Ambiguity in a Dialectical Perspective

Informal Logic 21 (3) (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The distinction between constitutive and regulative rules is applied to rules for critical discussion that have to do with the use of ambiguous expressions. This leads to a distinction between rule violating fallacies, by which one abandons a critical discussion, and norm violating fallacies, which are in a way admissible within a critical discussion. According to the formal model for critical discussion, proposed in this paper, fallacies of the norm violating type arc not prohibited. Instead, it provides discussants with devices to discuss fallacies and fallacy criticisms



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,347

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 One Fallacy Theory.Lawrence H. Powers - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
Poisoning the Well.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (3):273-307.
Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
Ambiguity in argument.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.


Added to PP

105 (#168,176)

6 months
47 (#91,964)

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

Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.John Rogers Searle - 1969 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.William P. Alston - 1970 - Philosophical Quarterly 20 (79):172-179.
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.John Searle - 1969 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 4 (1):59-61.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.

View all 20 references / Add more references