Abstract
In an earlier paper, entitled’ strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof,’ we have explained our dialectical perspective on the division of the burden of proof in a critical discussion (van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 2002). We did so by answering a series of interrelated questions from a procedural view of critical reasonableness: Why is there a burden of proof? A burden of proof for what? For whom? What exactly does the burden of proof involve? When is it activated? What means can be used to acquit oneself of the burden of proof? And when is one discharged? Because our responses were given in a critical rationalist vein, they are attuned to resolving a difference of opinion by critically testing the acceptability of a standpoint in the most systematic, thorough, perspicuous, and economic way. In the present paper we aim to complement this approach by offering a pragmatic solution for an important problem that may arise in ‘mixed’ disputes, where opposite standpoints are put forward regarding the same issue. The problem concerns the order in which the opposing standpoints are to be defended.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eemeren, F.H. van (1987). For reason’s sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 201–215). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2003). “I don’t have anything to prove here”: Judgements of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. In: F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard & A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Eemeren, F.H. van & R. Grootendorst (1991). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics at Issue. Selected Papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17-22, 1987. Volume I (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
Hamblin, C.L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Houtlosser, P. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 169–184). Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Vol. II (pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kauffeld, F. (2002). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens. In F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1983). On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 80, 143–163.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D.N., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (2003). A Pragmatic View of the Burden of Proof. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive