Argumentation 28 (4):401-423 (2014)

Jan Albert Van Laar
University of Groningen
It furthers the dialectic when the opponent is clear about what motivates and underlies her critical stance, even if she does not adopt an opposite standpoint, but merely doubts the proponent’s opinion. Thus, there is some kind of burden of criticism. In some situations, there should an obligation for the opponent to offer explanatory counterconsiderations, if requested, whereas in others, there is no real dialectical obligation, but a mere responsibility for the opponent to cooperate by providing her motivations for being critical. In this paper, it will be shown how a set of dialogue rules may encourage an opponent, in this latter type of situation, to provide her counterconsiderations, and to do so at an appropriate level of specificity. Special attention will be paid to the desired level of specificity. For example, the critic may challenge a thesis by saying “Why? Says who?,” without conveying whether she could be convinced by an argument from expert opinion, or from position to know, or from popular opinion. What are fair dialogue rules for dealing with less than fully specific criticism?
Keywords Ambiguity  Argumentation scheme  Burden of criticism  Challenge  Dialogue rule  Presumption  Request for argument  Specificity
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2013, 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9309-8
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.
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
Manifest Rationality.Ralph Johnson - 2000 - Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

View all 36 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism.Juha Räikkä - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (4):463-477.
Burden of Proof.DouglasN Walton - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):233-254.
Is There a Burden of Questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (2):169-184.
Creative Reasoning in Formal Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):483-498.
A Dialogical Theory of Presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Boomerang Defense of Rule Following.Tomoji Shogenji - 1992 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 (3):115-122.


Added to PP index

Total views
30 ( #356,164 of 2,438,911 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #434,842 of 2,438,911 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes