Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fallacies and Judgments of ReasonablenessThe Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I)

Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: The Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I) [As was already illustrated in the previous chapter, some discussions get derailed even before the discussant has put forward a single argument. A premature obstruction is also possible due to the discussants not being able to agree on the question who should actually put forward the argumentation: Which of the parties should come up with a defense? The rule of thumb in these sorts of cases is since classical antiquity: That he who alleges something must prove that allegation (cf. affirmanti incumbit probatio). According to this rule, under normal circumstances the party who brings forward a standpoint also has to defend that standpoint by putting forward argumentation if the standpoint is challenged. But language users who have brought forward a standpoint in a discussion are not always that keen on defending that standpoint. The most drastic way in which the protagonist can get out of his duty to defend is to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party, i.e., to the person who casted doubt on the standpoint: “If you don’t believe me, you should prove that it is not so.” This fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Fallacies and Judgments of ReasonablenessThe Opening Stage: The Obligation-to-Defend Rule (I)

Download PDF
26 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/fallacies-and-judgments-of-reasonableness-the-opening-stage-the-nSE4CrCWX0

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
ISBN
978-90-481-2613-2
Pages
111 –137
DOI
10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9_5
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[As was already illustrated in the previous chapter, some discussions get derailed even before the discussant has put forward a single argument. A premature obstruction is also possible due to the discussants not being able to agree on the question who should actually put forward the argumentation: Which of the parties should come up with a defense? The rule of thumb in these sorts of cases is since classical antiquity: That he who alleges something must prove that allegation (cf. affirmanti incumbit probatio). According to this rule, under normal circumstances the party who brings forward a standpoint also has to defend that standpoint by putting forward argumentation if the standpoint is challenged. But language users who have brought forward a standpoint in a discussion are not always that keen on defending that standpoint. The most drastic way in which the protagonist can get out of his duty to defend is to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party, i.e., to the person who casted doubt on the standpoint: “If you don’t believe me, you should prove that it is not so.” This fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof.]

Published: Jan 1, 2009

Keywords: Proof Rule; Discussion Context; Opposing Party; Discussion Move; Discussion Rule

There are no references for this article.