Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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  
  • Review of: Frans H. van Eemeren : Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, Cham , Springer , 880 pp. [REVIEW]Fernando Leal - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (4):527-532.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Bi-directional Relationship between Source Characteristics and Message Content.Peter J. Collins, Ulrike Hahn, Ylva von Gerber & Erik J. Olsson - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Much of what we believe we know, we know through the testimony of others. While there has been long-standing evidence that people are sensitive to the characteristics of the sources of testimony, for example in the context of persuasion, researchers have only recently begun to explore the wider implications of source reliability considerations for the nature of our beliefs. Likewise, much remains to be established concerning what factors influence source reliability. In this paper, we examine, both theoretically and empirically, the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion.Frans H. Eemeren - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):439-457.
    During the past thirty years the pragma-dialectical theorizing has developed in various steps from designing an abstract ideal model for critical discussion to examining strategic manoeuvring in the various argumentative activity types in which argumentative discourse manifests itself in argumentative reality. The response to the theoretical proposals that have been made includes, next to approval, also various kinds of criticisms. This paper explores the nature and thrust of these criticisms. In doing so, a distinction is made between criticisms concerning the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Meta‐regresses and the limits of persuasive argumentation.Guido Melchior - 2024 - Metaphilosophy 55 (2):196-213.
    This paper provides a thorough analysis of two often informally stated claims. First, successful argumentation in the sense of persuasive argumentation requires agreement between the interlocutors about the rationality of arguments. Second, a general agreement about rationality of arguments cannot itself be established via argumentation, since such an attempt leads to an infinite meta‐regress. Hence, agreement about the rationality of arguments is a precondition for successful argumentation. As the paper argues, these plausible claims hold under the assumption that interlocutors are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited.Frans H. van Eemeren & Bart Garssen - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (2):167-180.
    This article explains the design and development of the pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In this approach fallacies are viewed as violations of the standards for critical discussion that are expressed in a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse. After the problem-solving validity in resolving differences of opinion of the rules of this code has been discussed, their conventional validity for real-life arguers is demonstrated. Starting from the extended version of the theory in which the strategic maneuvering taking place in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Fallacies in the Historiography of Generative Linguistics.András Kertész - 2019 - Foundations of Science 24 (4):775-801.
    The paper relates two different fields of research: the historiography of generative linguistics and argumentation theory, a central topic of which is the investigation of fallacies. Relating the two fields is a challenge: Since fallacies seem to be at the heart of the historiography of generative linguistics, any thorough evaluation of its present state of the art also involves accounting for fallacies. The paper applies Kertész and Rákosi’s p-model of plausible argumentation to a case study on heated discussions in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Old and New Fallacies in Port-Royal Logic.Michel Dufour - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (2):241-267.
    The paper discusses the place and the status of fallacies in Arnauld and Nicole’s Port-Royal Logic, which seems to be the first book to introduce a radical change from the traditional Aristotelian account of fallacies. The most striking innovation is not in the definition of a fallacy but in the publication of a new list of fallacies, dropping some Aristotelian ones and adding more than ten new ones. The first part of the paper deals with the context of the book’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.Rob Grootendorst, Frans van Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    Some conspicuous characteristics of argumentation as we all know this phenomenon from our shared everyday experiences are in my view vital to its theoretical treatment because they should have methodological consequences for the way in which argumentation research is conducted. To start with, argumentation is in the first place a communicative act complex, which is realized by making functional verbal communicative moves.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Futher reflections on semantic minimalism: Reply to Wedgwood.Alessandro Capone - 2013 - In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Cham: Springer. pp. 437-474..
    semantic minimalism and moderte contextualism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Informal Fallacies as Cognitive Heuristics in Public Health Reasoning.Louise Cummings - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (1):1-37.
    The public must make assessments of a range of health-related issues. However, these assessments require scientific know-ledge which is often lacking or ineffectively utilized by the public. Lay people must use whatever cognitive resources are at their disposal to come to judgement on these issues. It will be contended that a group of arguments—so-called informal fallacies—are a valuable cognitive resource in this regard. These arguments serve as cognitive heuristics which facilitate reasoning when knowledge is limited or beyond the grasp of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
    An ad hominem fallacy is committed when an individual employs an irrelevant personal attack against an opponent instead of addressing that opponent’s argument. Many discussions of such fallacies discuss judgments of relevance about such personal attacks, and consider how we might distinguish those that are relevant from those that are not. This paper will argue that the literature on bias and testimony can helpfully contribute to that analysis. This will highlight ways in which biases, particularly unconscious biases, can make ad (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • On the Importance of Questioning Within the Ideal Model of Critical Discussion.Fernando Leal - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):405-431.
    Both questions as abstract objects and the speech acts, here called requests, by which we ask them play an enormous role in all argumentative practices. Nonetheless, there is hardly a proper systematic treatment of questions and requests in current argumentation theories. This paper is a first attempt at providing such a systematic treatment. This is achieved by following the ideal model of a critical discussion as elaborated over the years by the Amsterdam school of pragma-dialectics. After introducing the distinction between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance.Petar Bodlović - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (4):579-604.
    By explaining the argument from ignorance in terms of the presumption of innocence, many textbooks in argumentation theory suggest that some arguments from ignorance might share essential features with some types of presumptive reasoning. The stronger version of this view, suggesting that arguments from ignorance and presumptive reasoning are almost indistinguishable, is occasionally proposed by Douglas Walton. This paper explores the nature and limits of the stronger proposal and argues that initial presumptions and arguments from ignorance are not closely connected. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
    The introduction of the concept of strategic maneuvering into the pragma-dialectical theory makes it possible to formulate testable hypotheses regarding the persuasiveness of argumentative moves that are made in argumentative discourse. After summarizing the standard pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, van Eemeren, Garssen, and Meuffels explain what the extension of the pragma-dialectical approach with strategic maneuvering involves and discuss the fallacies in terms of the extended pragma-dialectical approach as derailments of strategic maneuvering. Then they give an empirical interpretation of the extended (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • How to identify and evaluate the Slippery Slope Argument.Martina Juříková - 2015 - Pro-Fil 16 (1):44.
    Článek se věnuje argumentu kluzkého svahu a otázce, jak jej identifikovat a hodnotit. Argument kluzkého svahu je využíván v rámci praktického uvažování a v dialogu, svou strukturou odpovídá negativnímu argumentu z důsledku, má v zásadě defeasibilní povahu a je často účinný při snaze přenést důkazní břemeno na stranu oponenta. Hodnocení argumentu kluzkého svahu je založeno na kontextu dialogu spíše než na hodnocení jeho deduktivní či induktivní správnosti.V příspěvku jsou představeny čtyři typy argumentu. Zaprvé argument kluzkého svahu typu sorites, jehož označení (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)In Context: Giving Contextualization its Rightful Place in the Study of Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):141-161.
    ‘In Context’ is aimed at giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. First, Frans H. van Eemeren explains the crucial role of context in a reconstructive analysis of argumentative discourse. He distinguishes four levels of contextualization. Second, he situates his approach to context in the field of argumentation studies by comparing it with Walton’s approach. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing clearly between a normatively motivated theoretical ideal model and empirically-based communicative activity types. Third, van Eemeren concentrates (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • “I Have No Comment”: Confrontational Maneuvering by Declaring a Standpoint Unallowed or Indisputable in Spokespersons’ Argumentative Replies at the Regular Press Conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Peng Wu - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (4):489-519.
    As part of a research project on confrontational maneuvering in the spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 2015 and 2018, this article analyzes, within the framework of Pragma-Dialectics, how the spokespersons declare a standpoint at issue unallowed or indisputable in order to avoid having to resolve a difference of opinion as it is, according to the questioning journalist, presented by their immediate opponents. Starting from the various rationales the spokespersons presuppose to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Looking for Arguments.Hugo Mercier - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):305-324.
    Abstract How do people find arguments while engaged in a discussion? Following an analogy with visual search, a mechanism that performs this task is described. It is a metarepresentational device that examines representations in a mostly serial manner until it finds a good enough argument supporting one’s position. It is argued that the mechanism described in dual process theories as ‘system 2’, or analytic reasoning fulfills these requirements. This provides support for the hypothesis that reasoning serves an argumentative function. Content (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Normative theories of argumentation: are some norms better than others?Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
    Norms—that is, specifications of what we ought to do—play a critical role in the study of informal argumentation, as they do in studies of judgment, decision-making and reasoning more generally. Specifically, they guide a recurring theme: are people rational? Though rules and standards have been central to the study of reasoning, and behavior more generally, there has been little discussion within psychology about why (or indeed if) they should be considered normative despite the considerable philosophical literature that bears on this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • (1 other version)Encrucijadas dialécticas: Elenchos, dispositivos antierísticos y Filosofia megárica en las refutaciones sofísticas.Claudia Mársico - 2015 - Archai: Revista de Estudos Sobre as Origens Do Pensamento Ocidental 14:137-148.
    Refutaciones Sofísticas ha sido usualmente interpretado como un intento de clasificación de sofismas. Este acercamiento, sin embargo, corre el riesgo de oscurecer la dimensión de sus propias intenciones confrontativas. El presente trabajo se propone enfatizar la importancia de las Refutaciones Sofísticas como parte de un programa antierístico que tiene por objetivo prioritario la filosofía megárica, en las antípodas de Aristóteles en el terreno epistemológico. Bajo esta luz, la resolución de argumentos erísticos excede el estudio lógico así como también la denuncia (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Inquiry: A New Paradigm for Critical Thinking.Mark Battersby (ed.) - 2018 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    This volume reflects the development and theoretical foundation of a new paradigm for critical thinking based on inquiry. The field of critical thinking, as manifested in the Informal Logic movement, developed primarily as a response to the inadequacies of formalism to represent actual argumentative practice and to provide useful argumentative skills to students. Because of this, the primary focus of the field has been on informal arguments rather than formal reasoning. Yet the formalist history of the field is still evident (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Source Related Argumentation Found in Science Websites.Ralph Barnes, Zoë Neumann & Samuel Draznin-Nagy - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (3):443-473.
