Bart Garssen – författare

Pondering on Problems of Argumentation is a collection of twenty essays brought together for anyone who is interested in theoretical issues in the study of argumentation. This collection of papers gives the reader an insightful and balanced view of the kind of theoretical issues argumentation theorists are currently concerned with. Because most of the perspectives on argumentation that are en vogue are represented, this volume provides a multidisciplinary and even interdisciplinary outlook on the current state of affairs in argumentation theory. Some of the contributions in Pondering on Problems of Argumentation deal with problems of argumentation that have been recognized as theoretical issues for a considerable time, like the problems of fallaciousness and identifying argumentation structures. Other contributions discuss issues that have become a focus of attention only recently or regained their prominence, such as the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric, and the strategic use of the argumentative technique of dissociation. In five separate sections papers are included dealing with argumentative strategies, problems of norms of reasonableness and fallaciousness, types of argument and argument schemes the structure of argumentation and rules for advocacy and discussion.

This volume comprises a selection of contributions to the theorizing about argumentation that have been presented at the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), held in Amsterdam in July 2018. 

The  chapters included provide a general theoretical perspective on central topics in argumentation theory, such as argument schemes and the fallacies. Some contributions concentrate on the treatment of the concept of conductive argument. Other contributions are dedicated to specific issues such as the justification of questions, the occurrence of mining relations, the role of exclamatives, argumentative abduction, eudaimonistic argumentation and a typology of logical ways to counter an argument. In a number of cases the theoretical problems addressed are related to a specific type of context, such as the burden of proof in philosophical argumentation, the charge of committing a genetic fallacy in strategic manoeuvring in philosophy,the necessity of community argument, and connection adequacy for arguments with institutional warrants.

The volume offers a great deal of diversity in its breadth of coverage of argumentation theory and wide geographic representation from North and South America to Europe and China.

This volume presents a selection of papers reflecting key theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Its six sections are devoted to specific themes, including the analysis and evaluation of argumentation, argument schemes and the contextual embedding of argumentation. The section on general perspectives on argumentation discusses the trends of empiricalization, contextualization and formalization, offers descriptions of the analytical and evaluative tools of informal logic, and highlights selected principles that argumentation theorists do and do not agree upon. In turn, the section on linguistic approaches to argumentation focuses on the problem of distinguishing between explanation and argument, while also elaborating on the role of verbal indicators of argument schemes. All essays included in this volume point out notable recent developments in the study of argumentation.

In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.

The Handbook Argumentation Theory provides an up to date survey of the various theoretical contributions to the development of argumentation theory for all scholars interested in argumentation, informal logic and rhetoric. It describes the historical roots of modern argumentation theory that are still an important theoretical background to contemporary approaches. Because of the complexity, diversity and rate of developments in argumentation theory, there is a real need for an overview of the state of the art, the main approaches that can be distinguished and the distinctive features of these approaches. The Handbook covers classical and modern backgrounds to the study of argumentation, the New Rhetoric developed by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, the Toulmin model, formal approaches, informal logic, communication and rhetoric, pragmatic approaches, linguistic approaches and pragma-dialectics. The Handbook is co-authored by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,  Bart Verheij  and Jean Wagemans, who are a coherent and prominent writing team whose expertise covers the whole field. The authors are assisted by an international Editorial Board consisting of outstanding argumentation scholars whose fields of interest are represented in the volume.

Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory brings together twenty exploratory studies on important subjects of research in contemporary argumentation theory. The essays are based  on papers that were presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) in Amsterdam in June 2010. They give an impression of the nature and the variety of the kind of research that has recently been carried out in the study of argumentation.

The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating theoretical perspectives on argumentation. Subsequently, some views are explained on the intriguing topics of ‘dissensus’ and ‘deep disagreement’. After a discussion of three different approaches to the treatment of types of argumentation some classical themes from antique argumentation theory are revisited. The new research area of visual argumentation is explored in the next part. The volume concludes with three reports of experimental studies concerning argumentative discourse.

The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating theoretical perspectives on argumentation. Subsequently, some views are explained on the intriguing topics of ‘dissensus’ and ‘deep disagreement’. After a discussion of three different approaches to the treatment of types of argumentation some classical themes from antique argumentation theory are revisited. The new research area of visual argumentation is explored in the next part. The volume concludes with three reports of experimental studies concerning argumentative discourse.

The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating theoretical perspectives on argumentation. Subsequently, some views are explained on the intriguing topics of ‘dissensus’ and ‘deep disagreement’. After a discussion ofthree different approaches to the treatment of types of argumentation some classical themes from antique argumentation theory are revisited. The new research area of visual argumentation is explored in the next part. The volume concludes with three reports of experimental studies concerning argumentative discourse.