The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 416-435

  Van Eemeren, Frans H ^a   Meuffels, Bert ^a   Verburg, Mariël ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034359831     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X00019004002     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bowker, J. K., & Trapp, R. (1992). Personal and ideational dimensions of good and poor arguments in human interaction. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 220-230). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
2. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Copi, I. M. (1953). Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.
4. Copi, I. M. (1972). Introduction to logic (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
5. de Groot, A. D. (1984). The theory of science forum: Subject and purport. Methodology and Science, 17, 230-259.
6. Finocchiaro, M. A. (1974). The concept of ad hominem argument in Galileo and Locke. The Philosophical Forum, 5, 394-404.
7. Govier, T. (1988). A practical study of argument. Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth.
8. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
9. Kahane, H. (1969). Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
10. Kahane, H. (1973). Logic and philosophy (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
11. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
12. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13. Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to logic. New York: St. Martin's.
14. Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1995). Unfairness in argumentative discussions: Relevant factors and prototypical manifestations in spoken language. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 3. Reconstruction and Application, pp. 276-286). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
15. Schreier, M., Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1995). That's not fair! Argumentational integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9, 267-289.
16. Schreier, M., Groeben, N., Christmann, U., Nüse, R., & Gauler, E. (1993). Indicators of argumentational integrity in everyday communication. Argumentation, 7, 205-219.
17. 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: Mouton de Gruyter/Foris.
18. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994). Rationale for a pragmadialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 11-28). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
20. van Rees, M. A. (1992). The use of language in conversation. An introduction to research in conversation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
21. Walton, D. N. (1992). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 134-147). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.