Graduate studies at Western
Argumentation 25 (4):469-497 (2011)
|Abstract||In this article I address the following question: When are reformulations in argumentative criticisms reasonable and when do they become fallacious straw men? Following ideas developed in the integrated version of pragma-dialectics, I approach argumentation as an element of agonistic exchanges permeated by arguersâ€™ strategic manoeuvring aimed at effectively defeating the opponent with reasonable means. I propose two basic context-sensitive criteria for deciding on the reasonableness of reformulations: precision of the rules for interpretation (precise vs. loose) and general expectation of cooperativeness (critical vs. constructive). On the basis of analysis of examples taken from online political discussions, I argue that in some contexts, especially those that are critical and loose, what might easily be classified as a straw man following conventional treatment should be taken as a harsh, yet reasonable, strategic argumentative criticism|
|Keywords||Argumentation Fallacies Online deliberation Pragma-dialectics Strategic manoeuvring The straw man fallacy|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marcin Lewiński (2011). Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation. Argumentation 25 (4):469-497.
Brian Ribeiro (2008). How Often Do We (Philosophy Professors) Commit the Straw Man Fallacy? Teaching Philosophy 31 (1):27-38.
Scott Aikin & John Casey (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men. Argumentation 25 (1):87-105.
Louis P. Pojman (1998). Straw Man or Straw Theory? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (2):169-180.
Paul van den Hoven (2010). Modeling the Protagonist: The Strategic Use of Discourse Voices. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (4):475-487.
Mark Wilkinson (1997). Burning Straw Men Sheds Little Light: A Reply to Whiting and Kelly. Acta Biotheoretica 45 (1).
Frans H. Eemeren (2012). The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion. Argumentation 26 (4):439-457.
Niels G. Waller & Wesley O. Johnson (1998). The Non-Significance of Straw Man Arguments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):226-227.
Christopher A. Pynes (2012). Ad Hominem Arguments and Intelligent Design: Reply to Koperski. Zygon 47 (2):289-297.
Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (2003). The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentation. Argumentation 17 (4):387-403.
Daniel Bonevac (2003). Pragma-Dialectics and Beyond. Argumentation 17 (4):451-459.
Erik Krabbe & Jan van Laar (2011). The Ways of Criticism. Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels (2012). Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research. Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
Jonathan E. Adler (1999). Affirming a Straw Man: A Reply to Bowles. [REVIEW] Argumentation 13 (1):17-26.
Added to index2011-08-29
Total downloads6 ( #154,923 of 739,474 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?