2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

In argumentative discourse fallacies occur regularly, but often they seem not to be noticed by the participants. This also goes for the fallacy known as the , in spite of the fact that people generally denounce this fallacy when confronted with clea r cases. In this paper it is argued that the explanation of this paradox is that the different types of are modes of strategic maneuvering which take on a reasonable appearance when they mimic legitimate pragmatic argumentation or argumentation. The following hypothesis was tested in an experiment: instances of the are regarded less unreasonable than clear cases if they are presented as reasonable pragmatic argumentation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.004.EEME
2019-04-01
2021-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/04_TVT2019.1_EEME.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.004.EEME&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Beevor, A.(2012). The Second World War. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Eemeren, F.H. van(2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Eemeren. F.H. van(2017). Argumentative patters viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F.H.van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical Argumentative Patterns (pp.7-29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.(2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.(2012). The disguised ‘abusive ad hominem’ empirically investigated. Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344-364.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.(2015). De vermomde ad baculum drogreden empirisch onderzocht. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 37(1), 79-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R.(1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R.(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Garssen, B.(2016). Face the consequences! Strategic maneuvering with the argumentum ad consequentiam. In F.Paglieri, L.Bonelli, & S.Felletti (Eds.), The Psychology of Argument. Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion (pp. 245-253). (Studies in logic: Mathematical logic and foundations 59). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Garssen, B.(2006). Beweringen met nare consequenties. Twee varianten van het argumentum ad consequentiam. In B.J.Garssen & A.F.Snoeck Henkemans (Red.), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren (pp. 107-115). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.004.EEME
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.004.EEME
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error