37 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Erik C. W. Krabbe [38]Erik C. W. Krabbe [1]
  1. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic. Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
    Formal dialectic has its roots in ancient dialectic. We can trace this influence in Charles Hamblin’s book on fallacies, in which he introduced his first formal dialectical systems. Earlier, Paul Lorenzen proposed systems of dialogical logic, which were in fact formal dialectical systems avant la lettre, with roles similar to those of the Greek Questioner and Answerer. In order to make a comparison between ancient dialectic and contemporary formal dialectic, I shall formalize part of the Aristotelian procedure for Academic debates. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe (2013). The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance. [REVIEW] Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2012). Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations. Topoi 31 (2):243-248.
  4. Fred Kauffeld & Erik C. W. Krabbe, Strategies for Strengthening Presumptions and Generating Ethos by Manifestly Ensuring Accountability.
    In argumentation, as elsewhere, speakers strategically engage favourable presumptions by manifestly making themselves accountable for their communicative efforts. Such strategies provide the addressee with reasons to regard the speaker as accountable in specific ways and, via that regard for the speaker, with situation-specific rationales for responding positively to what the speaker says. This paper identifies some resources available to arguers for strengthening, elaborating, and focusing such special presumptions. The paper offers an analysis of Barbara Jordan’s “Statement on the Articles of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Jan van Laar, Erik C. W. Krabbe & Marcelo Dascal, The Burden of Criticism.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convinc-ingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of ‘directiveness’ that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2009). Christopher W. Tindale, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Argumentation 23 (1):127-131.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Reply to My Commentator - Krabbe.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Winning and Losing for Arguers.
    What roles do “winning” and “losing” have to play in argumentative discussions? We say that someone has “won” a discussion or debate, but also an emphasis on “winning” is often rejected. The question is: can these concepts be so interpreted that justice is done to these antagonistic views? Starting from Aristotelian ideas, the paper purports to establish that the views mentioned above can indeed be reconciled.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2008). Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs. Argumentation 22 (3):453-468.
    This paper explores applications of concepts from argumentation theory to mathematical proofs. Note is taken of the various contexts in which proofs occur and of the various objectives they may serve. Examples of strategic maneuvering are discussed when surveying, in proofs, the four stages of argumentation distinguished by pragma-dialectics. Derailments of strategies (fallacies) are seen to encompass more than logical fallacies and to occur both in alleged proofs that are completely out of bounds and in alleged proofs that are at (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Krabbe, Erik C. W., Being Right, Admitting That Someone is Right, Being Judged Right.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2007). Book Review. [REVIEW] Argumentation 21 (1):101-113.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2007). On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage. Argumentation 21 (3):233-242.
    Any well-structured argumentative exchange must be preceded by some preparatory stages. In the pragma-dialectical four-stage model of critical discussion, the clarification of issues and positions is relegated to the confrontation stage and the other preparatory matters are dealt within the opening stage. In the opening stage, the parties involved come to agree to discuss their differences and to do so by an argumentative exchange rather than by, say, a sequence of bids and offers. They should also come to agree on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Predicaments of the Concluding Stage.
    Argumentative discussion is successful only if, at the concluding stage, both parties can agree about the result of their enterprise. If they can not, the whole discussion threatens to start all over again. Dialectical ruling should prevent this from happening. The paper investigates whether dialectical rules may enforce a decision one way or the other; either by recognizing some arguments as conclusive or some criticisms as devastating. At the end the pragma-dialectical model appears more successful than even its protagonists have (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar (2007). About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies. Informal Logic 27 (1):27-58.
    We shall investigate the similarities and dissimilarities between old and new dialectic. For the ‘old dialectic’, we base our survey mainly on Aristotle’s Topics and Sophistical Refutations, whereas for the ‘new dialectic’, we turn to contemporary views on dialogical interaction, such as can, for the greater part, be found in Walton’s The New Dialectic. Three issues are taken up: types of dialogue, fallacies, and strategies. Though one should not belittle the differences in scope and outlook that obtain between the old (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Fundamental Circularities in the Theory of Argumentation.
