37 found
Order:
See also
Jan Albert Van Laar
University of Groningen
  1.  21
    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  
  2.  53
    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   20 citations  
  3.  24
    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   2 citations  
  4.  18
    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   3 citations  
  5.  28
    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   7 citations  
  6.  17
    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   4 citations  
  7.  19
    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   9 citations  
  8.  13
    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  
  9.  4
    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  
  10.  13
    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  
  11.  67
    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. 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   7 citations  
  13. Argumentation Schemes From Hamblin's Dialectical Perspective.Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):344-366.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  14.  24
    Room for Maneuver When Raising Critical Doubt.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2008 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (3):pp. 195-211.
  15.  8
    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   2 citations  
  16.  11
    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  
  17.  27
    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   2 citations  
  18.  21
    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   4 citations  
  19.  25
    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  
  20.  20
    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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  21.  48
    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   3 citations  
  22.  28
    Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning. [REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):337-344.
  23.  15
    Metadialogues: Krabbe’s Immanent Dialectic. [REVIEW]Peter Houtlosser & Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):205-208.
  24.  29
    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  
  25.  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  
  26.  12
    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  
  27.  11
    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  
  28.  10
    Commentary on Reygadas & Guzman.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  10
    “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  
  30.  8
    Book Review. [REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):285-290.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  6
    The Charge of Ambiguity.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  3
    Commentary on Walton.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  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  
  34. 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  
  35. 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  
  36. 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  
  37. 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