Results for 'Jan Albert Laar'

1000+ found
Order:
See also
Jan Albert Van Laar
University of Groningen
  1.  41
    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   8 citations  
  2.  29
    Commentary on Jan Albert van Laar and Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Splitting a Difference of Opinion”.David Godden - unknown
    Jan Albert van Laar and Erik Krabbe’s paper “Splitting a difference of opinion” studies an important type of dialogue shift, namely that from a deliberation dialogue over action or policy options where critical and persuasive argumentation is exchanged about the rational acceptability of the policy options proposed by various parties, to a negotiation dialogue where agreement is reached by a series of compromises, or trade-offs, on the part of each side in the disagreement.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3. The Dialectic of Ambiguity : A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    The three research questions of this study have been: what exactly is active ambiguity?; how should we assess active ambiguities in an argumentative discussion?; what does an adequate dialectical account of active ambiguity look like? These three questions have been answered by giving a definition of active ambiguity, and by elaborating on the properties of active ambiguity. Based on the survey of possible consequences of active ambiguities, and based on the basic division of labour in a persuasion dialogue, we arrived (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  4.  23
    A Pragma-Dialectical Response to Objectivist Epistemic Challenges.Bart Garssen & Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):122-141.
    The epistemologists Biro and Siegel have raised two objections against the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. According to the first objection the pragma-dialectical theory is not genuinely normative. According to the second objection the rejection of justificationism by pragma-dialecticians is unwarranted: they reject justificationism prematurely and they are not consistent in accepting some arguments (‘justifications’) as sound. The first objection is based on what we regard as the misconception that the goal of resolving differences of opinion cannot provide a normative approach. (...)
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  5.  40
    J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (Eds): Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning. [REVIEW]Jan Albert Laar - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):337-344.
  6.  32
    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   6 citations  
  7.  14
    Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton's Theory of Criticism.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):221-230.
    In his theory of criticism, D. N. Walton presupposes that an opponent either critically questions an argument, without supplementing this questioning with any reasoning of her own, or that she puts forward a critical question and supplements it with a counterargument, that is, with reasoning in defense of an opposite position of her own. In this paper, I show that there is a kind of in-between critical option for the opponent that needs to be taken into account in any classification (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  20
    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   7 citations  
  9.  17
    Metadialogues: Krabbe’s Immanent Dialectic. [REVIEW]Peter Houtlosser & Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):205-208.
  10.  19
    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   4 citations  
  11.  31
    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   8 citations  
  12.  15
    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   6 citations  
  13. One-Sided Arguments.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2007 - Synthese 154 (2):307-327.
    When is an argument to be called one-sided? When is putting forward such an argument fallacious? How can we develop a model for critical discussion, such that a fallaciously one-sided argument corresponds to a violation of a discussion rule? These issues are dealt with within ‘the limits of the dialogue model of argument’ by specifying a type of persuasion dialogue in which an arguer can offer complex arguments to anticipate particular responses by a critic.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  14.  15
    Commentary On: Jan Albert van Laar's "Criticism in Need of Clarification".Fabrizio Macagno - unknown
  15.  30
    Room for Maneuver When Raising Critical Doubt.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2008 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (3):pp. 195-211.
  16. Argumentation Schemes From Hamblin's Dialectical Perspective.Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):344-366.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  17.  15
    Arguments That Take Counterconsiderations Into Account.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):240-275.
    This paper examines arguments that take counter- considerations into account, and it does so from a dialogical point of view. According to my account, a counterconsideration is part of a critical reaction from a real or imagined opponent, and an arguer may take it into account in his argument in at least six fully responsive ways. Conductive arguments will be characterized as one of these types. In this manner, the paper aims to show how conducive, and related kinds of argument (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  18.  30
    Criticism in Need of Clarification.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):401-423.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19.  23
    Pragmatic Inconsistency and Credibility.Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):317-334.
    A critic may attack an arguer personally by pointing out that the arguer’s position is pragmatically inconsistent: the arguer does not practice what he preaches. A number of authors hold that such attacks can be part of a good argumentative discussion. However, there is a difficulty in accepting this kind of contribution as potentially legitimate, for the reason that there is nothing wrong for a protagonist to have an inconsistent position, in the sense of committing himself to mutually inconsistent propositions. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  20.  24
    Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):383-398.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  21.  55
    Ambiguity in a Dialectical Perspective.Jan Albert van Laar - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (3).
