publication . Article . 2010

Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An analysis and evaluation

van Laar, Jan Albert;
Open Access
  • Published: 18 Apr 2010 Journal: Argumentation, volume 24, pages 383-398 (issn: 0920-427X, eissn: 1572-8374, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Springer Nature
Abstract
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 within an eristic discussion.
Subjects
free text keywords: Philosophy, Linguistics and Language, Social psychology, Critical discussion, Sociology, Argumentation theory, Political communication, Communication studies, Epistemology, Argumentative, Bluff, Eristic, Argumentative bluff, Eristic discussion, Dialogue types, Fallacies

Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragmadialectical perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.

Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 2004, A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [OpenAIRE]

Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1999, 'Delivering the goods in critical discussion', in F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and C.A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 168-167. [OpenAIRE]

Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2002, 'Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance', in F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 131-159.

Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2005, 'Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytical model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity', in D. Hitchcock (ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Hamilton, pp. 75-84.

Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue