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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Fabrizio Macagno, Commentary on: Jan Albert van Laar's "Criticism in need of clarification"
Reader's Reactions
Fabrizio Macagno, Commentary on: Jan Albert van Laar's "Criticism in need of clarification" (May 2013)
Included in
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?
