Cantitate/Preț
Produs

Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules: Argumentation Library, cartea 16

Autor Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Bert Meuffels
en Limba Engleză Paperback – 29 noi 2011
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 the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.
Citește tot Restrânge

Toate formatele și edițiile

Toate formatele și edițiile Preț Express
Paperback (1) 60414 lei  6-8 săpt.
  SPRINGER NETHERLANDS – 29 noi 2011 60414 lei  6-8 săpt.
Hardback (1) 61001 lei  6-8 săpt.
  SPRINGER NETHERLANDS – 28 iul 2009 61001 lei  6-8 săpt.

Din seria Argumentation Library

Preț: 60414 lei

Preț vechi: 71075 lei
-15% Nou

Puncte Express: 906

Preț estimativ în valută:
11565 12599$ 9702£

Carte tipărită la comandă

Livrare economică 19 decembrie 24 - 02 ianuarie 25

Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76

Specificații

ISBN-13: 9789400726017
ISBN-10: 9400726015
Pagini: 244
Ilustrații: X, 231 p.
Dimensiuni: 155 x 235 x 13 mm
Greutate: 0.35 kg
Ediția:2009
Editura: SPRINGER NETHERLANDS
Colecția Springer
Seria Argumentation Library

Locul publicării:Dordrecht, Netherlands

Public țintă

Research

Cuprins

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.

Recenzii

From the reviews:
“This book is an excellent contribution to the study of pragma-dialectics. … the present book is an extremely good example of how experimental studies can be designed on the basis of normative theories of argumentation. The authors have succeeded in developing a large set of well thought out experiments, and in reporting clearly about the results.” (Jos Hornikx, Information Design Journal, Vol. 18 (2), 2010)
“This book has varying levels of value to different scholars … . The book has several clear merits. First, it is informative about how people view dialogical fallacies, and these results can be understood independent of the pragma-dialectical framework. Second, the research program offers consistent evidence for the conventional validity of the discussion rules at the heart of pragma-dialectics. And finally, it is a nice example of how programmatic empirical research can assist a theoretical project and move it into the domain of practical application.”­­­ (Dale Hample, Argumentation, Vol. 24, March, 2010)

Textul de pe ultima copertă

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 the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.

Caracteristici

First systematic experimental research of reasonableness conceptions of ordinary arguers Starting from a clearly defined theoretical basis Reporting about a continued series of experimental tests Up to standard with modern methodology Covering a wide range of well known informal fallacies