Pragma-dialectics and Beyond

نویسنده

  • DANIEL BONEVAC
چکیده

Pragma-dialectics is dynamic, context-sensitive, and multi-agent; it promises theories of fallacy and argumentative structure. But pragma-dialectic theory and practice are not yet fully in harmony. Key definitions of the theory fall short of explicating the analyses that pragma-dialecticians actually do. Many discussions involve more than two participants with different and mutually incompatible standpoints. Success in such a discussion may be more than success against each opponent. Pragma-dialectics does well at analyzing arguments advanced by one party, directed at another party; it does much less well at analyzing arguments directed at several opponents at once or at convincing an audience. I suggest a strategy of construing fallacies as defeasible arguments relying on reasonable default principles but applying them in circumstances in which they are undercut or over-

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

'What matters to Andrew'. The problem of premissary relevance in automated health advisors. Insights from pragma-dialectics.

OBJECTIVE To influence health behavior, communication has to be relevant on an individual level and, thus, fulfill the requirement of premissary relevance. This paper attempts to enrich the design of automated health advisors by, first, reviewing main solutions to the challenge of premissary relevance found in the literature and, second, highlighting the value in this field of the theory of arg...

متن کامل

A Pragma-Dialectical Response to Objectivist Epistemic Challenges

Biro and Siegel have raised two objections against the pragmadialectical approach to argumentation. According to the first, the pragmadialectical theory is not genuinely normative. According to the second, the rejection of justificationism by pragma-dialecticians is unwarranted: they reject justificationism unjustly and they are not consistent in accepting some arguments (‘justifications’) as s...

متن کامل

The Problem of Premissary Relevance

This paper focuses on the issue of premissary relevance as a challenge faced in health promotion interventions. To promote attitude change and influence health behavior, it is crucial that we use premises that are relevant on an individual level. Relevance in argumentation refers both to the fact that the premises should relate to the standpoint at issue, as well as the interlocutors’ acceptanc...

متن کامل

Arguing Antibiotics: A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Medical Decision-Making

Over the past decade, the ideal model of shared decisionmaking has been increasingly promoted as the preferred standard of doctor-patient communication. The model stipulates that doctor and patient should be considered coequal discussion partners that negotiate their preferences to arrive at a shared treatment decision (Edwards and Elwyn 2009). Thereby, the model notably gives rise to the usage...

متن کامل

The Impact of Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence

The research of the Amsterdam School has spread outward across the discipline of argumentation studies like a new day, awakening us to new vistas, casting light on new opportunities, and offering a fresh look at our familiar surroundings. When it first appeared, the pragma-dialectical approach challenged so many existing assumptions that is seemed almost radical, and entirely disrupted the esta...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2003