Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation

Argumentation 24 (3):383-398 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Practice of Argumentative Discussion.David Hitchcock - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):287-298.
Teaching for Argumentative Thought.Shelagh Crooks - 2009 - Teaching Philosophy 32 (3):247-261.
Evaluating argumentative moves in medical consultations.Sarah Bigi - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):51-65.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-11

Downloads
45 (#355,034)

6 months
14 (#183,612)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jan Albert Van Laar
University of Groningen

References found in this work

Fallacies.Charles Leonard Hamblin - 1970 - Newport News, Va.: Vale Press.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.

View all 13 references / Add more references