Abstract
Van Eemeren and Houtlosser view fallacies as “derailments of strategic maneuvering” that go against a norm for critical reasonableness. What is to happen if such a derailment is perceived to have taken place? Krabbe (2003) and Jacobs (2000) have discussed the possibilities for continuing the argumentative exchange in a constructive way. Starting from their proposals, van Eemeren and Houtlosser argue that the party who observes that something has gone wrong should maneuver in such a way that at the same time the derailment is recognized and a “re-railment” takes place that brings the discussion back on track. This means that then a meta-dialogue or sub-discussion develops in which the alleged fallacy is responded to and readjusted appropriately. Although this solution has something in common with both Krabbe’s proposal and Jacobs’ proposal, it differs from Krabbe’s proposal because it does not result in just retracting or maintaining the alleged fallacy and it differs from Jacobs’ proposal because it does not allow for making a move that has the appearance of a counter-fallacy.
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., Krabbe E. C. W. (1982) From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst R.: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, WALTER DE Gruyter/Foris, Berlin/Dordrecht
van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1998, ‹Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves: Justifying Pragma-Dialectical Reconstructions’, in J. F. Klumpp (ed.), Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques, Proceedings of the tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta, Utah, August 1997, National Communication Association, Annandale VA, pp. 51–56
van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P. (2002) Strategic Maneuvering 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: 2004. ‹More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of tu quoque’, in H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and Its Applications: Informal Logic @ 25, CD ROM ISBN 0-9683461-2-X-3-8
Grice H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation, in P. Cole, J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 43–58
Hamblin C. L. (1970) Fallacies, Vale Press, Newport News, VA
Jacobs S. (2000) Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics. Argumentation 14, 261–286
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 Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. Countering Fallacious Moves. Argumentation 21, 243–252 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9051-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9051-1