Location

University of Windsor

Document Type

Paper

Keywords

ambiguity, argumentation scheme, burden of criticism, challenge, dialogue rule, presumptive commitment, request for argument, specificity

Start Date

22-5-2013 9:00 AM

End Date

25-5-2013 5:00 PM

Abstract

A critic often conveys what underlies her criticism, but imprecisely, leaving it unclear to the arguer what argumentative strategy to adopt. I elaborate on the opponent's “burden of criticism” by using argumentation schemes. For example, the critic may challenge a thesis by saying “Why? Says who?,” without conveying whether she could be convinced with an argument from expert opinion, or from position to know, or from popularity. What are fair dialogue rules for dealing with unspecific criticism?

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Reader's Reactions

Fabrizio Macagno, Commentary on: Jan Albert van Laar's "Criticism in need of clarification" (May 2013)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 22nd, 9:00 AM May 25th, 5:00 PM

Criticism in need of clarification

University of Windsor

A critic often conveys what underlies her criticism, but imprecisely, leaving it unclear to the arguer what argumentative strategy to adopt. I elaborate on the opponent's “burden of criticism” by using argumentation schemes. For example, the critic may challenge a thesis by saying “Why? Says who?,” without conveying whether she could be convinced with an argument from expert opinion, or from position to know, or from popularity. What are fair dialogue rules for dealing with unspecific criticism?