Van Eemeren 2010 Flashcards
4 parameters in analyzing strategic maneuvering
- confrontational maneuvering
- opening maneuvering
- argumentational maneuvering
- concluding maneuvering
4 factors in the analysis of strategic maneuvering
- the results that can be achieved by making the moves concerned
- the routes that can be taken to achieve these results
- the constraints imposed on the discourse by the institutional context
- the commitments of the parties defining the argumentative situation
Hamblin’s approach of fallacies
book: fallacies
a refutation of the Standard Definition of fallacies (‘fallacies are arguments that seem valid but are in fact not’)
The Woods-Walton approach of fallacies
- use of logical systems
- pluralistic (each fallacy must be treated in its own way)
ad hoc in several ways:
- more or less arbitrary, non-systematic list of fallacies
- each individual fallacy is given its own idiosyncratic theoretical treatment that is independent on the treatment of other fallacies
a disadvantage of this ad hoc approach: the treatments of the different fallacies can easily be at variance with each other
Barth and Krabbe’s approach of fallacies
formal dialectic:
- provides formal systems for conducting critical discussions
- fallacies are moves that cannot be generated by these formal systems
Critique on Barth and Krabbe - reasons for pragmadialectic
- the theorizing about fallacies has to start from a general and coherent perspective on argumentative discourse that provides a common rationale for the study of all fallacies
(in pragma-dialectic: each part of argumentative discourse is always considered as being aimed at resolving the difference of opinion)
- a theory of errors can not be constructed independently from a theory of correctness
The wrongness of argumentative moves according to Van Eemeren
They are a hindrance of the solution of a difference of opinion on the merits
Differences between the logical Standard Treatment and the pragma-dialectical approach
- In the ST all fallacies are violations of one and the same validity norm - the PD approach distinguishes a variety of functional norms
- In the PD approach none of the fallacies are explained in an ad hoc way, but all in terms of violations of the rules for a critical discussion
Defining a ‘fallacy’ in the pragma-dialectical approach
a fallacy is a speech act that prejudices or frustrates efforts to resolve a difference of opinion on the merits
three reasons why the definition of fallacy “arguments that seem valid but are in fact not” is not correct
“arguments that seem valid but are in fact not”
- fallacies are not always arguments
- sometimes fallacies are actually valid arguments (begging the question)
- the word ‘seem’ brings an undesirable element of subjectivity with it
context-independent criteria for judging fallaciousness
example:
an argument from authority is fallacious if the source referred to is not actually an authority in the issue at stake
context-dependent criteria for judging fallaciousness
in some cases it may be necessary for determining whether or not a dialectical norm incorporated in the rules for a critical discussion has been violated, to appeal to specific soundness criteria that depend on the institutionalized conventions of the communicative activity type in which the argumentative move concerned was made.
The ideal of a critical discussion
The ideal of a critical discussion is not a description of any kind of reality, but sets a theoretical standard that can be used for heuristic, analytical and evaluative purposes.
The pivotal constituent of the pragma-dialectical research program
The pivotal constituent of the pragma-dialectical research program is the analytical component, because it integrates the normative and descriptive dimensions by linking the philosophical and theoretical components with the empirical and practical components.