    Sometimes pernicious circularities appear in definitions of fundamental concepts of argumentation theory. For instance, in pragma-dialectical theory, the concept of a fallacy and that of a critical discussion aiming at resolving a difference of opinion mutually presuppose one another. A similar relationship obtains, in argumentation theory at large, between the concept of argumentation and that of rationality. Again, the concept of an argumentative dialogue presupposes a concept of statement. Yet, statementhood is sometimes claimed to be determined by a locution’s function (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2004). Book Review: John Woods, Paradox and Paraconsistency: Conflict Resolution in the Abstract Sciences (2003). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. Xviii+362, ISBN 0-521-81094-9 (Cloth), 0-521-00934-0 (Paper). [REVIEW] Argumentation 18 (4):495-499.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Commentary on Godden.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2003). Frans H. Van Eemeren (Ed.) (2001), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 17 (3):355-359.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Erik C. W. Krabbe, The Pragmatics of Deductive Arguments.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Wilfrid Hodges & Erik C. W. Krabbe (2001). Dialogue Foundations. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17 - 49.
    [Wilfrid Hodges] During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2001). Dialogue Foundations: Dialogue Logic Revisited: Erik C. W. Krabbe. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):33–49.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese 127 (1-2):141 - 159.
    In many contexts a retraction of commitment isfrowned upon. For instance, it is not appreciated,generally, if one withdraws a promise or denies anearlier statement. Critical discussion, too, caneasily be disrupted by retractions, if these occur toofrequently and at critical points. But on the otherhand, the very goal of critical discussion –resolution of a dispute – involves a retraction,either of doubt, or of some expressed point of view.A person who never retracts, not even under pressureof cogent arguments, would hardly qualify as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Erik C. W. Krabbe (2000). Meeting in the House of Callias: Rhetoric and Dialectic. [REVIEW] Argumentation 14 (3):205-217.
    The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe and compare the original goals and perspectives of both rhetoric and dialectic in theory and in practice. Dialectic is the practice and theory of conversations; rhetoric that of speeches. For theory of dialectic, this paper will turn to Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations; for theory of rhetoric, to his Rhetoric. Thus it will appear that rhetoric and dialectic are pretty close. Yet, on the other hand, there is a long tradition of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1998). Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech? Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.
    Aristotle's illustrations of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are none too convincing. They are tied to Aristotle's theory of categories and to peculiarities of Greek grammar that fail to hold appeal for a contemporary readership. Yet, upon closer inspection, Figure of Speech shows many points of contact with views and problems that inhabit 20th-century analytical philosophy. In the paper, some Aristotelian examples will be analyzed to gain a better understanding of this fallacy. The case of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Commentary on Blair.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renée José Dalitz & Pier A. Smit (eds.) (1993). Empirical Logic and Public Debate: Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth. Rodopi.
    Empirical Logic and Public Debate supplies a large number of previously unpublished papers that together make up a survey of recent developments in the field of empirical logic. It contains theoretical contributions, some of a more formal and some of an informal nature, as well as numerous contemporary and historical case studies. The book will therefore be attractive both to those who wish to focus upon the theory and practice of discussion, debate, arguing, and argument, as well as to those (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton (1993). It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks. Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1992). So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism in Persuation Dialogues. Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1990). Inconsistent Commitments and Commitment to Inconsistencies. Informal Logic 12 (1).
    Inconsistent Commitments and Commitment to Inconsistencies.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1988). Creative Reasoning in Formal Discussion. Argumentation 2 (4):483-498.
    Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1986). A Theory of Modal Dialectics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (2):191 - 217.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1985). Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules. Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1985). Noncumulative Dialectical Models and Formal Dialectics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 14 (2):129 - 168.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1978). The Adequacy of Material Dialogue-Games. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19 (3):321-330.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Erik C. W. Krabbe (1978). Note on a Completeness Theorem in the Theory of Counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):91 - 93.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation