetoric to be the first occasion to present his Periodic Table of Arguments. “It is one of the most important and enjoyable conferences in the field. Because of the relatively small size and the great hospitality of the organizers, there is ample opportunity to discuss your findings at length with a group of top scholars”.

According to Wagemans, who has been working on the project for almost two years, the age-old antagonism between philosophy and rhetoric is reflected in the present-day field of argumentation theory: “Scholars working from a dialectical perspective tend to adhere to a strict division between reasonable arguments and fallacies. But since fallacies may be very effective, rhetoricians do not hesitate to include them in their accounts of the means of persuasion. As a result, there is a great divide between dialectical and rhetorical accounts of the types of arguments.”

Apart from narrowing the gap between philosophy and rhetoric, creating a Periodic Table of Arguments addresses another vexing problem in the field of argumentation theory. “Some scholars say that there are 63 types of arguments, others say 300, and yet others stick to only 3 different types. Now one may state that this is unproblematic since in the humanities, contrary to the situation in the sciences, it is always a positive thing to have such a wide variety of opinions. But I don’t buy that.” According to Wagemans, who studied physics and astronomy before switching to philosophy, any account of the types of argument should be based on clear and explicit theoretical starting points. “Only in this case, our elaborate analyses and evaluations of argumentative discourse can be compared to one another.”

The construction of the Periodic Table of Arguments has already generated several interesting hypotheses concerning the nature of arguments. “It appears to be the case that fallacies and several rhetorical means of persuasion can be reconstructed as second-order arguments. The periodicity of the table makes it easier to detect all kinds of differences and commonalities between the types of argument. I expect the table to generate a lot of interesting new research, not only theoretical but also empirical and computational research.”

As was pointed out by one of the attendants of the conference, the Periodic Table of Arguments may also be used for educational purposes. At the moment, Wagemans is working on a book on the table and its applications. “It sure is a lot of work, but I really enjoy writing it. The Periodic Table of Elements wasn’t created in one day either. So if you have any comments or questions, please drop me a line!”

2016

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 30(1), 97-108. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2 [details] [PDF]
  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Redelijkheid in context: de rol van institutionele conventies in de pragma-dialectische beoordeling van argumentatie. In D. Van De Mieroop, L. Buysse, R. Coesemans, & P. Gillaerts (Eds.), De macht van de taal: taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen. (pp. 245-256). Leuven/Den Haag: Acco. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Analyzing metaphor in argumentative discourse. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10(2), 79-94. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments. 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), 18-21 May 2016 . (pp. 1-12). Windsor, CA: OSSA. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Criteria for deciding what is the ’best’ scientific explanation. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (Vol. 2, pp. 43-54). (Studies in Logic; Vol. 63). London: College Publications. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Reply to commentary on Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments. 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. 1-4). Windsor, CA: OSSA. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Rhetorical status theory as an institutional framework for legal discussions. In E. T. Feteris, H. J. Plug, H. Kloosterhuis, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Legal argumentation and the Rule of Law. (pp. 205-215). Den Haag: Eleven. [details]

2015

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2015). Reasonableness in context: Taking into account institutional conventions in the pragma-dialectical evaluation of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp. 217-226). (Argumentation Library; No. 28). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_16 [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2015). Argumentation from expert opinion in the 2011 U.S. debt ceiling debate. In C. H. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference of Argumentation. (pp. 49-56). Abingdon: Routledge. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2015). El método pragma-dialéctico de análisis y evaluación. In F. Leal Carretero (Ed.), Argumentación y pragma-dialéctica: estudios en honor a Frans van Eemeren. (pp. 127-154). Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara. [details]

2014

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Commentary on: Michael Hoppmann's "Preciseness is a virtue: What are critical questions?". In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013 Windsor, ON: OSSA. [details] [PDF]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Een systematische catalogus van argumenten. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 36(1), 11-30. DOI: 10.5117/TVT2014.1.WAGE [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). The assessment of argumentation based on abduction. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013 Windsor, ON: OSSA. [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [details]

