"Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness" by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels explores the validity of pragma-dialectical discussion rules through over a decade of empirical research. The authors examine how ordinary arguers perceive fallacies versus non-fallacies, offering insights into the interplay between theoretical and practical reasonableness.
Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules
The authors present their systematic empirical research on the conventional validity of Pragma-Dialectical discussion rules, grounded in a well-defined theoretical framework. They detail a series of experimental tests conducted to evaluate these rules, providing insights into their effectiveness and applicability in discussions.