Switch to: References

Citations of:

From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation

Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Edited by E. C. W. Krabbe (1982)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Making of Pragma-Dialectics: A Synopsis.Frans H. van Eemeren & Ton van Haaften - forthcoming - Topoi:1-14.
    In ‘The Making of Pragma-Dialectics: A Synopsis’ the authors give an overview of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. First they characterize the five components of the research program: critical rationalistic philosophy, pragma-dialectical theory, qualitative and quantitative empirical research, resolution-oriented reconstructive analysis, reflection-minded practical intervention. Then they explain the four metatheoretical principles underlying the pragma-dialectical research: functionalization, socialization, externalization, and dialectification. Next the various phases in the systematic development of pragma-dialectics in the past 50 years are described: (1) conceptualization of the theoretical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Handbook of Formal Argumentation.Pietro Baroni, Dov Gabbay, Massimilino Giacomin & Leendert van der Torre (eds.) - 2018 - London, England: College Publications.
    The Handbook of Formal Argumentation is a community effort aimed at providing a comprehensive and up-to-date view of the state of the art and current trends in the lively research field of formal argumentation. The first volume of the Handbook is organised into five parts, containing nineteen chapters in all, each written by leading experts in the field. The first part provides a general and historical perspective on the field. The second part gives a comprehensive coverage of the argumentation formalisms (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument.Federico Puppo (ed.) - 2019 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    The informal logic movement began as an attempt to develop – and teach – an alternative logic which can account for the real life arguing that surrounds us in our daily lives – in newspapers and the popular media, political and social commentary, advertising, and interpersonal exchange. The movement was rooted in research and discussion in Canada and especially at the University of Windsor, and has become a branch of argumentation theory which intersects with related traditions and approaches (notably formal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • (1 other version)Logical Culture as a Common Ground for the Lvov-Warsaw School and the Informal Logic Initiative.Ralph H. Johnson & Marcin Koszowy - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):187-229.
    In this paper, we will explore two initiatives that focus on the importance of employing logical theories in educating people how to think and reason properly, one in Poland: The Lvov-Warsaw School; the other in North America: The Informal Logic Initiative. These two movements differ in the logical means and skills that they focus on. However, we believe that they share a common purpose: to educate students in logic and reasoning (logical education conceived as a process) so that they may (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • On Defining ‘Argument’.Jeffrey Goodman - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):589-602.
    There is no concept more central to logic and critical thinking than the concept of an argument. I here address the definition of ‘argument’ in the logical sense of the term and defend the claim that many current proposals, once they are interpreted in a way that makes them sufficiently precise, are extensionally inadequate. Definitions found in some contemporary, prominent critical thinking textbooks will serve as a springboard. I claim that each may be interpreted in an absolutist way or a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Points of View.Peter Houtlosser - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (3):387-405.
    An adequate evaluation of argumentation requires identification of the object to which the argumentation pertains: the point of view. What are the distinguishing features of this object? In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, the object of argumentation is referred to by means of the notion ‘standpoint’. In other theories concerned with argumentation, reasoning, convincing or persuading, notions are used such as ‘thesis’, ‘conclusion’, ‘opinion’ and ‘attitude’. This paper is a survey of the characterisations of the object of argumentation given in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):283-301.
    In the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies are considered incorrect moves in a discussion for which the goal is successful resolution of a dispute. Ten rules are given for effective conduct at the various stages of such a critical discussion. Fallacies are discussed as violations of these rules, taking into account all speech acts which are traditionally recognized as fallacies. Special attention is paid to the role played by implicitness in fallacies in everyday language use. It is stressed that identifying and acknowledging (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   60 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Profiles of Dialogue for Relevance.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (4):523-562.
    This paper uses argument diagrams, argumentation schemes, and some tools from formal argumentation systems developed in artificial intelligence to build a graph-theoretic model of relevance shown to be applicable as a practical method for helping a third party judge issues of relevance or irrelevance of an argument in real examples. Examples used to illustrate how the method works are drawn from disputes about relevance in natural language discourse, including a criminal trial and a parliamentary debate.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Argumentation and the Force of Reasons.Robert C. Pinto - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):268-295.
