Papers by Jan Albert van Laar
Competing, cooperating, deciding: towards a model of deliberative debate, 2021
How can we foster sound argumentation and valid criticism in education? How to help students to a... more How can we foster sound argumentation and valid criticism in education? How to help students to avoid fallacies, resist polarization, respond wisely to misleading information, and how to make them produce arguments that are genuinely responsive to the position of those they address? I sketch a dialogical account of the nature of sound argument and criticism. Then, I discuss two types of argumentative dialogue: persuasion dialogue and negotiation dialogue. Finally, I explain how software applications provide an opportunity for students to analyse, evaluate and produce arguments, and to critically think about the design of discussion procedures. I also discuss a third software application that enables teachers and advanced students to themselves design online discussion procedures, so as to experiment with them and to advance their understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of various design choices. This paper support the idea that students’ argumentative skills will be enhanc...
When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, dis... more When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, discussants may choose to negotiate for a compromise. Is it legitimate to abandon the search for a resolution, and instead enter into a negotiation that aims at settling the difference of opinion? What is the nature of a compromise, in contradistinction to a resolution? What kinds of argument do participants typically put to use in their negotiation dialogues?
By presenting an argument, a proponent commits himself or herself to the adequacy of the connecti... more By presenting an argument, a proponent commits himself or herself to the adequacy of the connection between the argument’s premises and its conclusion. What is this connection, and when is it adequate? I deal with these questions by using insights and techniques from dialectical approaches to argumentation. First, I show that by advancing an argument, the proponent commits himself or herself to its connection proposition, which does not generalize upon the conclusion and premises. When a challenge turns this connection proposition into a connection premise, there may be a particularist defence available, so that the proponent need not commit himself or herself to any generalization of it. Second, I pay attention to situations where the proponent does choose to support the connection premise by means of a general argumentation scheme, showing there to be a variety of ways to justify that scheme.
Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 2014
Argumentation, 2008
This book is written for upper-level undergraduate students who have completed at least one cours... more This book is written for upper-level undergraduate students who have completed at least one course in logic, critical thinking or argumentation. Although the title suggests that the book provides a comprehensive theory, Vorobej deals primarily with the notion of argument, with the cogency of arguments and with how to develop a charitable reading of an argument and display it in a diagram. The book is not about argument schemes, argumentation indicators, dialogue, rhetoric or logical form. Nor is the book about argument evaluation. Norms are being discussed, but from the perspective of reconstructing arguments from a text. Part one of the book is called macrostructure and deals with arguments in canonical form (where they have a conclusion and a set of premises), with the cogency of arguments and with the analysis of so-called normal arguments. Part two is about the microstructure of arguments, i.e. with the more detailed patterns of evidential support. The book contains four hundred exercises with which students can examine the notions and definitions that the book introduces. Still, the book is not merely a textbook, but can also be considered as a scholarly contribution to the study of argumentation. The first part, on the macrostructure of arguments, has three chapters. The first chapter is about the notion of an argument. Vorobej makes it clear that he conceives of an argument as an attempt by an author to convince an audience to do or believe something by an appeal to reasons or evidence. The audience he refers to is the intentional audience, i.e. the persons that the author himself has in mind in his attempt at rational persuasion. The aim of constructing the macrostructure of an argument is ''to provide a perspicuous representation … of that argument's macrostructure as it is conceived by its author'', giving in that way ''primacy to
Argumentation, 2010
How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the ar... more How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.
Argumentation
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interac... more Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred norma...
Argumentation, 2012
Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing... more Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Argumentation, 2024
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interac... more Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme.
Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2021
Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss ... more Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.
Cahiers Sens public, 2019
Criticism may degenerate into quibbling or nitpicking. How can discussants keep quibblers under c... more Criticism may degenerate into quibbling or nitpicking. How can discussants keep quibblers under control? In the paper we investigate cases in which a battle about words replaces a ldiscussion of the matters that are actually at issue as well as cases in which a battle about minor objections replaces a discussion of the major issues. We survey some lines of discussion dealing with these situations in profiles of dialogue.
De argumentatietheorie leert ons wat drogredenen zijn en hoe je erop kunt reageren. Maar wat als ... more De argumentatietheorie leert ons wat drogredenen zijn en hoe je erop kunt reageren. Maar wat als het in een maatschappelijke discussie niet meer gaat om enkele ontsporingen, maar als een deelnemer systematisch de problemen van de andere partij bagatelliseert, of druk zet met dreigementen en morele chantage? Is het mogelijk hier nog iets redelijks tegenover te stellen? Om meer inzicht in deze kwestie te krijgen bekijken we strategieen in de maatschappelijke discussie over de aardbevingen in Gro-ningen. Daarna gaan we na of deze strategieen eerlijk zijn, dat wil zeggen: evenwichtig, doorzichtig en tolerant. Ook onderzoe-ken we de effecten van de keuze voor bepaalde strategieen, waarbij zal blijken dat bij uitzondering een oneerlijke strategie heilzaam kan zijn voor de geschiloplossing. We formuleren enkele richtlijnen voor de strategiekeuze, en leggen tot slot de nadruk op het belang van een maatschappij waarin de vaardigheid om strategieen te beoordelen op eerlijkheid algemeen ver-br...
What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed (alleged) argument... more What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed (alleged) argument of her interlocutor as an argument? In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening oneself with correspondingly strong obligations. We want to specify the fallacies of non-argumentation and their dialectic, i.e., the proper way to criticize them, the appropriate ways for the arguer to react to such criticism, and the appropriate ways for the critic to follow up on these reactions. Among the types of fallacy of non-argumentation, the emphasis will be on the appeal to popular sentiments (argumentum ad populum). Our aim is to reach, for cases of (alleged) non-argumentation, a survey of dialectical possibilities. By making the ...
This position paper of Working Group 2 of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Polic... more This position paper of Working Group 2 of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy Analysis (COST Action CA17132; https://publicpolicyargument.eu) reviews goals and functions of public argumentation. Drawing on a variety of disciplines, the paper introduces basic distinctions and charts out options. It is meant to guide reflection on the conceptual basis for the Action’s subsequent research regarding the analysis, evaluation, and design of public argumentation.
Informal Logic
When can exerting pressure in a public controversy promote reasonable outcomes, and when is it ra... more When can exerting pressure in a public controversy promote reasonable outcomes, and when is it rather a hindrance? We show how negotiation and persuasion dialogue can be intertwined. Then, we examine in what ways one can in a public controversy exert pressure on others through sanctions or rewards. Finally, we discuss from the viewpoints of persuasion and negotiation whether and, if so, how pressure hinders the achievement of a reasonable outcome.
Uploads
Papers by Jan Albert van Laar