With the aid of a series of interlinked empirical investigations, we attempt to systematically determine whether and to what extent the norms that ordinary arguers generally speaking take (or say they take) into account when participating in argumentative discourse are in accordance with the rules of the ideal model of critical discussion. To exclude interfering variables and to be able to track the influence of various factors on the judgment concerning the permissibility of certain discussion moves, experimental research was performed in which constructed discussion fragments were employed in which a particular pragma-dialectical discussion rule was sometimes, and sometimes not, violated. In brief, constructed dialogues were used in which a fallacy was committed, or not committed, by the discussion participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See for instance Evans, The Psychology of Deductive Reasoning (1982) and Thinking and Reasoning: Psychological Approaches (1983). At this point it is good to note that these studies cover the cognitive aspects of reasoning and not the use of forms of reasoning in argumentative discussions.
- 2.
There is a similar technique, called “confirmatory factor analysis,” in which a researcher specifies models in advance on the basis of theoretical considerations and then tests these with empirical data. Unlike a strictly explorative factor analysis as that of Bowker and Trapp, a confirmatory factor analysis does offer the possibility of confirming or falsifying a priori specified theories or theoretical models.
- 3.
The only thing that Bowker and Trapp note here is that in contrast to the second factor (“emotions”), “individual elements” relates to “the ideas that constitute the argument.” It should be clear that this determination does not contribute much to the understanding of this assessment criterion.
- 4.
Bowker and Trapp’s (1992, p. 228) conclusion that the judgments of the respondents partially correlate with the reasonableness norms that informal logicians such as Johnson and Blair, and Govier apply, cannot be inferred from the results of their empirical study, in view of (among others) the indeterminacy of the factors obtained by them.
- 5.
We do not know what can be meant by “validity of content.”
- 6.
This last example reveals how problematic this selection is. Firstly, it is not clear why it is “unfair” to treat someone purposefully as a personal enemy. Secondly, this guideline is psychologizing due to the use of the term “purposefully.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., Meuffels, B. (2009). Considerations Regarding the Design of the Study. In: Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Argumentation Library, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2613-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2614-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)