•  55
    Ambiguity in a Dialectical Perspective
    Informal Logic 21 (3). 2001.
    The distinction between constitutive and regulative rules is applied to rules for critical discussion that have to do with the use of ambiguous expressions. This leads to a distinction between rule violating fallacies, by which one abandons a critical discussion, and norm violating fallacies, which are in a way admissible within a critical discussion. According to the formal model for critical discussion, proposed in this paper, fallacies of the norm violating type arc not prohibited. Instead, i…Read more
  •  69
    About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies
    with Erik C. W. Krabbe
    Informal Logic 27 (1): 27-58. 2007.
    We shall investigate the similarities and dissimilarities between old and new dialectic. For the ‘old dialectic’, we base our survey mainly on Aristotle’s Topics and Sophistical Refutations, whereas for the ‘new dialectic’, we turn to contemporary views on dialogical interaction, such as can, for the greater part, be found in Walton’s The New Dialectic. Three issues are taken up: types of dialogue, fallacies, and strategies. Though one should not belittle the differences in scope and outlook tha…Read more
  •  30
    Mark Vorobej (2006): A Theory of Argument (review)
    Argumentation 23 (2): 285-290. 2009.
  •  13
    Confrontation and Ridicule
    Informal Logic 28 (4): 295-314. 2008.
    Ridicule can be used in order to create concurrence as well as to en-hance antagonism. This paper deals with ridicule that is used by a critic when he is responding to a standpoint or to a reason advanced in support of a standpoint. Ridicule profits from humor’s good repu-tation, and correctly so, even when it is used in argumentative contexts. However, ridicule can be harmful to a discussion. This paper will deal with ridicule from the perspective of strategic maneuvering between the individual…Read more
  •  40
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance
    with Erik C. W. Krabbe
    Argumentation 27 (2): 201-224. 2013.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether there are normati…Read more
  •  10
    The burden of criticism
    with Erik C. W. Krabbe
    Argumentation 27 (2): 201-224. 2013.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convinc-ingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of ‘directiveness’ that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether and to what exte…Read more
  •  36
    Argument Schemes from the Point of View of Hamblin's Dialectic
    Informal Logic 31 (4): 344-366. 2011.
    This paper aims at a normative account of non-deductive argumentation schemes in the spirit of Hamblin’s dialectical philosophy. First, three principles are presented that characterize Hamblin’s dialectical stance. Second, argumentation schemes, which have hardly been examined in Hamblin’s book Fallacies, shall be dealt with by applying these principles, taking an argumentation scheme from authority as the leading example. Third, a formal dialectical system, along the lines indicated by Hamblin,…Read more
  •  45
    That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation
    with Erik Krabbe
    Synthese 192 (4): 1173-1197. 2015.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening oneself …Read more