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.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2010-08-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-010-9184-5
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (14)

  1. Fallacies
  2. Krabbe, E.C.W. 2001. Strategies in dialectic and rhetoric. In Argumentation and its applications (CD-ROM, ISB…
  3. Rhetoric and argumentation in the beginning of the XXIst century
  4. Mackenzie, J. 1990. Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica 49: 567–583.
    Studia Logica  
  5. Tannen, D. 2002. Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of pragmatics 34: 1651–1669.
    Journal of pragmatics  
Show all 14 →
  1. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective
  2. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach
  3. Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the s…
  4. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis
  5. The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University
  6. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-diale…
  7. van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, C. Ihnen, and M. Lewiński (2010) Contextual considerations in the evaluatio…
  8. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument
  9. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning