Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 317–334 | Cite as

Pragmatic Inconsistency and Credibility

Article

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.

Keywords

arguer higher order conditions for resolution metadialogue pragmatic inconsistency protagonist protagonist credibility soundness conditions source credibility strategic manoeuvring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barth E. M., E. C. W. Krabbe 1982 From Axiom to Dialogue : A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. De Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett S. J. 1988 Hoisted by their own Petards: Philosophical Positions that Self-Destruct. Argumentation 2, 221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinton A. 1985 A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63, 50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinton A. 1986 Ethotic Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3, 245–258Google Scholar
  5. Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 1988 Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 2, 271–291Google Scholar
  6. Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 1992a Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.JGoogle Scholar
  7. Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 1992b Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation 6, 141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst 2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, S. Jacobs 1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa/LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999a, ‹Rhetoric in Pragma-Dialectics’, Argumentation, interpretation, and translation. Electronic journal 1, 1Google Scholar
  11. 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. 168–167Google Scholar
  12. 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. 131–159Google Scholar
  13. 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, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison J. 1995 Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism and the Fallacy of Pragmatic Inconsistency. Argumentation 9, 595–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson R. 2000 Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Krabbe E. C. W. 1990 Inconsistent Commitments and Commitment to Inconsistencies. Informal logic 12, 33–42Google Scholar
  17. 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, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 641–644Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Laar, J. A. van 2007 One-Sided Arguments. Synthese 154, 307–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pornpitakpan C. 2004 The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34, 243–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rees M. A. van 2001 Argument Interpretation and Reconstruction. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 165–199Google Scholar
  23. Walton D. N. 1987 The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1, 317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walton D. N. 1998 Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, ALGoogle Scholar
  25. Walton D. N. 1999 Ethotic Arguments and Fallacies: The Credibility Function in Multi-Agent Dialogue Systems. Pragmatics & Cognition 7, 177–203Google Scholar
  26. Walton D. N., E. C. W. Krabbe 1995 Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Woods J. 2004 The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent-Based Reasoning. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. Woods J., D. N. Walton: 1989, Fallacies: Selected Papers. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/ProvidenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamSpuistraat 134AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Theoretical PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenOude Boteringestraat 52GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations