In:Exploring Dialogue: Selected essays on argumentation by Erik C. W. Krabbe with contributions by Jan Albert van Laar
Edited by Erik C.W. Krabbe and Jan Albert van Laar
[Argumentation in Context 23] 2026
► pp. 64–80
Chapter 4Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Why argue?
- 3.Why not?
- 4.Many questions
- 5.As discussion starts
- 6.Profiles for equivocation criticism
- 7.Conclusion
Notes References
References (27)
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From
Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and
Argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1987). Næss’s
dichotomy of tenability and
relevance. In Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation:
Across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the
Conference on Argumentation
1986 (pp. 307–316). Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris.
(1992). So
what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion
dialogues. Argumentation 6, 271–283.
(1995). Appeal
to
ignorance. In Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies:
Classical and Contemporary
Readings (pp. 251–264). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
(1995a). Can
we ever pin one down to a formal
fallacy? In Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (University of
Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), II: Analysis and
Evaluation (pp. 333–344). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Also
in Kuipers, Th.A. F., & Mackor, A. R. (Eds.), Cognitive
Patterns in Science and Common Sense: Groningen Studies in
Philosophy of Science, Logic, and
Epistemology (pp. 151–164). Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1995. [= Chapter
1 in this volume]
(1996). Can
we ever pin one down to a formal
fallacy? In Benthem, J. van, Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Veltman, F. (Eds.), Logic
and
Argumentation (pp. 129–141). Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland (reprint
of Krabbe, 1995a).
(1999a). Profiles
of
dialogue. In Gerbrandy, J., Marx, M., Rijke, M. de, & Venema, Y. (Eds.), JFAK:
Essays Dedicated to Johan Van Benthem on the Occasion of his
50th Birthday,
III (pp. 25–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press (Vossiuspers; also on
CD-ROM).
(1999b). The
dialectic of quasi-logical
argument. In Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference of the International
Society for the Study of
Argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 16–19,
1998) (pp. 464–471). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [= Chapter 3 in this
volume]
(2001). The
problem of retraction in critical
discussion. Synthese: An
International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and
Philosophy of
Science 127, 142–159. Also
in Tindale, C. W., Hansen, H. V., & Sveda, (Eds.), Argumentation
at the Century’s Turn (CD-ROM;
Proceedings from the Conference of The Ontario Society for
the Study of
Argumentation, May 13–15,
1999, Brock University, St.
Catharines, Ontario). [= Chapter 7
in this volume]
Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische
Logik [Dialogical
Logic]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). How
to Stop talking to
tortoises. Notre Dame Journal
of Formal
Logic 20, 705–17.
Næss, A. (1966). Communication
and Argument: Elements of Applied
Semantics. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget/London: Allen & Unwin. Translation
by Alastair Hannay of En
del elementære logiske
emner, Oslo, 1947.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech
Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for
the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving
Conflicts of
Opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter/Foris.
(1992). Argumentation,
Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical
Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Laar, J. A. (2001). Equivocation
in dialectical
perspective. To be published
in the proceedings of the
conference “Argument and its Applications” of The Ontario
Society for the Study of
Argumentation, May 17–19,
2001, University of Windsor,
Windsor, Ontario.
(2002). The
use of dialogue profiles for the study of
ambiguity. Paper to be
presented at the Fifth
Conference of the International Society for the Study of
Argumentation (ISSA), June
26–28, 2002.
(1989b). Informal
Logic: A Handbook for Critical
Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1997). Appeal
to Expert Opinion: Arguments from
Authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.