    The distinction between constitutive and regulative rules is applied to rules for critical discussion that have to do with the use of ambiguous expressions. This leads to a distinction between rule violating fallacies, by which one abandons a critical discussion, and norm violating fallacies, which are in a way admissible within a critical discussion. According to the formal model for critical discussion, proposed in this paper, fallacies of the norm violating type arc not prohibited. Instead, it provides discussants with devices (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  22.  5
    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   1 citation  
  23.  56
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  24.  30
    Ambiguity in Argument.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.
    The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities . However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25.  32
    In the Quagmire of Quibbles: A Dialectical Exploration.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2019 - Synthese 198 (4):3459-3476.
    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   3 citations  
  26.  29
    Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning. [REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):337-344.
  27.  71
    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   11 citations  
  28.  14
    Fallacy Identification in a Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking.Mark Battersby, Sharon Bailin & Jan Albert van Laar - 2015 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 30 (1):9-16.
    The dialectical approach to teaching critical thinking is centred on a comparative evaluation of contending arguments, so that generally the strength of an argument for a position can only be assessed in the context of this dialectic. The identification of fallacies, though important, plays only a preliminary role in the evaluation to individual arguments. Our approach to fallacy identification and analysis sees fallacies as argument patterns whose persuasive power is disproportionate to their probative value.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  29.  30
    Mark Vorobej (2006): A Theory of Argument. [REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):285-290.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30.  13
    Review of Boers, Merel A Controversy on Moral Judgment. [REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2017 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (2):268-270.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  15
    Commentary on Ralph H. Johnson’s “On Distinguishing Between an Objection and a Criticism”.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  18
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  33.  13
    Confrontation and Ridicule.Jan Albert van Laar - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (4):295-314.
    Ridicule can be used in order to create concurrence as well as to en-hance antagonism. This paper deals with ridicule that is used by a critic when he is responding to a standpoint or to a reason advanced in support of a standpoint. Ridicule profits from humor’s good repu-tation, and correctly so, even when it is used in argumentative contexts. However, ridicule can be harmful to a discussion. This paper will deal with ridicule from the perspective of strategic maneuvering between (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34.  12
    “I Suppose You Meant to Say...”: Licit and Illicit Manoeuvring in Argumentative Confrontations.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    When interlocutors start to talk at cross purposes it becomes less likely that they will be able to resolve their differences of opinion. Still, a critic, in the confrontation stage of a discussion, should be given some room of manoeuvre for rephrasing and even for revising the arguer’s position. I will distinguish between licit and illicit applications of this form of strategic manoeuvring by stating three soundness conditions.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  10
    Book Review. [REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):285-290.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36.  10
    Commentary on Reygadas & Guzman.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  8
    The Charge of Ambiguity.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  4
    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  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  3
    Commentary on Walton.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40.  2
    Commentary On: Cathal Woods' "The Language and Diagramming of Rejection and Objection".Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Reason to Dissent. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. III.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications+.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. Reason to Dissent. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  10
    Be Reasonable!Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2021 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 10 (2):226-244.
    Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  4
    Theoretical Signposts for Tracing Spirituality Within the Fluid Decision-Making of a Mobile Virtual Reality.Jan-Albert Van den Berg - 2012 - Hts Theological Studies 68 (2).
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  47.  16
    The Story of the Hashtag: A Practical Theological Tracing of the Hashtag Symbol on Twitter.Jan Albert Van den Berg - 2014 - Hts Theological Studies 70 (1).
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  15
    Tweeting Dignity: A Practical Theological Reflection on Twitter’s Normative Function.Jan Albert Van den Berg - 2017 - Hts Theological Studies 73 (4):1-7.
    Social media makes an important contribution to a rapidly changing world in which various domains of meaning are described anew. The evolving nature and dynamic character of social media therefore provides for a rich praxis terrain with which to interact from a practical theological orientation. More specifically associated with the theme of this contribution, the social media sphere also provides an excellent space not only to rethink but also to reenact expressions of dignity in society. The research is facilitated from (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  8
    ’N (Outo)Biografiese Twitter-Teologie.Jan-Albert Van den Berg - 2016 - Hts Theological Studies 72 (4).
    An biographical Twitter-theology. Due to the increasing challenges created by an evolving digital world, traditional expressions of the Christian faith could become irrelevant for a fast-paced world. Through an autobiographical orientation, a search for meaningful personal expressions of the Christian faith on Twitter is traced and mapped down. Facilitated through a practical-theological inquiry and employing a qualitative empirical research methodology, personal aphorisms of the Christian faith on Twitter are traced down and presented as possible examples of a relevant digital autobiographical (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  4
    Tweeting #Humanwaste: A Practical Theological Tracing of #Humanwaste as a Trend on Twitter.Jan Albert Van den Berg - 2014 - Hts Theological Studies 70 (2).
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 1000