    In this paper, we consider the way that web documents seeking to persuade readers of certain science claims provide information about the sources of the arguments. Our quantitative analysis reveals that web documents in our sample include hundreds of examples in which the reader is provided information regarding the trustworthiness of sources. The web documents also contain a large number of examples in which the reader is provided with information about how many individuals hold a particular belief. We discuss ad (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Moderating Effect of Mindfulness on the Mediated Relation Between Critical Thinking and Psychological Distress via Cognitive Distortions Among Adolescents.Michael Ronald Su & Kathy Kar-man Shum - 2019 - Frontiers in Psychology 10.
    Critical thinking has been widely regarded as an indispensable cognitive skill in the 21st century. However, its associations with the affective aspects of psychological functioning are not well understood. This study explored the interrelations between trait mindfulness, critical thinking, cognitive distortions, and psychological distress using a moderated mediation model. The sample comprised 287 senior secondary school students (57% male and 43% female) aged 14–19 from a local secondary school in Hong Kong. The results revealed that high critical thinking was significantly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Características psicosociales y densidad argumentativa en adultos mayores.Cristián Noemi & Sebastián Rossel - 2019 - Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura 29 (1):182-195.
    This work pretends to unveil the relationship between the psychosocial features grouped under the argument frame concept and the degree of discursive density that is reached by a sample of 243 older adults in the production of argumentative discourses. In order to specify the main psychosocial features of the sample’s subjects, the Hample test was employed. In order to evaluate argumentative density, all of the participants were asked for an essay about a controversial situation derived from the Dilemma of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (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  
  • Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):383-398.
    How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives.Jennifer Schumann, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (3):361-388.
    While the role of discourse connectives has long been acknowledged in argumentative frameworks, these approaches often take a coarse-grained approach to connectives, treating them as a unified group having similar effects on argumentation. Based on an empirical study of the straw man fallacy, we argue that a more fine-grained approach is needed to explain the role of each connective and illustrate their specificities. We first present an original corpus study detailing the main features of four causal connectives in French that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?Peter Jan Schellens, Ester Šorm, Rian Timmers & Hans Hoeken - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):681-703.
    Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 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   19 citations  
  • Pragma-Dialetics Epistemologized: Reply to Lumer.David Botting - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):269-285.
    I would like to thank Christoph Lumer for his illuminating comments on my paper “The question of truth” published in this journal (Botting 2010) and would like to exercise my right of reply on a few of the issues that he raises.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Commentary on "What should a normative theory of argument look like?".David Zarefsky - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2012 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory brings together twenty exploratory studies on important subjects of research in contemporary argumentation theory. The essays are based on papers that were presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation in Amsterdam in June 2010. They give an impression of the nature and the variety of the kind of research that has recently been carried out in the study of argumentation. The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • On argument strength.Niki Pfeifer - 2012 - In Frank Zenker (ed.), Bayesian Argumentation – The Practical Side of Probability. Springer. pp. 185-193.
    Everyday life reasoning and argumentation is defeasible and uncertain. I present a probability logic framework to rationally reconstruct everyday life reasoning and argumentation. Coherence in the sense of de Finetti is used as the basic rationality norm. I discuss two basic classes of approaches to construct measures of argument strength. The first class imposes a probabilistic relation between the premises and the conclusion. The second class imposes a deductive relation. I argue for the second class, as the first class is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Commentary on Michael Hoppmann’s On the objectivity of Norms of Argumentation.Bart Garssen - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • (1 other version)Commentary on: Jacky Visser's "A formal account of complex argumentation in a critical discussion".Lilian Bermejo-Luque & Alejandro Secades - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Explanatory Value of Cognitive Asymmetries in Policy Controversies.Frank Zenker - 2012 - In J. Goodwin (ed.), Between Scientists and Citizens. CreateSpace.
    Citing an epistemic or cognitive asymmetry between experts and the public, it is easy to view the relation between scientists and citizens as primarily based on trust, rather than on the content of expert argumentation. In criticism of this claim, four theses are defended: Empirical studies suggest that content matters, while trust boasts persuasiveness. In social policy controversies, genuine expert-solutions are normally not available; if trust is important here, then a clear role for cognitive asymmetry is wanting. Social policy controversies (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Correspondence Between th Pragma-Dialectical Disussion Model and the Argument Interchange Format.Jacky Visser, Floris Bex, Chris Reed & Bart Garssen - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations