Chapter 3
Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse
Acceptance based on understanding and critical assessment
Article outline
- 1.Engaging in a pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation
- 2.Maintaining reasonableness in argumentative discourse
- 3.Aiming for effectiveness in argumentative discourse
- 4.Strategic maneuvering to combine effectiveness and reasonableness
- 5.The need for a comprehensive approach of the fallacies
- 6.The pragma-dialectical treatment of the fallacies
- 7.Strategic maneuvering and the deceptiveness of fallacies
- 8.Context-independent criteria for judging fallaciousness
- 9.Context-dependent criteria for judging fallaciousness
-
Notes
-
References
References (38)
References
Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft [Treatise on Critical Reason] (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barth, E. M. (1972). Evaluaties [Evaluations]. Inaugural address University of Utrecht, June 2. Assen: van Gorcum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barth, E. M. &, Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 85–103). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2006). In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 26(1), 91–101. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cohen, T. (1973). Illocutions and perlocutions. Foundations of Language 9(4), 492–503.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2012). The pragma-dialectical method of analysis and evaluation. In R. C. Rowland(Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change. Selected papers from the seventeenth biennial conference on argumentation sponsored by the National Communication Association and the American Forensic Association (pp. 25–27). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In: F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1997). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves. In J. Klumpp (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 51–56). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Maintaining a delicate balance. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 289–292). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hamblin C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, S. (1999). Argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14(3), 261–286. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, S. (2002). Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy. Some dialectical and rhetorical considerations. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Meeting in the house of Callias. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 29–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14(3), 241–254. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, D. K. (1977). Convention. A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Massey, G. (1975). Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad? Philosophy in Context 4, 61–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Keefe, D. J. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and persuasion effect research. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 235–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Popper, K. R. (1971). Oracular philosophy and the revolt against reason. In K. R. Popper, The open society and its enemies 2(5) (pp. 224–258). Princeton: Princeton University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. New York: Macmillan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wagemans, J. (2003). Conceptualizing fallacies. The informal logic and pragma-dialectical approaches to the argumentum ad ignorantiam. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1049–1051). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, D. N. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation 13(4), 367–377. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: SUNY Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Willard, C. A. (1995). Liberal alarms and rhetorical excursions. A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Woods, J. (1992). Who cares about the fallacies? In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 22–48). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: De Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.