Cover not available
Part of
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 37–58

Chapter 3
Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse

Acceptance based on understanding and critical assessment

Article outline
  • 1.Engaging in a pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation
  • 2.Maintaining reasonableness in argumentative discourse
  • 3.Aiming for effectiveness in argumentative discourse
  • 4.Strategic maneuvering to combine effectiveness and reasonableness
  • 5.The need for a comprehensive approach of the fallacies
  • 6.The pragma-dialectical treatment of the fallacies
  • 7.Strategic maneuvering and the deceptiveness of fallacies
  • 8.Context-independent criteria for judging fallaciousness
  • 9.Context-dependent criteria for judging fallaciousness
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.03van
References (38)
References
Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft [Treatise on Critical Reason] (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M. (1972). Evaluaties [Evaluations]. Inaugural address University of Utrecht, June 2. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M. &, Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 85–103). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2006). In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 26(1), 91–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, T. (1973). Illocutions and perlocutions. Foundations of Language 9(4), 492–503.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2012). The pragma-dialectical method of analysis and evaluation. In R. C. Rowland(Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change. Selected papers from the seventeenth biennial conference on argumentation sponsored by the National Communication Association and the American Forensic Association (pp. 25–27). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1994). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In: F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1997). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves. In J. Klumpp (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 51–56). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
(2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Maintaining a delicate balance. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
(2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 289–292). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hamblin C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (1999). Argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14(3), 261–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy. Some dialectical and rhetorical considerations. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Meeting in the house of Callias. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 29–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14(3), 241–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1977). Convention. A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Massey, G. (1975). Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad? Philosophy in Context 4, 61–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and persuasion effect research. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 235–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1971). Oracular philosophy and the revolt against reason. In K. R. Popper, The open society and its enemies 2(5) (pp. 224–258). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wagemans, J. (2003). Conceptualizing fallacies. The informal logic and pragma-dialectical approaches to the argumentum ad ignorantiam. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1049–1051). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
(1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation 13(4), 367–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Willard, C. A. (1995). Liberal alarms and rhetorical excursions. A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Woods, J. (1992). Who cares about the fallacies? In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 22–48). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pimenova, Oxana
2022. Argument Continuities in theory and practice. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:2 ► pp. 200 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.