The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks
Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):344 - 364 (2012)
The main finding of a comprehensive empirical research project on the intersubjective acceptability of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels, 2009) is that ordinary language users judge discussion moves that are considered fallacious from an argumentation-theoretical perspective as unreasonable. In light of this finding it is remarkable that in everyday argumentative discourse fallacies occur regularly and seem many times not to be noticed by the participants in the discourse. This also goes for the abusive argumentum ad hominem. While abusive ad hominem attacks are judged to be very unreasonable discussion moves when the unreasonableness of clear cases of this fallacy is rated in experiments, in real life this fallacy remains undetected more often than not. In this paper it is argued that this paradox can be explained by analysing abusive ad hominem attacks as a mode of strategic manoeuvring which takes on a reasonable appearance in real life situations when it mimics, as it often does, legitimate critical reactions to authority argumentation. The hypothesis that abusive fallacies are seen as less unreasonable when they are presented as if they are critical questions pertaining to the argument scheme for authority argumentation than when they are clear cases was tested systematically in two experiments. The results of these experiments confirmed the hypothesis
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others?Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. Van Eemeren - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):1-23.
Similar books and articles
Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):387-403.
The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion.Frans H. Eemeren - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):439-457.
Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, & Bert Meuffels: Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.Dale Hample - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):375-381.
The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument.Graciela Marta Chichi - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):333-348.
Ad Hominem Arguments and Intelligent Design: Reply to Koperski.Christopher A. Pynes - 2012 - Zygon 47 (2):289-297.
Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument.D. N. Walton - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority.Moti Mizrahi - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. Eemeren - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):49-70.
The Rejection of Testimony and the Normative Recommendation of Non-Fallacious 'Ad Hominem' Arguments Based on Hume's 'Of Miracles' and Canadian Law.Joel M. Buenting - 2005 - Auslegung 27 (2):1 - 16.
Frans H. Van Eemeren: Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. [REVIEW]Eddo Rigotti - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):261-270.
Added to index2012-06-13
Total downloads33 ( #154,661 of 2,163,615 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #188,991 of 2,163,615 )
How can I increase my downloads?