Argumentation 24 (3):383-398 (2010)

Authors
Jan Albert Van Laar
University of Groningen
Abstract
How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.
Keywords Argumentative bluff  Eristic discussion  Critical discussion  Dialogue types  Fallacies
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2009, 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9184-5
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: 60,842
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Vale Press.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Sophistical Refutations in the Climate Change Debates.Jean Goodwin - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):40-64.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Practice of Argumentative Discussion.David Hitchcock - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):287-298.
Teaching for Argumentative Thought.Shelagh Crooks - 2009 - Teaching Philosophy 32 (3):247-261.
Evaluating Argumentative Moves in Medical Consultations.Sarah Bigi - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):51-65.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-11

Total views
23 ( #464,247 of 2,438,915 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #283,061 of 2,438,915 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes