Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fallacies and Judgments of ReasonablenessConventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules

Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical... [The theoretical starting point of the empirical study into the conceptions of ordinary arguers about the reasonableness or unreasonableness of fallacies reported on in this volume is the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. Characteristic of this theory is that the fallacies are not, as is generally the case in approaches to fallacies based on logic, conceived as reasonings that are invalid from a formal perspective, but as moves in a discussion that are unreasonable from a dialectical perspective because they hinder, frustrate or even block the resolution of a difference of opinion on the merits: fallacies are then violations of rules for critical discussion.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Fallacies and Judgments of ReasonablenessConventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/fallacies-and-judgments-of-reasonableness-conventional-validity-of-the-Le9h5Rd0id

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
ISBN
978-90-481-2613-2
Pages
203 –224
DOI
10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9_9
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[The theoretical starting point of the empirical study into the conceptions of ordinary arguers about the reasonableness or unreasonableness of fallacies reported on in this volume is the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. Characteristic of this theory is that the fallacies are not, as is generally the case in approaches to fallacies based on logic, conceived as reasonings that are invalid from a formal perspective, but as moves in a discussion that are unreasonable from a dialectical perspective because they hinder, frustrate or even block the resolution of a difference of opinion on the merits: fallacies are then violations of rules for critical discussion.]

Published: Jan 1, 2009

Keywords: Proof Rule; Discussion Context; Reasonable Argumentation; Circumstantial Variant; Discussion Move

There are no references for this article.