Criticism in Need of Clarification

OnderzoeksoutputAcademicpeer review

3 Citaten (Scopus)
442 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

It furthers the dialectic when the opponent is clear about what motivates and underlies her critical stance, even if she does not adopt an opposite standpoint, but merely doubts the proponent’s opinion. Thus, there is some kind of burden of criticism. In some situations, there should an obligation for the opponent to offer explanatory counterconsiderations, if requested, whereas in others, there is no real dialectical obligation, but a mere responsibility for the opponent to cooperate by providing her motivations for being critical. In this paper, it will be shown how a set of dialogue rules may encourage an opponent, in this latter type of situation, to provide her counterconsiderations, and to do so at an appropriate level of specificity. Special attention will be paid to the desired level of specificity. For example, the critic may challenge a thesis by saying “Why? Says who?,” without conveying whether she could be convinced by an argument from expert opinion, or from position to know, or from popular opinion. What are fair dialogue rules for dealing with less than fully specific criticism?
Originele taal-2English
Pagina's (van-tot)401-423
TijdschriftArgumentation
Volume28
Nummer van het tijdschrift4
Vroegere onlinedatum11-jan-2014
DOI's
StatusPublished - 2014

Citeer dit