The appeal to religious authority

References

1. Arnauld, Antoine
   1964 The Art of Thinking, trans. byJames Dickoff, Patricia James, and Charles Hendel. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1968 Dostoevskij. Poetica e stilistica. Torino: Einaudi.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1979 “Das Wort im Roman”. InDie Ästhetik des Wortes, hrsg. und eingel.Von Rainer Grübel, 154–300. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1981 The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays, ed. byMichael Holquist, trans. byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1986 “The problem of Speech Genres”. InBakhtin, Michail M., Speech Genres and other late essays, ed. byC. Emerson and M. Holquist, 60–102. University of Texas Press: Austin.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Billig, Michael
   1987 Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Black, Max
   1946 Critical Thinking. New York: Prentice-Hall.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dascal, Marcelo
   2005 “Debating with Myself and Debating with Others”. InControversies and Subjectivity, ed. byP. Barrotta, and Marcelo Dascal, 33–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.1.04das
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.1.04das [Google Scholar]
9. Driver, Rosalind, Paul Edward Newton, and Jonathan Osborne
   2000 “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms”. Science Education84(3): 287–312. 10.1002/(SICI)1098‑237X(200005)84:3<287::AID‑SCE1>3.0.CO;2‑A
   https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A [Google Scholar]
10. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2009 Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1 [Google Scholar]
11. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Wu Peng
    2017 Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. [Argumentation in Context, 12]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12 [Google Scholar]
12. Evans, John D. G.
    1977 Aristotle’s Concept of Dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fearnside, W. Ward, and William B. Holter
    1959 Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fürst, Alfons
    2006 “Monotheismus und Monarchie. Zum Zusammenhang von Heil und Herrschaft in der Antike”. Theologie und Philosophie811:321–338.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Johnson, Ralph, and J. Anthony Blair
    1983 Logical Self-Defence, 2d ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kiefer, Ferenc
    1981 Questions and Attitudes. InCrossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. Studies Presented to Manfred Bierwish, ed. byW. Klein, and W. Levelt, 159–176. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishuing Company. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑8453‑0_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8453-0_7 [Google Scholar]
17. Kuhn, Deanna
    2010 “Teaching and Learning Science as Argument”. Science Education94(5): 810–824. 10.1002/sce.20395
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395 [Google Scholar]
18. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Chrysi Rapanta
    2016 “Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue”. International Journal of Educational Research. 791: 142–149. 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006 [Google Scholar]
19. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas N. Walton
    2008 “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal Logic. 28(3): 203–228. 10.22329/il.v28i3.594
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i3.594 [Google Scholar]
20. Malone, Mary T.
    2017 Four Women Doctors of the Church. Dublin: Veritas Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Martini, Carlo Maria
    2002 Parola alla chiesa. Parola alla città. Bologna: Centro editoriale dehoniano.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Pontificia Commissione Biblica
    Pontificia Commissione Biblica 2001 Il popolo ebraico e le sue sacre scritture nella Bibbia cristiana. Città del Vaticano: LEV. (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_doc_index.htm).
    [Google Scholar]
24. Pontificio Consiglio della Giustizia e della Pace
    Pontificio Consiglio della Giustizia e della Pace 2004 Compendio della Dottrina Sociale della Chiesa. Città del Vaticano: LEV (Engl.: Compendium of the social doctrine of the church: (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html).
25. Pope John Paul II
    Pope John Paul II 1988 Pastor bonus, Apostolic Constitution. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus-index.html.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Purtill, Richard L.
    1972 Logical thinking. New York etc.: Harper & Raw.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Ratzinger, Joseph
    1971 Die Einheit der Nationen. Eine Vision der Kirchenväter, Salzburg – München (Engl.: The Unity of the Nations: A Vision of the Church Fathers 2015 Catholic Univ of Amer Pr.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Rigotti, Eddo
    2005 “Congruity Theory and Argumentation”. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 75–96.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Rigotti, Eddo, and Andrea Rocci
    2005 “From Argument Analysis to Cultural Keywords (and Back Again)”. InArgumentation in Practice, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 135–142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.11rig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.11rig [Google Scholar]
30. Rocci, Andrea
    2005 “Connective Predicates in Monologic and Dialogic Argumentation”. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 97–118.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Roulet, Eddy
    2001 “L’organisation énonciative et l’organisation polyphonique”. InUn modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours, ed. byEddy Roulet, Laurent Filliettaz, and Anne Grobet, 277–305. Peter Lang SA.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Salvato, Lucia
    2005 Polyphones Erzählen. Zum Phänomen der Erlebten Rede in deutschen Romanen der Jahrhundertwende. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Salvato, Lucia
    2019 “The translator’s visibility. Translators’ critical argumentation on their translating effort.” InProceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), ed. byBart Garssen, , 1022–1033. Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver
    1964 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. The New Oxford Dictionary of EnglishJudy Pearsall
    The New Oxford Dictionary of English 1998 Ed. byJudy Pearsall. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
36. Toulmin, Stephen
    1958 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
    1984 An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Vygotsky, L.
    1934/1987 “Thinking and Speech”. InThe collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, ed. byR. W. Rieber, and A. S. Carton, Vol.11: “Problems of General Psychology”, 37–285, transl. and with an Introduction byN. Minick. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Walton, Douglas N.
    1990 “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?”. Journal of Philosophy87 (8):399–419. 10.2307/2026735
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735 [Google Scholar]
40. Walton, Douglas N.
    1997 Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park/Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Walton, Douglas N.
    2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Walton, Douglas N.
    1989/2008 Informal Logic. A pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008 Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
44. Wilson, Patrick
    1983 Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Woods, John, and Douglas Walton
    1989 Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972’1982. (Series: “Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis”, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, and Rob Grootendorst.) Dordrecht-Holland/Providence, RI-USA: Foris. 10.1515/9783110816082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110816082 [Google Scholar]
46. Zamorani, Pierpaolo
    1988 “La lex Publilia del 339 a.C. e l’auctoritas preventiva.” InAnnali del Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Vol.II1, 3–18. Università di Ferrara: Nuova Serie.
    [Google Scholar]
47. www.vatican.va
    www.vatican.va
48. www.fondazioneratzinger.va
    www.fondazioneratzinger.va
49. https://iep.utm.edu
    https://iep.utm.edu (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. IEP).
50. https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
    https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
51. https://www.blog.britishmuseum.org
    https://www.blog.britishmuseum.org (The British Museum).