Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

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.

Fallacies (Logic). --- Philosophy. --- Reasoning. --- Persuasion (Rhetoric) --- Fallacies (Logic) --- Reasoning --- Philology & Linguistics --- Languages & Literatures --- Argumentation --- Ratiocination --- Errors, Logical --- Sophisms (Logic) --- Sophistry (Logic) --- Logic. --- Language and languages --- Applied linguistics. --- Philosophy of Language. --- Philosophy, general. --- Applied Linguistics. --- Linguistics --- Deduction (Logic) --- Deductive logic --- Dialectic (Logic) --- Logic, Deductive --- Intellect --- Philosophy --- Psychology --- Science --- Thought and thinking --- Mental philosophy --- Humanities --- Methodology --- Reason --- Judgment (Logic) --- Logic --- Philosophy (General). --- Language and languages—Philosophy.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory brings together twenty exploratory studies on important subjects of research in contemporary argumentation theory. The essays are based  on papers that were presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) in Amsterdam in June 2010. They give an impression of the nature and the variety of the kind of research that has recently been carried out in the study of argumentation. The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating theoretical perspectives on argumentation. Subsequently, some views are explained on the intriguing topics of ‘dissensus’ and ‘deep disagreement’. After a discussion of three different approaches to the treatment of types of argumentation some classical themes from antique argumentation theory are revisited. The new research area of visual argumentation is explored in the next part. The volume concludes with three reports of experimental studies concerning argumentative discourse.

Philosophy --- Logic --- Educational systems. Teaching systems --- Philosophy of language --- Linguistics --- studiesysteem --- filosofie --- linguïstiek --- taalfilosofie --- logica --- Literacy. --- Philology. --- Logic. --- Philosophy of Language. --- Classical Studies. --- Linguistics, general. --- Philosophy. --- Illiteracy --- Education --- General education --- Argumentation --- Deduction (Logic) --- Deductive logic --- Dialectic (Logic) --- Logic, Deductive --- Intellect --- Psychology --- Science --- Reasoning --- Thought and thinking --- Methodology --- Language and languages—Philosophy. --- Linguistics. --- Linguistic science --- Science of language --- Language and languages --- Persuasion (Rhetoric) --- Reasoning.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

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.

Multidisciplinary collective works --- Philosophy --- Logic --- Philosophy of language --- Linguistics --- interdisciplinair onderzoek --- filosofie --- linguïstiek --- taalfilosofie --- logica

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Logic --- Pragmatics --- tekstanalyse --- pragmatisme --- logica

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Multidisciplinary collective works --- Philosophy --- Logic --- Philosophy of language --- Linguistics --- interdisciplinair onderzoek --- filosofie --- linguïstiek --- taalfilosofie --- logica