The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly.Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer's position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of "directiveness" that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether there are normative requirements that enhance the directiveness of criticism. Does the opponent have in circumstances a dialectical obligation to provide clarifications, explanations, or even arguments? In this paper, it is hypothesized that the competitiveness inherent in critical discussion must be mitigated by making the opponent responsible for providing her counterconsiderations, if available, thus assisting the proponent in developing an argumentative strategy that defuses them.

Arguments that take Counterconsiderations into Account

“…It does not express a request for an explanation, which requires a separate locution type. 8 Unless the proposition attacked had the status of a presumptive commitment, the opponent is not under a dialectical obligation to provide such an explanation, even though such an explanation would enhance the quality of the dialogue (van Laar and Krabbe 2013). challenges of the form "Why T? How about C?"…”

“…10 Yet, the counterconsideration need not be used to express genuine argumentation, and I will focus on those situations where it does not, for the reason of showing, if only sideways, that even in a persistently non-mixed, asymmetrical discussion 11 with an opponent who merely doubts, and critically tests the proponent's position from that perspective, critical reactions can be active (Finocchiaro, 1980, p. 339) and directive (van Laar and Krabbe, 2013). Even if the counterconsideration does not constitute counterargumentation, it aims to defeat the proponent's argument (cf.…”

“…Finocchiaro 1980, on "active evaluation. " 243 manner (Krabbe and van Laar, 2011), as well as what the obligations of a critic amount to (van Laar, 2012;van Laar and Krabbe, 2013;van Laar 2014.). This paper attempts to extend this project in the theory of criticism, by conceiving of six types of complex argument as six different, fully responsive ways for an arguer to respond to or anticipate counterconsiderations from real or imagined opponents.…”

Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton’S Theory of Criticism

“…Johnson, 2000;Govier, 1999;Krabbe, 2007: Krabbe andVan Laar, 2011;Van Laar and Krabbe, 2013;Walton, 2012). Walton deals with a large number of issues, three main ones of which are: (1) How to distinguish and characterize types of criticism such as rebuttal, attack, challenge, refutation, exception, defeater, and objection?…”

“…I contend that the latter type of premises, that I would label "normality premises," can be attacked without incurring a genuine burden of proof. Instead, it can be attacked by means of incurring a burden of criticism (Van Laar and Krabbe, 2013) that amounts to the obligation to offer an explanatory counterconsideration, rather than a convincing ex concessis argument. Of course, providing the opponent with the right to discharge her burden of criticism with explanatory counterconsiderations brings a clear strategic advantage to her.…”