Controversy and confrontation : relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory / / edited by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen

• Record Nr.: UNINA9910829199203321
• Pubbl/distr/stampa: Amsterdam ; ; Philadelphia, : John Benjamins Pub., c2008
• ISBN: 1-282-10469-1; 9786612104695; 90-272-9087-3
• Edizione: [1st ed.]
• Descrizione fisica: xiii, 278 p. : ill
• Collana: Controversies, , 1574-1583 ; ; v. 6
• Altri autori (Persone): EemerenF. H. van <1946-> (Frans Hendrik); GarssenBart
• Disciplina: 808.53
• Soggetti: Debates and debating; Logic; Persuasion (Rhetoric); Pragmatics; Reasoning
• Lingua di pubblicazione: Inglese
• Formato: Materiale a stampa
• Livello bibliografico: Monografia
• Note generali: Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph
• Nota di bibliografia: Includes bibliographical references and index.
• Nota di contenuto: Controversy and Confrontation -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- Preface -- List of contributors -- Controversy and confrontation in argumentative discourse -- 1. Controversies as argumentative confrontations -- 2. Argumentative confrontations in a dialectical perspective -- 3. Connections between argumentation theory and the analysis of controversies -- 4. Exploring the prospects of joint efforts -- References -- Dichotomies and types of debate -- 1. Introduction* -- 2. Dichotomy and division -- 3. Plato's predicament -- 4. Dichotomies as strategic argumentative tools -- 5. Dichotomization and de-dichotomization in debate -- 5.1 Natural right vs. historicism -- 5.2 Fact vs. value -- 5.3 Combining dichotomization with de-dichotomization? -- 6. Dichotomization at the meta-level -- 7. De-dichotomization at the meta-level -- 8. Re-dichotomizing a de-dichotomized triad? -- References -- Charles Darwin versus George Mivart -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Analytical tools -- 3. The concrete case -- 3.1 The problems -- 3.1.1 Darwin's problem -- 3.1.2 Mivart's ; problem -- 3.2 Answers -- 3.2.1 Darwin's answer -- 3.2.2 Mivart's answer -- 3.3 Motivations -- 3.3.1 Darwin's motivations -- 3.3.2 Mivart's motivations -- 3.4 Presuppositions -- 3.4.1 Darwin's presuppositions -- 3.4.2 Mivart's presuppositions -- 3.5 General argument -- 3.5.1 Darwin's general argument -- 3.5.2 Mivart's argument -- 3.6 Argumentative strategies -- 3.6.1 Darwin's argumentative strategies -- 3.6.2 Mivart's argumentative strategies -- 3.7 Objections and responses -- 3.7.1 Mivart's objections -- 3.7.2 Darwin's responses -- 4. Conclusion -- References -- Scientific demarcation and metascience -- 1. The NAS and the Nature of Science -- 2. Climate change science in a metascientific vacuum: A hermeneutical thought experiment -- References.; Reforming the Jews, rejecting marginalization -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The debate -- 3. Friedländer's arguments -- 3.1 The critique -- 3.2 The project -- 3.3 Vernűnftelei: Conversion and the "sophistic" rejection of religious ceremonies -- 4. Teller's answer: A polite rebuttal -- 5. Schleiermacher's refutation -- 5.1 The death of judaism -- 6. The freedom of religious choice -- 7. Controversy and debate in the age of reason: Strategies and realities -- References -- Communication principles for controversies -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Types of communication principles -- 3. Properties of communication principles and their contexts of application -- 4. The principle of point-by-point refutation -- 5. Politeness principles -- 6. Conclusion -- References -- On the role of pragmatics, rhetoric and dialectic in scientific controversies -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The model -- 3. The pragmatic, rhetorical and dialectical uses of natural language in the practice of science -- 4. An example of scientific controversy -- 5. Concluding remarks -- References -- A "dialectic ladder" of refutation and dissuasion -- 1. Introduction* -- 2. Refutation and dissuasion in conflict situations -- 3. The Dissuasion Model -- 4. Culmination and crisis of the Dissuasion Model -- 5. A reforming ladder -- 6. Conclusion -- References -- Responding to objections -- 1. Background: The Intuition* -- 2. Possible ways of responding to an objection -- 3. The identity of an argument -- 4. Some examples -- 5. The fertility of an argument -- 6. Conclusion -- References -- Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility -- 1. Introduction* -- 2. Critical discussion -- 3. Inconsistency in a critical discussion -- 4. Rhetorical and dialectical aims in argumentative practice -- 5. Inconsistency in argumentative practice -- 6. Three uses of pointing out a pragmatic inconsistency.; 7. Pointing out a pragmatic inconsistency as a form of strategic manoeuvring -- 8. Soundness conditions -- 9. Conclusion -- References -- Reasonableness in confrontation -- 1. Aims -- 2. The conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules -- 3. The unreasonableness of ad hominem fallacies -- 4. The strategy of convergent operationalism -- 4.1 The first method: Adding ad hominem indicators -- 4.2 The second method: Manipulation of discussion contexts -- 4.3 The third method: Justifications of reasonableness judgments -- 4.4 The fourth method: Fallacious vs. non-fallacious personal attacks -- 4.5 The fifth method: A statistical removal of the co-variate politeness -- 5. An exploration: The relationship between reasonableness and persuasiveness -- References -- Managing disagreement space in multiparty deliberation -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Background and analytic approach -- 2.1 The setting -- 2.2 The opening speech -- 2.3 Disagreement management -- 2.4 Commitments and obligations in proposing -- 2.5 Initiating and completing proposals -- 3. Analysis -- 3.1 Expanding disagreement in multi-party deliberation -- 3.2 Summary -- 3.3 Managing ; disagreement expansion in multiparty deliberation -- 3.4 Orienting to patterns for reasoning about proposals -- 3.5 Framing interaction and the meeting event -- 3.6 Re-framing the opening speech as an incomplete proposal -- 4. Discussion and conclusion -- References -- Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education -- 1. Theoretical background -- 2. Predicaments -- 3. Case study: The controversy over the "science of abstinence" -- 3.1 Section by section commentary -- 3.2 Marburger's case -- 3.3 Managing the disagreement space around abstinence-only sex education -- 3.4 Managing the "politicization" disagreement space.; 3.5 The complexity of interlocking disagreement spaces -- 4. Conclusion -- References -- Rhetoric of science, pragma-dialectics, and science studies -- 1. Science studies and rhetoric of science -- 2. Pera's 'rhetoric' of science -- 3. The pragma-dialectical potential for science studies -- 4. Terrains of applicability -- 5. Conclusion -- References -- Scientific controversies and the pragma-dialectical model -- 1. Incorporating argument-analysis into the study of scientific debates* -- 2. Background to the Newton-Lucas correspondence -- 3. Rhetorical accounts of the controversy -- 4. Shortcomings of rhetorical approaches and advantages of dialectical models -- 5. The reconstruction and analysis of Lucas' first letter: The issues -- 6. Earlier evaluations of Lucas's critique -- 7. Evaluating evaluations of historians -- 7.1 Issue (1): The elongation of the image -- 7.2 Issue (2): The shape of the image -- 7.3 Issue (3): The Newtonian theory -- 7.4 The role of experiments -- 7.5 Benefits of a detailed reconstruction -- 8. Newton's first answer -- 8.1 Responding to issues (1) and (2): Taking up the challenge -- 8.2 Difficulties of incorporating rhetorical insights in the pragma-dialectical model -- 9. Not responding to issue (3): Newton's manoeuvring -- 9.1 Radical contextualization of methodology -- 9.2 The opening stage - a precursor to the argumentation stage? -- 10. Conclusion -- References -- Index -- The series Controversies.
• Sommario/riassunto: The essays that are collected in Controversy and Confrontation provide a closer insight into the relationship between controversy and confrontation that deepens our understanding of the functioning of argumentative discourse in managing differences of opinion. Their authors stem from two backgrounds. First, the controversy scholars Dascal, Marras, Euli, Regner, Ferreira, and Lessl discuss historical controversies in science, both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective; Saim concentrates on a historical controversy; Fritz provides a historical perspective on controversies by analyzing communication principles. Second the argumentation scholars Johnson, van Laar, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels address theoretical or empirical aspects of argumentative confrontation; Aakhus and Vasilyeva examine argumentative discourse from the perspective of conversation analysis; Jackson analyzes argumentative confrontation in a recent debate between scientists and politicians. Last but not least, two contributors, Kutrovátz and Zemplén, make an attempt to bridge the study of historical controversy and the study of argumentation.