2013

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2013). Institutionele waarborgen voor de aanvaardbaarheid van deskundigheidsargumentatie in medische discussies. In R. Boogaart, & H. Jansen (Eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 4. (pp. 315-325). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. [details]

2012

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2012). The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists & citizens: proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, June 1-2, 2012 (pp. 345-354). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation. [details] [PDF]
  • Wagemans, J. (2012). Commentaar bij Mireille Hildebrandt. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, J. A. Pontier, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Gewogen oordelen: essays over argumentatie en recht: bijdragen aan het Zesde Symposium Juridische Argumentatie 24 juni 2011. (pp. 357-360). Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers. [details]

2011

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). Argument schemes, topoi, and laws of logic. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1934-1939). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation, 25(3), 329-339. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9225-8 [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). The pragma-dialectical method of analysis. In R. C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change: selected papers from the 17th Biennial Conference on Argumentation (pp. 25-47). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. [details]
  • Hitchcock, D., & Wagemans, J. (2011). The pragma-dialectical account of argument schemes. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 185-205). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [details]

2010

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatics. Cogency, 2(1), 95-110. [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2010). Zeno's dialectische redenering. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 32(3), 258-267. DOI: 10.5117/TVT2010.3.ZENO387 [details] [PDF]

2007

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2007). Dialectical and rhetorical dimensions of ‘strategic manoeuvring’. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp. 1433-1438). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details]

2006

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2006). De verdediging is de beste aanval: Over de dialectische kwaliteiten van retorische aanvallen op het standpunt dat door de andere partij naar voren is gebracht. In B. J. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), De redelijkheid zelve: Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren (pp. 37-47). Amsterdam: Rozenberg. [details]

2015

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2015). Reasonableness in context: Taking into account institutional conventions in the pragma-dialectical evaluation of argumentative discourse. In B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), International Society for the Study of Argumentation: 8th International Conference on Argumentation: July 1-July 4, 2014, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (pp. 1350-1359). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details] [PDF]

2014

  • Schut, D., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Argumentatie en debat. Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers. [details]

2011

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). [Review of: M.A. Finocchiaro (2010) Defending Copernicus and Galileo: critical reasoning in the two affairs]. Argumentation, 25(2), 271-274. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9204-0 [details] [PDF]

2007

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Pilgram, R., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2007). Werkboek argumentatie: Inleiding in het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. [details]

2015

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2015). Bespreking van Feteris et al. (2012) [Bespreking van: E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis (2012) Gewogen oordelen: essays over argumentatie en recht: bijdragen aan het zesde symposium juridische argumentatie 24 juni 2011]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 37(1), 113-116. DOI: 10.5117/TVT2015.1.SLOT [details]
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (in press). [Bespreking van: J. Crosswhite. Deep rhetoric: Philosophy, reason, violence, justice, wisdom]. Argumentation, 29(4), 475-479. [details]

2013

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2013). [Review of: M. Spranzi (2011) The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aristotelian tradition]. Argumentation, 27(1), 89-92. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-012-9282-7 [details]

2011

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). What's hot in... argumentation theory. The Reasoner, 5(4), 61. [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F., Snoeck Henkemans, F., Pilgram, R., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Werkboek bij Argumentatie - 4e druk 2011 (op website). Groningen: Noordhoff. [details]

Spreker

  • Wagemans, J.H.M. (speaker) (30-11-2007): Status Theory and Pragma-Dialectics, Lugano- Amsterdam Colloquium, Lugano, Università della Svizzera Italiana.
  • Wagemans, J.H.M. (speaker) (13-1-2007): Dialectic and Rhetoric: Historico-Philosophical Backgrounds of Pragma-Dialectics, Lugano- Amsterdam Colloquium on Argumentation, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano.

2009

  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2009). Redelijkheid en overredingskracht van argumentatie : een historisch-filosofische studie over de combinatie van het dialectische en het retorische perspectief op argumentatie in de pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie [details / files]
This list of publications is extracted from the UvA-Current Research Information System. Questions? Ask the library or the Pure staff of your faculty / institute. Log in to Pure to edit your publications.
  • Geen nevenwerkzaamheden

contactgegevens bewerken bewerk tabbladen