ISBN:
9789048126149
Language:
English
Pages:
Online-Ressource (X, 220p. 65 illus, digital)
Series Statement:
Argumentation Library 16
Series Statement:
SpringerLink
Series Statement:
Bücher
Parallel Title:
Buchausg. u.d.T.
Keywords:
Philosophy (General)
;
Logic
;
Linguistics Philosophy
;
Applied linguistics
;
Humanities
;
Philosophy
;
Applied linguistics
;
Humanities
;
Linguistics Philosophy
;
Logic
;
Philosophy (General)
;
Aufsatzsammlung
;
Argumentation
;
Sprachphilosophie
Abstract:
In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.
Description / Table of Contents:
CONTENTS; 1 Theoretical Background and Organization of the Study; 1.1 Introduction; 1.2 A Historical Overview of the Study of Fallacies; 1.3 Modern Theoretical Approaches to the Fallacies; 1.4 The Pragma-Dialectical Approach; 1.5 Plan of the Empirical Study; 1.6 Structure of this Volume; 2 Considerations Regarding the Design of the Study; 2.1 An Outline of Methodological Backgrounds; 2.2 Bowker and Trapp's Research of Ordinary Arguers' Assessment of Argumentation; 2.3 Implications of the Discussion of Bowker and Trapp's Research
Description / Table of Contents:
2.4 Schreier, Groeben and Christmann's Studies on "ArgumentationalIntegrity"2.5 Alternative Methods; 3 Ad Hominem Fallacies: An Exemplary Study; 3.1 Variants of the Argumentum Ad Hominem; 3.2 Ad hominem Attacks: Fallacies or Not?; 3.3 Organization of the Study; 3.4 Results; 3.5 Discussion; 3.6 Conclusion; 4 The Confrontation Stage: The Freedom Rule; 4.1 The Freedom Rule; 4.2 The Argumentum Ad Baculum, the ArgumentumAd Misericordiam, Declaring a Standpoint Tabooor Sacrosanct
Description / Table of Contents:
4.3 Judging About the Reasonableness or Unreasonablenessof Discussion Moves with and Without Violation of the FreedomRule4.4 Results; 4.5 Politeness as an Alternative Explanation; 4.6 The Loadedness of the Standpoint; 4.7 Cultural Differences and the Freedom Rule; 4.8 Conclusions; 5 The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I); 5.1 The Obligation-to-Defend Rule in Non-mixed Disputes; 5.2 The Burden of Proof: Onus Probandi; 5.3 Shifting the Burden of Proof; 5.4 Evading the Burden of Proof: Presenting the Standpointas Self-Evident
Description / Table of Contents:
5.5 Evading the Burden of Proof: Personally Guaranteeingthe correctness of the Standpoint5.6 Evading the Burden of Proof: Immunizing a Standpoint AgainstCriticism; 5.7 Conclusions; 6 The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend (II); 6.1 The Burden of Proof in Mixed Differences of Opinion; 6.2 The Sequential Problem in Mixed Differences of Opinion; 6.3 The Presumption Principle and the Sequential Problem in MixedDifferences of Opinion; 6.4 The Role of Presumptions in Shifting and Evading the Burden ofProof
Description / Table of Contents:
6.5 Explicit Verbal Indicators as to the Presumption Principle and Evading the Burden of Proof6.6 The Sequential Order Rule Versus the Obligation-to-Defend Rule; 6.7 Conclusions; 7 The Argumentation Stage: The Argument Scheme Rule; 7.1 Overview of Rules for the Argumentation Stage; 7.2 Argument Schemes, Critical Questions and Types of Fallacies; 7.3 The Argumentum Ad Consequentiam; 7.4 The Argumentum Ad Populum; 7.5 The Fallacy of the Slippery Slope; 7.6 The Fallacy of False Analogy; 7.7 Conclusions; 8 The Concluding Stage: The Concluding Rule; 8.1 The Concluding Rule
Description / Table of Contents:
8.2 Violations of the Concluding Rule
Note:
Includes bibliographical references and index
DOI:
10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9
URL:
Volltext
(lizenzpflichtig)
Permalink
