Results for 'C. W. Krabbe Erik'

1000+ found
Order:
  1. 'Men Don't Think!' [Signed C.W.].W. C. & Men - 1911
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  29
    Book Review:Citizens as Sovereigns. Paul H. Appleby, W. Averell Harriman; The Politics of Freedom: An Analysis of the Modern Democratic State. C. W. Cassinelli; The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. James M. Buchanan, Gordon Tullock. [REVIEW]M. P. C. - 1963 - Ethics 74 (1):65-.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  16
    Book Review:From Max Weber; Essays in Sociology H. H. Gerth, C. W. Mills. [REVIEW]M. M. W. - 1947 - Philosophy of Science 14 (2):173-.
  4.  24
    Dialogue Foundations: Dialogue Logic Revisited: Erik C. W. Krabbe.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):33–49.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5.  7
    II—Erik C. W. Krabbe: Dialogue Logic Revisited.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):33-49.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  14
    Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW]Ton van Haaften - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):345-351.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  40
    Book Review:Symbolic Logic C. I. Lewis, C. H. Langford. [REVIEW]W. C. C. - 1952 - Philosophy of Science 19 (2):180-.
  8.  6
    Book Review:Freedom and Serfdom: An Anthology of Western Thought. Albert Hunold; Relativism and the Study of Man. Helmut Schoeck, James W. Wiggins; The Humanist Frame. Julian Huxley. [REVIEW]W. C. - 1962 - Ethics 72 (3):218-.
  9.  16
    Dialogue Foundations.Wilfrid Hodges & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17-49.
    [Wilfrid Hodges] During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  10.  9
    Christopher W. Tindale, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):127-131.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  11.  5
    Jacobus C. Visser, A Dialogue Game for Critical Discussion: Groundwork in the Formalisation and Computerisation of the Pragma-Dialectical Model of Argumentation. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Erik C. W. Krabbe - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-4.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Reply to My Commentator - Krabbe.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  80
    Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   105 citations  
  14.  1
    The Role of Argument in Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-19.
    The purpose of this paper is to show the pervasive, though often implicit, role of arguments in negotiation dialogue. This holds even for negotiations that start from a difference of interest such as mere bargaining through offers and counteroffers. But it certainly holds for negotiations that try to settle a difference of opinion on policy issues. It will be demonstrated how a series of offers and counteroffers in a negotiation dialogue contains a reconstructible series of implicit persuasion dialogues. The paper (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  5
    Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-22.
    When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, discussants may choose to negotiate for a compromise. Is it legitimate to abandon the search for a resolution, and instead enter into a negotiation that aims at settling the difference of opinion? What is the nature of a compromise, in contradistinction to a resolution? What kinds of argument do participants typically put to use in their negotiation dialogues?
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16.  14
    Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes.Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):291-316.
    In this paper, a solution to the problem of analyzing burden of proof in argumentation is developed by building on the pioneering work of Erik C. W. Krabbe on metadialogues. Three classic cases of burden of proof disputes are analyzed, showing how metadialogue theory can solve the problems they pose. The solution is based on five dialectical requirements: (1) global burden of proof needs to be set at the confrontation stage of a dialogue, (2) there need to be (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  17. Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies.van Laar Jan Albert & C. W. Krabbe Erik - 2016 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 5 (3):315-347.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  24
    Dialogue Foundations: A Sceptical Look: Wilfrid Hodges.Wilfrid Hodges - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):17–32.
    During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather than in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  3
    Dialogue Foundations.Wilfrid Hodges - 2001 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes( 75:17-49.
    [Wilfrid Hodges] During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  19
    Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):453-468.
    This paper explores applications of concepts from argumentation theory to mathematical proofs. Note is taken of the various contexts in which proofs occur and of the various objectives they may serve. Examples of strategic maneuvering are discussed when surveying, in proofs, the four stages of argumentation distinguished by pragma-dialectics. Derailments of strategies are seen to encompass more than logical fallacies and to occur both in alleged proofs that are completely out of bounds and in alleged proofs that are at least (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  21.  27
    About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):27-58.
    We shall investigate the similarities and dissimilarities between old and new dialectic. For the ‘old dialectic’, we base our survey mainly on Aristotle’s Topics and Sophistical Refutations, whereas for the ‘new dialectic’, we turn to contemporary views on dialogical interaction, such as can, for the greater part, be found in Walton’s The New Dialectic. Three issues are taken up: types of dialogue, fallacies, and strategies. Though one should not belittle the differences in scope and outlook that obtain between the old (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  22.  10
    The Formalization of Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):101-119.
    This paper makes an independent start with formalizing the rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions. It does not deal with the well-known code of conduct consisting of ten rules but with the system consisting of fifteen rules on which the code of conduct is based. The rules of this system are scrutinized and problems they raise are discussed. Then a formal dialectical system is defined that reflects most of the contents of these rules. The aim is to elucidate (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23. Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  24.  13
    On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):233-242.
