Reasonableness in situated discourse: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring
Reasonableness in situated discourse: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring

Summary/Abstract: In the pragma-dialectical approach fallacies are defined as violations of rules for critical discussion which manifest themselves in derailments of strategic manoeuvring. These may easily escape attention because they can be very similar to sound instances of strategic manoeuvring. Strategic manoeuvring only derails into fallaciousness if it goes against the norms for having a reasonable exchange embodied in the rules for critical discussion. This means in practice that the rgumentative moves that were made are not in agreement with the relevant criteria for complying with a particular norm. These criteria vary to some extent according to the argumentative context and, in so far as this is the case, they are determined by the soundness conditions the argumentative moves have to fulfill to remain within the bounds of dialectical reasonableness in the activity type concerned. Fallacy judgments are in the end contextual judgments that depend on the specific circumstances of situated argumentative acting. The criteria for determining whether or not a certain norm for critical discussion has been violated may depend on the institutional conventions of the argumentative activity type concerned. This does not mean that there are no clear criteria for determining whether the strategic manoeuvring has gone astray, but only that the specific shape these criteria take may vary from the one argumentative activity to the othe.

• Details
• Contents