Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules /
In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from th...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Corporate Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic eBook |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Dordrecht :
Springer Netherlands,
2009.
|
| Series: | Argumentation Library,
16 |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Full Text via HEAL-Link |
Table of Contents:
- Theoretical Background and Organization of the Study
- Considerations Regarding the Design of the Study
- Ad Hominem Fallacies: An Exemplary Study
- The Confrontation Stage: The Freedom Rule
- The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I)
- The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend (II)
- The Argumentation Stage: The Argument Scheme Rule
- The Concluding Stage: The Concluding Rule
- Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.