Argumentation 6 (2):271-283 (1992)

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 relevance criticism. Only the last of these three types of criticism constitutes a charge of fallacy and carries with it a burden of proof. In the second it is observed that a full study of narrow-type relevance criticism would require the construction of complicated, many-layered, dialogue systems. Such a study can, however, be profitably preceded by setting up profiles of dialogue that help us discuss the ins and outs of certain types of move. This is illustrated with an example
Keywords Argumentative discussion  atomic argument  burden of proof  criticisms  dialogues  fallacy  formal dialogue   ignoratio elenchi  inadmissible premise  persuation dialogue  profile of dialogue  relevance
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00154330
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,908
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Fallacies.Charles Leonard Hamblin - 1970 - London, England: Vale Press.
Logic and Conversation.H. P. Grice - 1975 - In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: pp. 64-75.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation.Douglas Neil Walton - 1989 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition.Taeda Tomić - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (4):1-22.

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Families and Forensic DNA Profiles.Rebecca Dresser - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (3):11-12.
Alvin Plantinga (Profiles, Vol. 5).James Tomberlin & Peter van Inwagen (eds.) - 1985 - D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Cross-Cultural Relevance of the Third Revolution in Psychiatry.Mohammed Abouelleil Rashed - 2010 - Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 3 (1):21-22.
Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
Dialogue Foundations.Wilfrid Hodges & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17-49.
Traditional Confucianism and its Contemporary Relevance.Lin Hang - 2011 - Asian Philosophy 21 (4):437 - 445.


Added to PP index

Total views
10 ( #895,589 of 2,497,755 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,755 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes