50 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Erik C. W. Krabbe [55]Erik C. W. Krabbe [1]
  1. 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  
     
    Bookmark   246 citations  
  2.  15
    Criticism and Justification of Negotiated Compromises.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):91-111.
    The paper focuses on conflicts about an already negotiated compromise, taking as its example a debate in Dutch parliament about the approval of the Paris Agreement on climate change of 2015. It deals with a variety of worries that opponents of approval may advance and the arguments in its defense thus invited. It concludes with a profile of dialogue providing reasonable options for those involved in such a conflict.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  52
    The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
    This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, such as objections, critical questions, rebuttals, refutations, counterarguments, and fallacy charges, in order to contribute to the dialogical approach to argumentation. We shall make use of four parameters to characterize distinct types of critical reaction. First, a critical reaction has a focus, for example on the standpoint, or on another part of an argument. Second, critical reactions appeal to some kind of norm, argumentative or other. Third, they each have (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  4.  16
    In the Quagmire of Quibbles: A Dialectical Exploration.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - forthcoming - Synthese:1-18.
    Criticism may degenerate into quibbling or nitpicking. How can discussants keep quibblers under control? In the paper we investigate cases in which a battle about words replaces a discussion of the matters that are actually at issue as well as cases in which a battle about minor objections replaces a discussion of the major issues. We survey some lines of discussion dealing with these situations in profiles of dialogue.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  16
    Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):329-350.
    Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  25
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert van 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  7.  40
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8.  92
    The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1999 - Synthese 127 (1):141-159.
    The problem is to find a model of dialogue that allows retractions where they seem reasonable or even required, and puts sanctions on them whenever they would be disruptive of a well-organized process of dialogue. One ty pe of solution will let retraction rules determine which retractions are permissible, and if permissible what the consequences of retraction are. These rules vary according to the type of dialogue and to the type of commitment to which the retraction per tains. To accommodate (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  9.  11
    Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2016 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 5 (3):315-347.
    Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfairstrategiesvis-à-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10.  39
    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  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  11.  60
    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 (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  12.  16
    The Role of Argument in Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):549-567.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13.  39
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  14.  32
    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  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  15.  11
    Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
  16.  6
    That’s No Argument! The Dialectic of Non-Argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1173-1197.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  17.  6
    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  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  18.  14
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1998 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (1):71-74.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  20.  9
    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  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  21.  21
    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  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  22.  59
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  23. Aristotle’s On Sophistical Refutations.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2012 - Topoi 31 (2):243-248.
  24.  33
    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  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  25.  23
    Christopher W. Tindale, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, Xvii + 218 Pp. Series: Critical Reasoning and Argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):127-131.
  26.  44
    Noncumulative Dialectical Models and Formal Dialectics.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 14 (2):129 - 168.
  27.  10
    The Pragmatics of Deductive Arguments.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
  28.  34
    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  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  29.  44
    A Theory of Modal Dialectics.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1986 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (2):191 - 217.
  30.  10
    The Burden of Criticism.Jan van 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 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31.  33
    Note on a Completeness Theorem in the Theory of Counterfactuals.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1978 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):91 - 93.
  32.  3
    Pressure and Argumentation in Public Controversies.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (3):205-227.
    When can exerting pressure in a public controversy promote reasonable outcomes, and when is it rather a hindrance? We show how negotiation and persuasion dialogue can be intertwined. Then, we examine in what ways one can in a public controversy exert pressure on others through sanctions or rewards. Finally, we discuss from the viewpoints of persuasion and negotiation whether and, if so, how pressure hinders the achievement of a reasonable outcome.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  25
    Arne Næss (1912–2009).Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):527-530.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34.  7
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35.  15
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  36.  9
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  37.  16
    Fundamental Circularities in the Theory of Argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Sometimes pernicious circularities appear in definitions of fundamental concepts of argumentation theory. For instance, in pragma-dialectical theory, the concept of a fallacy and that of a critical discussion aiming at resolving a difference of opinion mutually presuppose one another. A similar relationship obtains, in argumentation theory at large, between the concept of argumentation and that of rationality. Again, the concept of an argumentative dialogue presupposes a concept of statement. Yet, statementhood is sometimes claimed to be determined by a locution’s function (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38.  47
    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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  39.  13
    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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  40.  10
    Commentary on Blair.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41.  22
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  10
    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: Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, Amsterdam, Xiv + 153 Pp.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):457-460.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  17
    The Adequacy of Material Dialogue-Games.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1978 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19 (3):321-330.
  44.  11
    Commentary on Michel Dufour's "On the Difference Between Fallacy and Sophism".Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
  45.  13
    Frans H. Van Eemeren (Ed.) (2001), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (3):355-359.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  8
    Else Barth.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):341-343.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  11
    Being Right, Admitting That Someone is Right, Being Judged Right. Krabbe, Erik C. W. - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48.  2
    Commentary on Godden.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  1
    Reply to My Commentator - Krabbe.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Empirical Logic and Public Debate: Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth.Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renée José Dalitz & Pier A. Smit (eds.) - 1993 - Rodopi.
    Empirical Logic and Public Debate supplies a large number of previously unpublished papers that together make up a survey of recent developments in the field of empirical logic. It contains theoretical contributions, some of a more formal and some of an informal nature, as well as numerous contemporary and historical case studies. The book will therefore be attractive both to those who wish to focus upon the theory and practice of discussion, debate, arguing, and argument, as well as to those (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark