Page 105 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 105
igor ž. žagar ■ between fallacies and more fallacies?
must observe all the rules that are instrumental to resolving the dispute.
Any infringement of a discussion rule, whichever party commits it and
at whatever stage in the discussion, is a possible threat to the resolution
of a dispute and must therefore be regarded as an incorrect discussion
move. Fallacies are analyzed as such incorrect discussion moves in which
a discussion rule has been violated.
Pragma-dialectics differentiates between four stages (of discussion):
the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and
the concluding stage, and here is a list of ten requirements (“ten com-
mandments”) that represent the basic “code of conduct for rational dis-
cussants” (Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004: pp. 190–195). Violation of
any of these requirements or discussion moves is considered to be a fallacy
(i.e. an obstruction of the resolution of a difference of opinion):
1. Discussants may not prevent each other from advancing standpints
or from calling standpoints into question.
2. Discussants who advance a standpoint may not refuse to defend this
standpoint when requested to do so.
3. Attacks on standpoints may not bear on a standpoint that has not
actually been put forward by the other party.
4. Standpoints may not be defended by non-argumentation or argu-
mentation that is not relevant to the standpoint.
5. Discussants may not falsely attribute unexpressed premises to the
other party, nor disown responsibility for their own unexpressed
premises.
6. Discussants may not falsely present something as an accepted start-
ing point or falsely deny that something is an accepted starting
point.
7. Reasoning that in an argumentation is presented as formally conclu-
sive may not be invalid in a logical sense.
8. Standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended by argu-
mentation that is not presented as based on formally conclusive rea-
soning if the defense does not take place by means of appropriate ar-
gument schemes that are applied correctly.
9. Inconclusive defenses of standpoints may not lead to maintain-
ing these standpoints, and conclusive defenses of standpoints may
not lead to maintaining expressions of doubt concerning these
standpoints.
10. Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently
clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they may not deliberately mis-
interpret the other party’s formulations.
103
must observe all the rules that are instrumental to resolving the dispute.
Any infringement of a discussion rule, whichever party commits it and
at whatever stage in the discussion, is a possible threat to the resolution
of a dispute and must therefore be regarded as an incorrect discussion
move. Fallacies are analyzed as such incorrect discussion moves in which
a discussion rule has been violated.
Pragma-dialectics differentiates between four stages (of discussion):
the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and
the concluding stage, and here is a list of ten requirements (“ten com-
mandments”) that represent the basic “code of conduct for rational dis-
cussants” (Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004: pp. 190–195). Violation of
any of these requirements or discussion moves is considered to be a fallacy
(i.e. an obstruction of the resolution of a difference of opinion):
1. Discussants may not prevent each other from advancing standpints
or from calling standpoints into question.
2. Discussants who advance a standpoint may not refuse to defend this
standpoint when requested to do so.
3. Attacks on standpoints may not bear on a standpoint that has not
actually been put forward by the other party.
4. Standpoints may not be defended by non-argumentation or argu-
mentation that is not relevant to the standpoint.
5. Discussants may not falsely attribute unexpressed premises to the
other party, nor disown responsibility for their own unexpressed
premises.
6. Discussants may not falsely present something as an accepted start-
ing point or falsely deny that something is an accepted starting
point.
7. Reasoning that in an argumentation is presented as formally conclu-
sive may not be invalid in a logical sense.
8. Standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended by argu-
mentation that is not presented as based on formally conclusive rea-
soning if the defense does not take place by means of appropriate ar-
gument schemes that are applied correctly.
9. Inconclusive defenses of standpoints may not lead to maintain-
ing these standpoints, and conclusive defenses of standpoints may
not lead to maintaining expressions of doubt concerning these
standpoints.
10. Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently
clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they may not deliberately mis-
interpret the other party’s formulations.
103
