Argumentation 27 (2):201-224 (2013)

Authors
Jan Albert Van Laar
University of Groningen
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
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: 54,491
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

Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
Expression and Meaning.John Searle - 1985 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Criticism in Need of Clarification.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):401-423.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism.Juha Räikkä - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (4):463-477.
The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
Transformations of the Concept of Reason.Herbert Schnadelbach - 1998 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1):3-14.
Intentional Systems.Daniel C. Dennett - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (February):87-106.
Shifting the Burden of Proof?Michael Rescorla - 2009 - Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234):86-109.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-09-02

Total views
40 ( #246,837 of 2,381,244 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #560,102 of 2,381,244 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes