Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 243–252 | Cite as

Countering Fallacious Moves

Article

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.

Keywords

counter-fallacies fallacies meta-dialogue (derailment of) strategic maneuvering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barth E. M., Krabbe E. C. W. (1982) From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. 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/DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 51–56Google Scholar
  4. 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. 131–159Google Scholar
  5. 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-3-8Google Scholar
  6. 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. 43–58Google Scholar
  7. Hamblin C. L. (1970) Fallacies, Vale Press, Newport News, VAGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacobs S. (2000) Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics. Argumentation 14, 261–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 641–644Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations