Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992 have proposed a "pragma-dialectical" theory which analyses fallacies as violations of the rules of critical discussion (discussion which aims to critically resolve a difference of opinion).
If followed by both parties to the disagreement, the rules constrain the argumentation decision procedure such that any resolution reached will be deemed reasonable, and "every violation of any of the rules of the discussion procedure for conducting a critical discussion" will be a fallacy (2004, 175).
Though the connectivity within 4 can be crystallographically determined, generic twinning of the samples adversely effected all modelling attempts and rules out discussion of its bonding dimensions.
We saw that in the run-up to Iraq, where perfectly obvious propositions – the case for invading is very weak, the occupation may well be a nightmare – weren't so much rejected as ruled out of discussion altogether; if you even considered those possibilities, you weren't a serious person, no matter what your credentials.
Clearly not all the rules of critical discussions apply directly to arguments.
Yet this can also be a set of rules for discussions among the participants, so that the content of these rules implies the existence of a collective agent without claiming that it exists explicitly.
This large difference is partly due to the sensitivity of the calculated value to the percentage of AT, which is 60.9% in contig 28 vs. 52.6% in contig 23 (%AC and %AG are always close to 50%, "the second Chargaff parity rule", see end of discussion).
In short, the Pragma-dialectical rules of a critical discussion are not just rules of logic or epistemology, but rules of conduct for rational discussants, making the theory more like a moral code than a set of logical principles.
The Pragma-dialectical theory proposes that that each of the core fallacies can be assigned a place as a violation of one of the rules of a critical discussion.
What Habermas (1984 1987) designated 'distorted communication' is referred to as 'fallacies' in pragma-dialectics (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992 .14 These violations of the rules of the critical discussion game constitute various derailments that may occur as part of strategic manoeuvring (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2002).
