排序方式: 共有7条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
In the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies are considered incorrect moves in a discussion for which the goal is successful resolution of a dispute. Ten rules are given for effective conduct at the various stages of such a critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding). Fallacies are discussed as violations of these rules, taking into account all speech acts which are traditionally recognized as fallacies. Special attention is paid to the role played by implicitness in fallacies in everyday language use. It is stressed that identifying and acknowledging fallacies in ordinary discussions always has a conditional character. Differences between the pragma-dialectical perspective, the Standard Treatment, and the formal logic approach to fallacy analysis are discussed. 相似文献
2.
J. Anthony Blair 《Argumentation》1998,12(2):325-339
3.
Mark Weinstein 《Argumentation》1990,4(3):269-298
In this article it is argued that a complex model that includes Toulmin's functional account of argument, the pragma-dialectical stage analysis of argumentation offered by the Amsterdam School, and criteria developed in critical thinking theory, can be used to account for the normativity and field-dependence of argumentation in science. A pragma-dialectical interpretation of the four main elements of Toulmin's model, and a revised account of the double role of warrants, illuminates the domain specificity of scientific argumentation and the restrictions to which the confrontation and opening stages of scientific critical discussions are subjected. In regard to the argumentation stage, examples are given to show that a general account of argumentation, as advocated by informal logicians, is not applicable to arguments in science. Furthermore, although patterns of inference differ in various scientific practices, deductive validity is argued to be a crucial notion in the assessment of scientific arguments. Finally, some remarks are made concerning the burden of proof and the concluding stage of scientific argumentation. 相似文献
4.
According to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, for analysing argumentative discourse, a normative reconstruction is required which encompasses four kinds of transformations. It is explained in this paper how speech act conditions can play a part in carrying out such a reconstruction. It is argued that integrating Searlean insights concerning speech acts with Gricean insights concerning conversational maxims can provide us with the necessary tools. For this, the standard theory of speech acts has to be amended in several respects and the conversational maxims have to be translated into speech act conditions. Making use of the rules for communication thus arrived at, and starting from the distribution of speech acts in a critical discussion as specified in the pragma-dialectical model, it is then demonstrated how indirect speech acts are to be transformed when reconstructing argumentative discourse. 相似文献
5.
Sebastian McEvoy 《Argumentation》1999,13(1):43-52
Legal theory and practice, particularly on the exchange of pleadings, are referred to as a means of examining current thinking in pragmatics on relevance. The rules of pleadings suggest that the concept of relevance as used in pragmatics is emptied of any meaning and that theories of argumentation have not sufficiently taken into account the preliminary construction which issues to be argued about require. 相似文献
6.
Harry Weger Jr. 《Argumentation》2001,15(3):313-330
The purpose of this research review is to examine the usefulness of reconstructing problematic interpersonal conflict behavior as violations of rules for critical discussions. Dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior sheds light on the ways in which dialectical fallacies influence not only the course of a critical discussion, but also the personal and relationship outcomes experienced by arguers. Conflict sequences such as cross complaining and demand/withdraw are shown to be problematic, in part, because they prevent parties from resolving their difference through rational dialogue. The paper concludes by presenting some implications of the pragma-dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior. 相似文献
7.
Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation
in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
Empirical research in the field of legal interpretation shows that, in many cases, analogy argumentation is complex rather
than simple. Traditional analytical approaches to analogy argumentation do not explore that complexity. In most cases analogy
argumentation is reconstructed as a simple form of argumentation that consists of two premises and a conclusion. This article
focuses on the question of how to analyze and evaluate complex analogy argumentation. It is shown how the pragma-dialectical
approach provides clues for analyzing complex analogy argumentation and how the criteria for evaluating analogy argumentation
can be used to reconstruct these types of complex analogy argumentation in Dutch case law. The critical questions in the argumentation
scheme do not only serve as a tool for analyzing arguments justifying analogy argumentation, but are also helpful in analyzing
arguments against a specific analogy argumentation. 相似文献
1