Ambiguity in a Dialectical Perspective

Jan Albert van Laar

Abstract


The distinction between constitutive and regulative rules is applied to rules for critical discussion that have to do with the use of ambiguous expressions. This leads to a distinction between rule violating fallacies, by which one abandons a critical discussion, and norm violating fallacies, which are in a way admissible within a critical discussion. According to the formal model for critical discussion, proposed in this paper, fallacies of the norm violating type arc not prohibited. Instead, it provides discussants with devices to discuss fallacies and fallacy criticisms.

Keywords


rules for critical discussion, regulative rule, constitutive rule, rule violating fallacy, norm violating fallacy, point of order, ambiguity criticism, equivocation criticism, disqualified sentence, formal dialectics

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i3.2248

ISSN: 0824-2577