Browsing All posts tagged under »critiques«

The noncooperative pragmatics of arguing

July 13, 2012

0

As seen in the OJ Simpson criminal trial, arguing can be both noncooperative and normatively good.

Johnstone’s still-unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory

July 13, 2012

0

Given the pragmatic turn recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product.

Comments on Scott Jacobs’ ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics’

July 13, 2012

0

I lay out the basic working principles of a normative pragmatic approach to argumentation.

Good argumentation without resolution

July 13, 2012

0

A case study of the debate over US entry into the first Gulf War shows that there can be good argumentation that does not aim at resolution.

Pereman, adhering and conviction

July 13, 2012

0

Cite: Goodwin, Jean. “Perelman, Adhering and Convictions.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 28 (1995): 215-33. Abstract: Perelman’s theory of argumentation is based on a one-dimensional psychology of adherence: people stick to propositions, with various degrees of strength. This is inadequate to account for the rhetorical force of the convictions people commit themselves to–which become an aspect of their […]