Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness : empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules
著者
書誌事項
Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness : empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules
(Argumentation library / series editors, Frans H. van Eemeren ... [et al.], v. 16)
Springer, c2009
- : softcover
大学図書館所蔵 全3件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references (p. 225-228) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
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.
目次
- 1. Theoretical backgrounds and organization of the study. 2. Considerations for the study design. 3. Ad hominem fallacies
- an exemplary study. 4. The confrontation stage
- the freedom rule. 5. The opening stage
- the burden of proof rule I (shifting the burden of proof). 6. The opening stage
- the burden of proof rule II (evading the burden of proof). 7. The argumentation stage
- the argument scheme rule. 8. The concluding stage
- the closure rule. 9. The conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules.
「Nielsen BookData」 より