Evaluative perspectives on argumentation
In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory fallacies are defined as violation of discussion rules, but at the same time, they are seen as derailments of reasonable discussion moves. Because in many cases fallacies and their reasonable counterparts look exactly alike, it is often hard to determine whether a specific argumentative move is fallacious or not. In practice arguers make use of this similarity between fallacies and their reasonable counterparts by making use of special kinds of strategic maneuvering in order to conceal the unreasonable properties of a specific fallacious move. In this project, an analysis of fallacies and their reasonable counterparts is given and hypotheses are formulated in which expectations about the effectiveness of these fallacious strategic maneuvers are taken into account. Next, these hypotheses are tested by means of systematic experimental research. In this way we hope to find a theoretically sound explanation of the deceptive nature of fallacious move that has been tested empirically.
Eemeren, F.H. van, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2012). The disguised 'abusive ad hominem' empirically investigated: strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344- 364.
Eemeren, F.H. van, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2012). The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically investigated. In Topical themes in argumentation theory; twenty exploratory studies (argumentation library). Dordrecht: springer.