In this book, the authors report on their Systematic Empirical Research of the Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Starting from a clearly defined theoretical basis, they report about a continued series of experimental tests.

In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness , Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.

First systematic experimental research of reasonableness conceptions of ordinary arguers Starting from a clearly defined theoretical basis Reporting about a continued series of experimental tests Up to standard with modern methodology Covering a wide range of well known informal fallacies

Autorentext

Frans H. van Eemeren is Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. Together with Rob Grootendorst (1944-2000) he founded the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Van Eemeren a Distinguished Scholar of the American National Communication Association, Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Lugano, and alumnus of the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences. He is President of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), Editor-in-Chief of the interdisciplinary journal Argumentation, and Editor of the book series Argumentation Library and Argumentation in Context. Among the monographs he (co)authored are Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (1984), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (1992), Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse (1993), Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory (1996), A Systematic Theory of Argumentation (2004), Argumentative Indicators in Discourse (2007), Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness (2009), and Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse (2010). Bart Garssen is Lecturer at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam, and Director of the Master s program Discourse and Argumentation Studies Amsterdam (DASA). He is Book Editor of the interdisciplinary journal Argumentation, and Editor of the book series Argumentation in Context. His research interests are empirical research of argumentation, political argumentation and the fallacies. Together with Frans H. van Eemeren and Bert Meuffels he published Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness (2009). C.W. Krabbe (1943) studied philosophy and mathematics at the University of Amsterdam. His Ph.D. dissertation, Studies in Dialogical Logic (Groningen, 1982) was supervised by E.M. Barth and by K. Lorenz. Together with E.M. Barth, he wrote From Axiom to Dialogue (1982), a comprehensive study of dialectic systems and their connections with other types of logic. His publications focus on dialogue logic and argumentation. Krabbe is an alumnus of the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences and an Editor of the interdisciplinary journal Argumentation. Krabbe taught logic at the University of Amsterdam and at the University of Utrecht. From 1988 until 2008 he was an Associate Professor of Logic at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Groningen, teaching both philosophical and mathematical logic and theory of argumentation. In 1995 he was, moreover, appointed as Professor on a special chair for Philosophical Theory of Argumentation. Together with D.N. Walton he co-authored the monograph Commitment in Dialogue (1995). In 1998 Krabbe received an ISSA-award for excellent research. He retired in 2008. A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans is an Associate Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. She us Director of the Research Master s program Rhetoric, Argumentation theory, and Philosophy (RAP). Her research concentrated on linguistic characteristics of argumentation and argumentation structures. In 2007 she published, together with Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, the monograph Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Her current research focuses on the role of stylistic devices in strategic manoeuvring aimed at balancing the pursuit of rhetorical effectiveness with dialectical reasonableness. Snoeck Henkemans is a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Informal Logic. Bart Verheij is a tenured lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Engineering (ALICE) of the University of Groningen. In 2013-2014, he is resident fellow at the CodeX center for legal informatics, Stanford University. He holds an MSc degree in Mathematics (University of Amsterdam) and obtained his PhD degree at Maastricht Univer

Klappentext

In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.

Inhalt
Theoretical Background and Organization of the Study.- Considerations Regarding the Design of the Study.- Ad Hominem Fallacies: An Exemplary Study.- The Confrontation Stage: The Freedom Rule.- The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I).- The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend (II).- The Argumentation Stage: The Argument Scheme Rule.- The Concluding Stage: The Concluding Rule.- Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.