LEADER 03839nam a22005655i 4500
001 810667
003 TR_AnAIT
005 20260131014358
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 100301s2009 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 |a9789048126149|9978-90-481-2614-9
024 7 |a10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9|2doi
041 |aeng
049 |aTürk Tarih Kurumu Kütüphanesi
050 4|aP101-120
072 7|aCFA|2bicssc
072 7|aPHI038000|2bisacsh
072 7|aCFA|2thema
082 04|a149.94|223
090 |aDK/11941
100 1 |avan Eemeren, Frans H.|eauthor.|4aut|4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
245 10|aFallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness|h[electronic resource] :|bEmpirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules /|cby Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Bert Meuffels.
250 |a1st ed. 2009.
264 1|aDordrecht :|bSpringer Netherlands :|bImprint: Springer,|c2009.
300 |aX, 231 p.|bonline resource.
336 |atext|btxt|2rdacontent
337 |acomputer|bc|2rdamedia
338 |aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
347 |atext file|bPDF|2rda
490 1 |aArgumentation Library,|x2215-1907 ;|v16
505 0 |aTheoretical Background and Organization of the Study -- Considerations Regarding the Design of the Study -- Ad Hominem Fallacies: An Exemplary Study -- The Confrontation Stage: The Freedom Rule -- The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I) -- The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend (II) -- The Argumentation Stage: The Argument Scheme Rule -- The Concluding Stage: The Concluding Rule -- Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.
520 |aIn Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.
650 0|aLanguage and languages|xPhilosophy.
650 0|aLogic.
650 0|aPhilosophy.
650 0|aApplied linguistics.
650 14|aPhilosophy of Language.
650 24|aLogic.
650 24|aPhilosophy.
650 24|aApplied Linguistics.
700 1 |aGarssen, Bart.|eauthor.|4aut|4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
700 1 |aMeuffels, Bert.|eauthor.|4aut|4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
710 2 |aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 |tSpringer Nature eBook
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789048126132
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789048126156
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789400726017
830 0|aArgumentation Library,|x2215-1907 ;|v16
856 40|uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9
912 |aZDB-2-SHU
912 |aZDB-2-SXPR
950 |aHumanities, Social Sciences and Law (SpringerNature-11648)
950 |aPhilosophy and Religion (R0) (SpringerNature-43725)