Thinker · TH-0162
Frans van Eemeren
Frans van Eemeren is a Dutch argumentation theorist at the University of Amsterdam who, with Rob Grootendorst, developed pragma-dialectics. The theory treats argumentation as…
Frans van Eemeren is a Dutch argumentation theorist at the University of Amsterdam who, with Rob Grootendorst, developed pragma-dialectics. The theory treats argumentation as a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion on the merits, and it models that discussion in stages governed by rules for reasonable conduct. Fallacies then appear as violations of those rules. Later work with Peter Houtlosser added the idea of strategic manoeuvring, reconciling reasonableness with rhetorical effectiveness.
Key ideas
- Argumentation is best understood as a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion on the merits.
- A critical discussion passes through stages: confrontation, opening, argumentation and concluding.
- Fallacies are violations of the rules for critical discussion rather than merely invalid inferences.
- Arguers manoeuvre strategically, pursuing both reasonableness and effectiveness at once.
Major works
- Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (1984, with Rob Grootendorst)
- A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach (2004, with Rob Grootendorst)
- Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse (2010)
In the conversation
- Question What is pragma-dialectics, and what makes a “critical discussion” different from ordinary arguing?
In the Coordinates
The questions of philosophy where Frans van Eemeren takes a place, from The Coordinates of Thought.
- 4.2.2 Argumentation Theory What does an argument have to do, besides be valid?