Szczegółowy program:

10.45 – 11.00 Kawa i Przywitanie.
Przewodniczący sesji: Chris Reed

11.00 –  12.00 Leo Groarke (UoW) Images and Argument: Theories of Visual Argument 12.00 – 12.15 kawa
12.15 – 13.00 Steven Patterson (MC) The Usefulness of Deep Disagreement

13.00 – 14.30 przerwa obiadowa

Przewodnicząca sesji: Magdalena Kacprzak
14.30 – 15.15 Lucas Champollion (UoT) Unifying aspect, measurement, distributivity and cumulativity
15.15 – 16.00 Justyna Grudzińska (UW) & Julien Musolino (RU) Cumulative readings: an experimental approach
16.00 – 16.15 kawa
16.15 – 16.45 Jakub Szymanik (UoG) Logic and Cognition

Streszczenia

Leo Groarke, Images and Argument: Theories of Visual Argument.
Fifteen years ago, I defended an account of “visual argument”: the notion that arguments (in the traditional premise and conclusion sense) can be conveyed in images instead of words.  My own views — and those of other commentators (among them, Blair, Birdsell, and Roque) — have provoked much discussion and debate.  In my keynote, I will examine some of the central issues that have been identified in this discussion.  They include questions about:

• the meaning of images in argument;
• the (propositional?) nature of arguments and images;
• the claim that images cannot negate;
• the relationship between images and words in “multi-modal” (and verbal and visual) argument;
• the significance of image genres — from graphs and illustrations to cartoons, films, and tattoos, etc.;
• the emotive force of images; and
• the implications that visual arguments have for the theory of argument.

I argue that a fully developed account of visual argument has a great deal to contribute to traditional accounts of argument.

Steven Patterson, The Usefulness of Deep Disagreement.
In this paper I begin by examining Fogelin’s account of deep disagreement and show that this account is so deeply flawed as to cast doubt on the possibility that such deep disagreements actually happen. Nevertheless, I contend that the notion of deep disagreement itself is a useful theoretical foil for thinking about argumentation. The second part of this paper makes this case by showing how thinking about deep disagreements from the perspective of rhetoric, Walton-style argumentation theory, computation, and normative pragmatics can all yield insights that are useful no matter what one’s orientation within the study of argument. Thus, I conclude that deep disagreement–even if it were to turn out that there are no real-world occurrences of it to which we can point–is theoretically useful for theorists of argumentation.  In this wise, deep disagreement poses a theoretical challenge for argumentation theory not unlike that posed by radical skepticism for traditional epistemology.

Justyna Grudzińska & Julien Musolino, Cumulative readings: an experimental approach.
In the presentation, I will give an overview of the controversies surrounding the semantics for sentences involving two numerical quantifiers (Three boys are holding two balloons) and talk about the experimental work by Dr. Musolino and his team related to those controversies. The main focus of the presentation will be on cumulative readings and the question raised in the literature whether cumulative readings should be distinguished from other readings in the grammar. Roberts (1987), Link (1998) and Schwertel (2005) argue that we do not need to complicate the grammar with cumulative readings, because we can regard them as instances of group-group readings (the group/group view). The grammar only generates the group-group reading and the context sometimes (but not always) creates the cumulative effect. Landman (2000), on the other hand, claims that cumulative readings are real and should not be reduced to group-group readings. In my presentation, I will talk about our experimental work designed to help resolve this controversy.

Jakub Szymanik, Logic and Cognition
I will survey my recent work on the intersection of logic and cognitive science. I will mostly talk about two research project I have been involved in: computational semantics for generalized quantifiers in natural language and logical models for higher order social cognition. I will also discuss how logical studies can improve our understanding of cognition by proposing new methodological perspectives in psychology. The major focus will be computational complexity and its interplay with “difficulty” as experienced by subjects in cognitive science.

• Katarzyna Budzyńska (UKSW)
• Magdalena Kacprzak (Politechnika Białostocka)
• Kamila Dębowska (UAM)
• Marcin Koszowy (UwB)
• Joanna Skulska (UKSW)
• Olena Yaskorska (UKSW)

Uczestnictwo w konferencji jest bezpłatne, jednak ze względów organizacyjnych prosimy o zgłoszenie chęci uczestnictwa w konferencji przesyłając mail do dr Katarzyny Budzyńskiej na adres:

k.budzynska (at) uksw.edu.pl

** Wskazówki dotyczące dojazdu

• Metrem w kierunku *Młociny* – należy wysiąść na ostatniej stacji
• Autobusem 114 w kierunku *UKSW Młociny* – należy wsiąść na przystanku oznaczonym na mapie numerem 01 (prawy dolny róg mapy) i wysiąść na ostatnim przystanku (mini pętli)
• Brama przy pętli – należy wejść w brame obok pętli, pierwszy budynek naprzeciwko wejścia z bramy to Audytorium Maximum, w którym odbędzie się spotkanie ArgDiaP