Argumentation 27 (2):201-224 (2013)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
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 there are normative requirements that enhance the directiveness of criticism. Does the opponent have in circumstances a dialectical obligation to provide clarifications, explanations, or even arguments? In this paper, it is hypothesized that the competitiveness inherent in critical discussion must be mitigated by making the opponent responsible for providing her counterconsiderations, if available, thus assisting the proponent in developing an argumentative strategy that defuses them
|
Keywords | Argumentation scheme Connection premise Countercriticism Criticism Directiveness Fallacy Presumption Strategic advice |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s10503-012-9272-9 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument.Ralph H. Johnson - 2000 - Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
View all 25 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
On the Differences Between Practical and Cognitive Presumptions.Petar Bodlović - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (2):287-320.
On Presumptions, Burdens of Proof, and Explanations.Petar Bodlović - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (2):255-294.
Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren, Erik Bart Garssen, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans C. W. Krabbe, Jean Bart Verheij & H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance.Petar Bodlović - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (4):579-604.
View all 8 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
Transformations of the Concept of Reason.Herbert Schnadelbach - 1998 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1):3-14.
Stance: Ideas About Emotion, Style, and Meaning for the Study of Expressive Culture.Harris M. Berger - 2009 - Wesleyan University Press.
Putting the Burden of Proof in Its Place: When Are Differential Allocations Legitimate?Tim Dare & Justine Kingsbury - 2008 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (4):503-518.
Postmetaphysical Thinking or Refusal of Thought? Max Horkheimer’s Materialism as Philosophical Stance.J. C. Berendzen - 2008 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (5):695 – 718.
Value-Neutrality and Criticism.Gerhard Zecha - 1992 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 23 (1):153-164.
Should Social Science Be Critical?Martyn Hammersley - 2005 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (2):175-195.
Politicizing Brandom's Pragmatism: Normativity and the Agonal Character of Social Practice.Thomas Fossen - 2014 - European Journal of Philosophy 22 (3):371-395.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2012-09-02
Total views
41 ( #276,282 of 2,504,831 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,030 of 2,504,831 )
2012-09-02
Total views
41 ( #276,282 of 2,504,831 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,030 of 2,504,831 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads