Commentary on: Justin Ross Morris' "Narrative, intersectionality and argumentative discourse"
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
J.R. Morris’s paper is intended as a philosophical reflection on how to possibly address in a most appropriate and favourable way the issue of acknowledging and assessing the argumentative characteristics of narrative discourse. It does not get to the point of providing a personal theoretical account of narrative argument as such or how it actually works nor is it its intention. It tackles instead certain preliminary problems and explicit caveats regarding the interest for argumentation theorists to involve in such a kind of research. As I am now deeply interested in this issue, as my own paper in this conference (unambiguously entitled “Narration as argument”) indicates, I have found Morris’s work especially appealing. It has also helped me to take a look at certain problems of the theoretical framework in which we may be able to think about narrative argumentation which I had myself somewhat overlooked. I must finally admit that I openly sympathize with his “use-based” approach and his empirical and contextual concerns regarding the study of the practices of arguing. I am, consequently, a rather already persuaded reader and commentator, especially as regards his overall conclusion about the intrinsic interest, value and virtues (as opposed to weaknesses and risks) of narrative argument. However, let me point out certain issues which I think could be better clarified in his paper. Morris starts commenting on the pitfalls of excessively narrow and too theoretical or abstract definitions of discursive categories such as “narrative”, suggesting instead that we embrace a more empirical, “use-based” approach, following Wittgenstein’s maxim regarding the study of language: “Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use”. As I’m not very fond myself neither of analytic definitions nor of philosophical theories based on them, I again concede the general point. I would suggest, nonetheless, that, instead of referring this topic to the old and allembracing discussions about “nominalism” (as Morris does in note 1), he could make use of the ideas of a very interesting Uruguayan philosopher from the beginning of the 20 th century, Carlos Vaz Ferreira, who is now precisely being vindicated by some people working in argumentation theory (Vega Renon 2008); Spanish speaking people, I admit, as he is not yet translated into English. My comment is, therefore, just a suggestion for further reading not the mention of any obvious omission. In his Logica viva (2008 [1910]), Vaz Ferreira develops a theory about “paralogisms” (as he calls them) as risky habits of reasoning, some of which are not precisely typical of uneducated people but just the opposite. In this respect,
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,027 | 0,034 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».