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. That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation.Jan Laar & Erik Krabbe - 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   3 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  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • (1 other version)The Significance of Informal Logic for Philosophy.David Hitchcock - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
    Informal logic is a new sub-discipline of philosophy, roughly definable as the philosophy of argument. Contributors have challenged the traditional concept of an argument as a premiss-conclusion complex, in favour of speech-act, functional and dialogical conceptions; they have identified as additional components warrants, modal qualifiers, rebuttals, and a dialectical tier. They have objected that "soundness" is neither necessary nor sufficient for a good argument. Alternative proposals include acceptability, relevance and sufficiency of the premisses; conformity to a valid argument schema; conformity (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 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  
  • A World of Difference: The Rich State of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
    This paper surveys the contributions to the study of argumentation in the two decades since the work of Toulmin and Perelman. Developments include Radical Argumentativism (Anscombre and Ducot), Communication and Rhetoric (American Speech Communication Theory), Informal Logic (Johnson and Blair), Formal Analyses of Fallacies (Woods and Walton), Formal Dialectics (Barth and Krabbe), and Pragma-Dialectics (van Eemeren and Grootendorst). From the survey it is concluded that argumentation theory has been considerably enriched. If the contributions can be made to converge, a sound (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 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  
  • Dialogue structure and logical expressivism.Paul Piwek - 2011 - Synthese 183 (S1):33-58.
    This paper aims to develop the implications of logical expressivism for a theory of dialogue coherence. I proceed in three steps. Firstly, certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue are identified. Secondly, I describe a variant of the multi-agent natural deduction calculus that I introduced in Piwek (J Logic Lang Inf 16(4):403–421, 2007 ) and demonstrate how it accounts for the aforementioned structures. Thirdly, I examine how the aforementioned system can be used to formalise an expressivist account of logical vocabulary that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 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 Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):387-403.
    This paper describes the development of pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentative discourse. First the development of the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is explained, with the rules that are to be complied with in order to avoid fallacies from occurring. Then the integration is discussed of rhetorical insight in the dialectical framework. In this endeavour, the concept of strategic manoeuvring is explained that allows for a more refined and more profoundly justified analysis of argumentative discourse and a better (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic.Ralph H. Johnson - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (3):265-274.
    The issue of the relationship between formal and informal logic depends strongly on how one understands these two designations. While there is very little disagreement about the nature of formal logic, the same is not true regarding informal logic, which is understood in various (often incompatible) ways by various thinkers. After reviewing some of the more prominent conceptions of informal logic, I will present my own, defend it and then show how informal logic, so understood, is complementary to formal logic.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):293-305.
    The paper reacts against the strict separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches to argumentation and argues that argumentative discourse can be analyzed and evaluated more adequately if the two are systematically combined. Such an integrated approach makes it possible to show how the opportunities available in each of the dialectical stages of a critical discussion have been used strategically to further the rhetorical aims of the speaker or writer. The approach is illustrated with the help of an analysis of an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • Argumentation and learning.Baruch B. Schwarz - 2009 - In Nathalie Muller Mirza & Anne Nelly Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and education. New York: Springer. pp. 91--126.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies.Douglas Walton - 2000 - Synthese 123 (3):327-346.
    Dialogue theory, although it has ancient roots, was put forward in the 1970s in logic as astructure that can be useful for helping to evaluate argumentation and informal fallacies.Recently, however, it has been taken up as a broader subject of investigation in computerscience. This paper surveys both the historical and philosophical background of dialoguetheory and the latest research initiatives on dialogue theory in computer science. The main components of dialogue theory are briefly explained. Included is a classification of the main (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 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  
  • Reasonable Responses: The Thought of Trudy Govier.Hundleby Catherine (ed.) - 2017 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This tribute to the breadth and influence of Trudy Govier’s philosophical work begins with her early scholarship in argumentation theory, paying special attention to its pedagogical expression. Most people first encounter Trudy Govier’s work and many people only encounter it through her textbooks, especially A Practical Study of Argument, published in many editions. In addition to the work on argumentation that has continued throughout her career, much of Govier’s later work addresses social philosophy and the problems of trust and response (...)
    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  
  • 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  
  • (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  
  • 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)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  
  • Logical Dialogues with Explicit Preference Profiles and Strategy Selection.Emmanuel Genot & Justine Jacot - 2017 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 26 (3):261-291.
    The Barth–Krabbe–Hintikka–Hintikka Problem, independently raised by Barth and Krabbe and Hintikka and Hintikka Sherlock Holmes confronts modern logic: Toward a theory of information-seeking through questioning. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1983), is the problem of characterizing the strategic reasoning of the players of dialogical logic and game-theoretic semantics games from rational preferences rather than rules. We solve the problem by providing a set of preferences for players with bounded rationality and specifying strategic inferences from those preferences, for a variant of logical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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  
  • Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion.Jacky Visser - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):245-266.
    In this paper a dialogue game for critical discussion is developed. The dialogue game is a formalisation of the ideal discussion model that is central to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The formalisation is intended as a preparatory step to facilitate the development of computational tools to support the pragma-dialectical study of argumentation. An important dimension of the pragma-dialectical discussion model is the role played by speech acts. The central issue addressed in this paper is how the speech act perspective (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion.David M. Godden - 2010 - Synthese 172 (3):397-414.
    This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.Bart Garssen, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 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  
  • Euthanasia and the Teaching of Argumentation in Chile.Juana Teresa Marinkovich Ravena & Ana Maria Vicuna Navarro - unknown
    This paper reports on a research project about Chilean students’ argumentation competency. Our thesis is that ethical issues are an impediment for the teaching of argumentation at high school level. To prove this, we analyze students’ discussions and we compare them with standard philosophical discussions to show the breach between them. We use the pragma-dialectical approach to contrast the different kinds of argumentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Voice of the Other: A Dialogico-Rhetorical Understanding of Opponent and Toulmin’s Rebuttal.Wouter H. Slob - unknown
    Although contemporary dialectical logic recognizes an important role for the opponent in argumentation, it remains loyal to the idea that arguments are supportive. In this paper, it is argued that because of this dialectical logic does not take seriously its own dialogical perspective. Without acknowledging a substantial role for rebutting factors in argumentation, the role of the opponent remains secondary. Toulmin’s understanding of the rebuttal suggests a way to incorporate such a substantial role of the opponent.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • (1 other version)The burden of criticism.Jan 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 convinc-ingly. 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   10 citations  
  • Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves.Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser & A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - unknown
    In this paper the authors give a brief overview of the theoretical background of their research project “Linguistic indicators of argumentative moves.” Starting from the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion, they design dialectical profiles for capturing the moves that may or must be made at a particular stage or sub-stage of such a discussion. They explain how these dialectical profiles can be methodically exploited for systematically identifying the verbal expressions that can be indicative of any of these moves (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • 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  
  • The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory.Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):283-300.
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Kinship: The Relationship Between Johnstone's Ideas about Philosophical Argument and the Pragma-Dialectical Theory Of Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2007 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 40 (1):51-70.
    In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kinship:The Relationship Between Johnstone's Ideas about Philosophical Argument and the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of ArgumentationFrans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser1. Johnstone on the Nature of Philosophical ArgumentAs he himself declared in Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument (1978, 1), the late philosopher Henry W. Johnstone Jr. devoted a long period of his professional life to clarifying the nature of philosophical argument. His well-known view was that philosophical arguments are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Book Review. [REVIEW]Robert C. Pinto - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):93-100.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • 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  
  • So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuation dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • (1 other version)In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. 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   7 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  
  • Higher-Order Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentation.Gordon R. Mitchell - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):319-335.
    In a critical discussion, interlocutors can strategically maneuver by shading their expressed degree of standpoint commitment for rhetorical effect. When is such strategic shading reasonable, and when does it cross the line and risk fallacious derailment of the discussion? Analysis of President George W. Bush’s 2002–2003 prewar commentary on Iraq provides an occasion to explore this question and revisit Douglas Ehninger’s distinction between argumentation as coercive correction and argumentation as a person-risking enterprise. Points of overlap between Ehninger’s account and pragma-dialectical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • (1 other version)Dialogical connexive logic.Shahid Rahman & Helge Rückert - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):105-139.
    Many of the discussions about conditionals can best be put as follows:can those conditionals that involve an entailment relation be formulatedwithin a formal system? The reasons for the failure of the classical approachto entailment have usually been that they ignore the meaning connectionbetween antecedent and consequent in a valid entailment. One of the firsttheories in the history of logic about meaning connection resulted from thestoic discussions on tightening the relation between the If- and the Then-parts of conditionals, which in this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 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  
  • A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning.Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.
    We present a computational model of dialectical argumentation that could serve as a basis for legal reasoning. The legal domain is an instance of a domain in which knowledge is incomplete, uncertain, and inconsistent. Argumentation is well suited for reasoning in such weak theory domains. We model argument both as information structure, i.e., argument units connecting claims with supporting data, and as dialectical process, i.e., an alternating series of moves by opposing sides. Our model includes burden of proof as a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View.Frans H. van Eemeren & Ton van Haaften - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (3):341-376.
    In ‘The making of argumentation theory’ van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness – the crucial issue in argumentation theory – van Eemeren and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • 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