Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Eemeren, Frans H. van; Grootendorst, Rob

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_29

Cited by 73 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The argument that (a) RCTs are sometimes impractical or impossible, (b) such that if we relied on only them for strong causal inferences we would not be able to make strong causal inferences in some situations in which we wished to make strong causal inferences, and (c) therefore we should not make strong causal inferences solely from RCTs is simply a special case of Argumentum ad Consequentiam . 43 …”

Section: Research That Can Be Determinative Of the Causal Effects Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of scientific evidence for health policies for obesity: why and how?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential obesity-related policy approaches have recently been receiving more attention. While some have been implemented and others only proposed, few have been formally evaluated. We discuss the relevance, and in some cases irrelevance, of some of the types of evidence that are often brought to bear in considering obesity-related policy decisions. We discuss major methods used to generate such evidence, emphasizing study design and the varying quality of the evidence obtained. Third, we consider what the standards of evidence should be in various contexts, who ought to set those standards, as well as the inherent subjectivity involved in making policy decisions. Finally, we suggest greater transparency from both academics and policymakers in the acknowledgment of subjectivities so they can distinguish and communicate the roles played by empirical evidence and subjective values in the formulation of policy.

show abstract

Section: Research That Can Be Determinative Of the Causal Effects Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of scientific evidence for health policies for obesity: why and how?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other works, a way out of this circularity is suggested (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1987;1994). The authors claim to have indicated "precisely which classical fallacies can be controlled through these rules" and go on to explain that "methodically speaking, this seems to us the best test to the problemvalidity of the dialectical system of rules presented" (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1994, p. 23).…”

Section: Circularity In Idealist Agendasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criticism without Fundamental Principles

Popa

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper I develop and defend a form of argumentative normativity that is not based on fundamental principles. I first argue that research agendas that aim to discover (or claimed to have discovered) fundamental principles of 'good' argumentative discourse share one crucial weak spot, viz. circularity. I then argue that this weak spot can be avoided in a pancritical (Bartley, 1984) view of normativity.Résumé: Dans cet article, je déve-loppe et défends une forme de normativité argumentative qui ne repose pas sur des principes fondamentaux. Je soutiens d'abord que les programmes de recherche qui visent à découvrir (ou qui prétendent avoir découvert) les principes de «bon» discours partagent un point faible, la circularité. Ensuite je soutiens qu'on peut éviter ce point faible en adoptant un point de vue désengagé des idéaux de l'argumentation.

show abstract

“…In argumentation studies, example is an argument scheme based on the logical principle 'ab esse ad posse valet illatio': if something happened in one case, it is possible, and, therefore, could happen again. However, several studies have warned about the risk of undue generalization (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987;Rigotti, 2005) associated with the use of examples. While Anastasia's account falls into this problem, the two examples she uses still retain the power of showing actual situations which might otherwise not be deemed possible…”

Section: Extract 3 Anastasia (Lithuania 30)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental discourse and identity management in the talk of indigenous and migrant speakers

Xenitidou

Greco

2014

Discourse & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article integrates discursive psychology and argumentation studies to discuss the regularities identified in two sets of data -focus group discussions amongst indigenous Greeks residing in Central Northern Greece and interviews with non-indigenous women with children, resident in the greater London area. The initial regularity identified consisted of participants talking as parents and talking about children and the normative expectations of parenthood in voicing strong views about 'others' from ethnic, cultural and racial backgrounds other than those of the speakers. This seemed to function as a form of denial, identifying further regularities in the discursive strategies used by participants and in the lines of arguments developed. Furthermore, two themes emerged as commonplace in talking about 'others' in the lines of argument developed by participants -security/insecurity and hierarchies. These regularities are considered and the potentials of analysing discourse from two, integrated approaches are discussed.

show abstract

Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Cited by 73 publications

References 6 publications

The development of scientific evidence for health policies for obesity: why and how?

The development of scientific evidence for health policies for obesity: why and how?

Criticism without Fundamental Principles

Parental discourse and identity management in the talk of indigenous and migrant speakers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About