Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.2478/slgr-2014-0010

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):387-403.
The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):439-457.
The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion.Frans H. Eemeren - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):439-457.
Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):283-301.
Formal Dialectic in Fallacy Inquiry: An Unintelligible Circumscription of Argumentative Rationality? [REVIEW]Louise Cummings - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (2):161-183.
Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
Which of the fallacies are fallacies of relevance?Douglas N. Walton - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):237-250.
Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation. [REVIEW]Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (4):381-392.
The Ingredients of Aristotle’s Theory of Fallacy.Pieter Sjoerd Hasper - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):31-47.
Putting reasoning and judgement in their proper argumentative place.Mike Oaksford - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):84-85.
Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. [REVIEW]Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):141-159.
Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):102-128.
“How can a philosophical enquiry be conducted without a perpetual petitio principii?Frank Ramsey - unknown

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-04-24

Downloads
38 (#410,745)

6 months
7 (#418,426)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Philosophical Investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 1953 - New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. Quine - 1951 - [Longmans, Green].
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.John Rogers Searle - 1969 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.

View all 46 references / Add more references