    Any well-structured argumentative exchange must be preceded by some preparatory stages. In the pragma-dialectical four-stage model of critical discussion, the clarification of issues and positions is relegated to the confrontation stage and the other preparatory matters are dealt within the opening stage. In the opening stage, the parties involved come to agree to discuss their differences and to do so by an argumentative exchange rather than by, say, a sequence of bids and offers. They should also come to agree on (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  25.  21
    Meeting in the House of Callias: Rhetoric and Dialectic. [REVIEW]Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):205-217.
    The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe and compare the original goals and perspectives of both rhetoric and dialectic in theory and in practice. Dialectic is the practice and theory of conversations; rhetoric that of speeches. For theory of dialectic, this paper will turn to Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations; for theory of rhetoric, to his Rhetoric. Thus it will appear that rhetoric and dialectic are pretty close. Yet, on the other hand, there is a long tradition of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  26.  32
    Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
    Formal dialectic has its roots in ancient dialectic. We can trace this influence in Charles Hamblin’s book on fallacies, in which he introduced his first formal dialectical systems. Earlier, Paul Lorenzen proposed systems of dialogical logic, which were in fact formal dialectical systems avant la lettre, with roles similar to those of the Greek Questioner and Answerer. In order to make a comparison between ancient dialectic and contemporary formal dialectic, I shall formalize part of the Aristotelian procedure for Academic debates. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  27.  46
    Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  28.  27
    Noncumulative Dialectical Models and Formal Dialectics.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 14 (2):129 - 168.
  29.  17
    It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton - 1993 - Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  30.  2
    The Burden of Criticism.Jan van Laar, Erik C. W. Krabbe & Marcelo Dascal - unknown
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convinc-ingly. 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31.  29
    A Theory of Modal Dialectics.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1986 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (2):191 - 217.
  32.  5
    So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism in Persuation Dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  18
    Note on a Completeness Theorem in the Theory of Counterfactuals.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1978 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):91 - 93.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  34.  69
    Aristotle’s On Sophistical Refutations.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2012 - Topoi 31 (2):243-248.
  35.  8
    Inconsistent Commitments and Commitment to Inconsistencies.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1990 - Informal Logic 12 (1).
    Inconsistent Commitments and Commitment to Inconsistencies.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36. Predicaments of the Concluding Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Argumentative discussion is successful only if, at the concluding stage, both parties can agree about the result of their enterprise. If they can not, the whole discussion threatens to start all over again. Dialectical ruling should prevent this from happening. The paper investigates whether dialectical rules may enforce a decision one way or the other; either by recognizing some arguments as conclusive or some criticisms as devastating. At the end the pragma-dialectical model appears more successful than even its protagonists have (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  1
    The Pragmatics of Deductive Arguments.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38.  10
    Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech?Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.
    Aristotle's illustrations of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are none too convincing. They are tied to Aristotle's theory of categories and to peculiarities of Greek grammar that fail to hold appeal for a contemporary readership. Yet, upon closer inspection, Figure of Speech shows many points of contact with views and problems that inhabit 20th-century analytical philosophy. In the paper, some Aristotelian examples will be analyzed to gain a better understanding of this fallacy. The case of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  7
    Creative Reasoning in Formal Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):483-498.
    Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Commentary on Blair.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  20
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  8
    Else Barth.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):341-343.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  8
    Book Review: John Woods, Paradox and Paraconsistency: Conflict Resolution in the Abstract Sciences (2003). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. Xviii+362, ISBN 0-521-81094-9 (Cloth), 0-521-00934-0 (Paper). [REVIEW]Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (4):495-499.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  9
    Frans H. Van Eemeren (Ed.) (2001), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (3):355-359.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  10
    The Adequacy of Material Dialogue-Games.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1978 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19 (3):321-330.
  46.  7
    Being Right, Admitting That Someone is Right, Being Judged Right. Krabbe, Erik C. W. - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  1
    Reply to David Godden’s Commentary on “Splitting a Difference of Opinion”.van Laar Jan Albert & C. W. Krabbe Erik - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  2
    Winning and Losing for Arguers.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    What roles do “winning” and “losing” have to play in argumentative discussions? We say that someone has “won” a discussion or debate, but also an emphasis on “winning” is often rejected. The question is: can these concepts be so interpreted that justice is done to these antagonistic views? Starting from Aristotelian ideas, the paper purports to establish that the views mentioned above can indeed be reconciled.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  1
    Strategies for Strengthening Presumptions and Generating Ethos by Manifestly Ensuring Accountability.Fred Kauffeld & Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    In argumentation, as elsewhere, speakers strategically engage favourable presumptions by manifestly making themselves accountable for their communicative efforts. Such strategies provide the addressee with reasons to regard the speaker as accountable in specific ways and, via that regard for the speaker, with situation-specific rationales for responding positively to what the speaker says. This paper identifies some resources available to arguers for strengthening, elaborating, and focusing such special presumptions. The paper offers an analysis of Barbara Jordan’s “Statement on the Articles of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Commentary on Godden.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000