    Argumentation involves offering and/or exchanging reasons – either reasons for adopting various attitudes towards specific propositional contents or else reasons for acting in various ways. This paper develops the idea that the force of reasons is through and through a normative force because what good reasons accomplish is precisely to give one a certain sort of entitlement to do what they are reasons for. The paper attempts to shed light on what it is to have a reason, how the sort (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Humanist Principles Underlying Philosophy of Argument.George Boger - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (2):149-174.
    This discussion reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument to extract principles common to their thinking. It shows that a growing concern with dialogical pragmatics is better appreciated as a part of applied ethics than of applied epistemology. The discussion concludes by indicating a possible consequence for philosophy of argument and invites further discussion by asking whether argumentation philosophy has an implicit, underlying moral, or even political, posture.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges.Bart Garssen & Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):122-141.
    The epistemologists Biro and Siegel have raised two objections against the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. According to the first objection the pragma-dialectical theory is not genuinely normative. According to the second objection the rejection of justificationism by pragma-dialecticians is unwarranted: they reject justificationism prematurely and they are not consistent in accepting some arguments (‘justifications’) as sound. The first objection is based on what we regard as the misconception that the goal of resolving differences of opinion cannot provide a normative approach. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
    Formal dialectic has its roots in ancient dialectic. We can trace this influence in Charles Hamblin’s book on fallacies, in which he introduced his first formal dialectical systems. Earlier, Paul Lorenzen proposed systems of dialogical logic, which were in fact formal dialectical systems avant la lettre, with roles similar to those of the Greek Questioner and Answerer. In order to make a comparison between ancient dialectic and contemporary formal dialectic, I shall formalize part of the Aristotelian procedure for Academic debates. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • (1 other version)A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion.Frans H. van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):365-386.
    According to the pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness, in case of a difference of opinion the protagonist and the antagonist of a standpoint should attempt to find out by means of a critical discussion whether the protagonist's standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonist's criticism. In this paper, the authors formulate the latest version of their basic rules for the performance of speech acts in the various stages that can beanalytically distinguished in a critical discussion that can lead to the resolution (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The normative structure of case study argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1993 - Metaphilosophy 24 (3):207-226.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Ambiguity in argument.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.
    The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities . However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Room for maneuver when raising critical doubt.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2008 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (3):pp. 195-211.
    In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Room for Maneuver When Raising Critical DoubtJan Albert Van Laar1When interlocutors start talking at cross-purposes it becomes less likely that they will be able to resolve their initial difference of opinion (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992, 125). How much room should we give a party for rephrasing or revising her adversary’s standpoint in a manner that suits her individual purposes in the dialogue? Certainly, as textbooks in argumentation and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • (1 other version)Formal systems of dialogue rules.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Is there a burden of questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
    In some recent cases in Anglo-American law juries ruled contrary to an expert's testimony even though that testimony was never challenged, contradicted or questioned in the trial. These cases are shown to raise some theoretical questions about formal dialogue systems in computational dialectical systems for legal argumentation of the kind recently surveyed by Bench-Capon (1997) and Hage (2000) in this journal. In such systems, there is a burden of proof, meaning that if the respondent questions an argument, the proponent is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Dialogue foundations: A sceptical look: Wilfrid Hodges.Wilfrid Hodges - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):17–32.
    During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather than in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Beyond Reasonableness: Argumentative Virtues in Pragma-Dialectics.José Ángel Gascón - forthcoming - Topoi:1-11.
    The pragma-dialectical research program begins with a philosophical estate, in which a conception of reasonableness is offered that must serve as ground for the theoretical estate. Pragma-dialectics has produced many important insights in the theoretical estate, including the ideal model and the rules for critical discussions. However, here I will argue that the conception of reasonableness that the pragma-dialecticians adopt in the philosophical estate, based on anti-dogmatism, assumption of fallibilism and willingness to engage in critical discussion, is too narrow to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength.Simon Wells, Marcin Selinger, David Godden, Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska & Frank Zenker - 2023 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 68 (1):133-167.
    Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Persistent Interlocutor.Job de Grefte - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (1):53-68.
    A Persistent Interlocutor (PI) is someone who, in argumentative contexts, does not cease to question her opponent’s premises. The epistemic relevance of the PI has been debated throughout the history of philosophy. Pyrrhonians famously claim that our inability to dialectically vindicate our claims against a PI implies scepticism. Adam Leite disagrees (2005). Michael Resorla argues that the debate is based on a false premise (2009). In this paper, I argue that these views all fail to accurately account for the epistemic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • From Theory of Rhetoric to the Practice of Language Use: The Case of Appeals to Ethos Elements.Marcin Koszowy, Katarzyna Budzynska, Martín Pereira-Fariña & Rory Duthie - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (1):123-149.
    In their book Commitment in Dialogue, Walton and Krabbe claim that formal dialogue systems for conversational argumentation are “not very realistic and not easy to apply”. This difficulty may make argumentation theory less well adapted to be employed to describe or analyse actual argumentation practice. On the other hand, the empirical study of real-life arguments may miss or ignore insights of more than the two millennia of the development of philosophy of language, rhetoric, and argumentation theory. In this paper, we (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • (1 other version)Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse.Peter Houtlosser & Frans H. van Eemeren - 1999 - Discourse Studies 1 (4):479-497.
    This article reacts against the undesirable ideological separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches to argumentative discourse. It argues that a sound evaluation of argumentation requires an analysis that reveals all aspects of the discourse pertinent to critical testing. To explain the rationale of the various moves made in the discourse and the strategic patterns behind them, not only the interlocutors' dialectical goals must be taken into account, but also their rhetorical goals. After explaining how rhetorical insight can be instrumental in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   123 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Reconstructing Complex Pro/Con Argumentation.André Juthe - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (3):413-454.
    Wellman identified three types of conductive arguments, the third of which contains both pro and counter-considerations in the same piece of reasoning. This paper provides a pragma-dialectical analysis of this type of argumentation, with special focus on argumentation reconstruction. It argues that the account of pro/con argumentation in the framework of argument-as-product has problems solvable by a pragma-dialectical approach. The paper asserts that pro/con argumentation should be analyzed as a dialectical strategy of a protagonist, where acknowledgement of counter-considerations shows that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Dialectical Trade-Offs in the Design of Protocols for Comptuer-Mediated Deliberation.Marcin Lewiński - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (1):322-350.
    To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1173-1197.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Normative Argumentation Theory Without Fundamental Principles.Popa Eugen Octav - unknown
    In this paper I develop and defend a form of argumentative normativity that is not based on fundamental principles. I first argue that research agendas that aim to discover fundamental principles of ‘good’ argumentative discourse share one crucial weak spot, viz. circularity. I then argue that this weak spot can be avoided in a pancritical view of normativity.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-theoretic Investigation.Paul Piwek - 2008 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (3):383-383.
    This paper presents a novel proof-theoretic account of dialogue coherence. It focuses on an abstract class of cooperative information-oriented dialogues and describes how their structure can be accounted for in terms of a multi-agent hybrid inference system that combines natural deduction with information transfer and observation. We show how certain dialogue structures arise out of the interplay between the inferential roles of logical connectives (i.e., sentence semantics), a rule for transferring information between agents, and a rule for information flow between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
    This volume presents a selection of papers reflecting key theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Its six sections are devoted to specific themes, including the analysis and evaluation of argumentation, argument schemes and the contextual embedding of argumentation. The section on general perspectives on argumentation discusses the trends of empiricalization, contextualization and formalization, offers descriptions of the analytical and evaluative tools of informal logic, and highlights selected principles that argumentation theorists do and do not agree upon. In turn, the section on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “I Suppose You Meant to Say...”: Licit and Illicit Manoeuvring in Argumentative Confrontations.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    When interlocutors start to talk at cross purposes it becomes less likely that they will be able to resolve their differences of opinion. Still, a critic, in the confrontation stage of a discussion, should be given some room of manoeuvre for rephrasing and even for revising the arguer’s position. I will distinguish between licit and illicit applications of this form of strategic manoeuvring by stating three soundness conditions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Winning and Losing for Arguers.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    What roles do “winning” and “losing” have to play in argumentative discussions? We say that someone has “won” a discussion or debate, but also an emphasis on “winning” is often rejected. The question is: can these concepts be so interpreted that justice is done to these antagonistic views? Starting from Aristotelian ideas, the paper purports to establish that the views mentioned above can indeed be reconciled.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation?Marcin Lewinski & J. Anthony Blair - unknown
    “Reasonable hostility” is a norm of communicative conduct initially developed by studying public exchanges in education governance meetings in local U.S. communities. In this paper I consider the norm’s usefulness for and applicability to a U.S. state-level public hearing about a bill to legalize civil unions. Following an explication of reasonable hostility and grounded practical theory, the approach to inquiry that guides my work, I describe Hawaii’s 2009, 18-hour public hearing and analyze selected seg-ments of it. I show that this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialogue Protocols for Formal Fallacies.Magdalena Kacprzak & Olena Yaskorska - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):349-369.
    This paper presents a dialogue system called Lorenzen–Hamblin Natural Dialogue (LHND), in which participants can commit formal fallacies and have a method of both identifying and withdrawing formal fallacies. It therefore provides a tool for the dialectical evaluation of force of argument when players advance reasons which are deductively incorrect. The system is inspired by Hamblin’s formal dialectic and Lorenzen’s dialogical logic. It offers uniform protocols for Hamblin’s and Lorenzen’s dialogues and adds a protocol for embedding them. This unification required (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • (1 other version)Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.
    Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):49-70.
    According to van Eemeren, argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline, because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary approach, combining descriptive and normative insights. He points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but in modern argumentation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):102-128.
    The notions of types of dialogue and dialectical relevance are central themes in Walton’s work and the grounds for a dialectical approach to many fallacies. After outlining the dialogue models constituting the background of Walton’s account, this article presents the concepts of dialectical relevance and dialogue shifts in their application to biased argumentation, fallacious moves, and illicit argumentative strategies. Showing the different dialectical proposals Walton advanced in several studies on argumentation as a development of a dialogical system, it has proved (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Ambiguity in a Dialectical Perspective.Jan Albert van Laar - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (3).
    The distinction between constitutive and regulative rules is applied to rules for critical discussion that have to do with the use of ambiguous expressions. This leads to a distinction between rule violating fallacies, by which one abandons a critical discussion, and norm violating fallacies, which are in a way admissible within a critical discussion. According to the formal model for critical discussion, proposed in this paper, fallacies of the norm violating type arc not prohibited. Instead, it provides discussants with devices (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation.Christoph Lumer - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):41-69.
    This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and rationalistic elements (Sect. 3). The problematic philosophical underpinnings of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Metadialogues: Krabbe’s Immanent Dialectic. [REVIEW]Peter Houtlosser & Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):205-208.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Pragmatic Inconsistency and Credibility.Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):317-334.
    A critic may attack an arguer personally by pointing out that the arguer’s position is pragmatically inconsistent: the arguer does not practice what he preaches. A number of authors hold that such attacks can be part of a good argumentative discussion. However, there is a difficulty in accepting this kind of contribution as potentially legitimate, for the reason that there is nothing wrong for a protagonist to have an inconsistent position, in the sense of committing himself to mutually inconsistent propositions. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Epistemology Mathematicized.John Woods - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):292-331.
    Epistemology and informal logic have overlapping and broadly similar subject matters. A principle of methodological symmetry is: philosophical theories of sufficiently similar subject matters should engage similar methods. Suppose the best way to do epistemology is in highly formalized ways, with a large role for mathematical methods. The symmetry principle suggests this is also the best way to do the logic of the reasoning and argument, the subject matter of informal logic. A capitulation to mathematics is inimical to informal logicians, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Coherence of Hamblin’s Fallacies.Ralph Johnson - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):305-317.
    Hamblin’s Fallacies remains one of the crucial documents in the development of informal logic and argumentation theory. His critique of traditional approaches to the fallacies (what he dubbed ‘The Standard Treatment’) helped to revitalize the study of fallacies. Recently I had occasion to reread Fallacies and came to the conclusion that some of my earlier criticisms (1989, 1990) had missed the real force of what was going on there, that I and others have perhaps not fully appreciated what Hamblin is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Creative reasoning in formal discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):483-498.
    Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations