Criticism in Need of Clarification

Argumentation 28 (4):401-423 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It furthers the dialectic when the opponent is clear about what motivates and underlies her critical stance, even if she does not adopt an opposite standpoint, but merely doubts the proponent’s opinion. Thus, there is some kind of burden of criticism. In some situations, there should an obligation for the opponent to offer explanatory counterconsiderations, if requested, whereas in others, there is no real dialectical obligation, but a mere responsibility for the opponent to cooperate by providing her motivations for being critical. In this paper, it will be shown how a set of dialogue rules may encourage an opponent, in this latter type of situation, to provide her counterconsiderations, and to do so at an appropriate level of specificity. Special attention will be paid to the desired level of specificity. For example, the critic may challenge a thesis by saying “Why? Says who?,” without conveying whether she could be convinced by an argument from expert opinion, or from position to know, or from popular opinion. What are fair dialogue rules for dealing with less than fully specific criticism?

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

Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism.Juha Räikkä - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (4):463-477.
Burden of proof.DouglasN Walton - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):233-254.
Is there a burden of questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
Dialogue theory for critical thinking.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (2):169-184.
Creative reasoning in formal discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):483-498.
A dialogical theory of presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Boomerang defense of rule following.Tomoji Shogenji - 1992 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 (3):115-122.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-12

Downloads
49 (#326,216)

6 months
17 (#151,142)

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

Argumentation schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
Fallacies.Charles Leonard Hamblin - 1970 - Newport News, Va.: Vale Press.

View all 40 references / Add more references