Abstract
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. If so, any such charge seems to be irrelevant. The questions to be answered in this essay are: what, if any, is the dialectical rationale for this type of criticism, and in what situations, if any, is this kind of charge dialectically legitimate? It will be shown that these attacks can be dialectically legitimate, in special circumstances, and that they can be seen as strategic␣manoeuvres where a party attempts to reconcile his dialectical and his rhetorical objectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barth E. M., E. C. W. Krabbe 1982 From Axiom to Dialogue : A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. De Gruyter, Berlin
Bartlett S. J. 1988 Hoisted by their own Petards: Philosophical Positions that Self-Destruct. Argumentation 2, 221–232
Brinton A. 1985 A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63, 50–63
Brinton A. 1986 Ethotic Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3, 245–258
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 1988 Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 2, 271–291
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 1992a Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 1992b Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation 6, 141–159
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University, Cambridge
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, S. Jacobs 1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa/London
van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999a, ‹Rhetoric in Pragma-Dialectics’, Argumentation, interpretation, and translation. Electronic journal 1, 1
van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999b, ‹Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 168–167
Eemeren F. H. van, P. Houtlosser 2002 Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 131–159
van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‹More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of Tu Quoque’, in H. V. Hansen, Ch.W. Tindale, J.␣A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications. Proceedings of the conference organised by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation in May 2001, CD-ROM, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, CA
Harrison J. 1995 Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism and the Fallacy of Pragmatic Inconsistency. Argumentation 9, 595–609
Johnson R. 2000 Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Krabbe E. C. W. 1990 Inconsistent Commitments and Commitment to Inconsistencies. Informal logic 12, 33–42
Krabbe, E. C. W.: 2004, ‹Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric’ in H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto, in Argumentation and its Applications. Proceedings of the conference organised by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation in May 2001, CD-ROM, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, CA
Krabbe, E. C. W.: 2003, ‹Metadialogues’, in F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644
van Laar, J. A.: 2003, The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Retrievable from http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/249337959
Laar, J. A. van 2007 One-Sided Arguments. Synthese 154, 307–327
Pornpitakpan C. 2004 The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34, 243–281
Rees M. A. van 2001 Argument Interpretation and Reconstruction. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 165–199
Walton D. N. 1987 The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1, 317–331
Walton D. N. 1998 Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
Walton D. N. 1999 Ethotic Arguments and Fallacies: The Credibility Function in Multi-Agent Dialogue Systems. Pragmatics & Cognition 7, 177–203
Walton D. N., E. C. W. Krabbe 1995 Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York, New York
Woods J. 2004 The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent-Based Reasoning. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Woods J., D. N. Walton: 1989, Fallacies: Selected Papers. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Laar, J.A. Pragmatic Inconsistency and Credibility. Argumentation 21, 317–334 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9049-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9049-8