{"id":200,"date":"2016-09-21T19:47:25","date_gmt":"2016-09-21T17:47:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/liri.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr\/membres\/cplantin\/?p=182"},"modified":"2016-09-21T19:47:25","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T17:47:25","slug":"eliminer-maintenir-renforcer-les-desaccords","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/eliminer-maintenir-renforcer-les-desaccords\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00c9liminer, maintenir, renforcer les d\u00e9saccords"},"content":{"rendered":"
R\u00e9sum\u00e9 :\u00a0<\/b>Le traitement ad\u00e9quat de la diff\u00e9rence d’opinion est une question disput\u00e9e en th\u00e9orie de l’argumentation, o\u00f9 la tendance dominante est orient\u00e9e vers la r\u00e9duction du d\u00e9saccord. Les \u00a7 1 \u00e0 3 r\u00e9capitulent les \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui fondent cette vision : principe de coop\u00e9ration, pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour l’accord, suite pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9e, politesse linguistique (\u00a71). th\u00e9ories orient\u00e9es vers la r\u00e9duction du dissensus, par la persuasion rh\u00e9torique (\u00a72) ou par l’\u00e9limination dialectique (\u00a73). Pol\u00e9mique et controverse ne peuvent d\u00e8s lors \u00eatre vues que comme des fallacies ou des p\u00e9ch\u00e9s de langue, o\u00f9 se manifestent l’\u00e9chec et le malheur de l’argumentation, incitant \u00e0 substituer aux r\u00e8gles de discussion des r\u00e8gles de raisonnement, ad directionem ingenii (\u00a74).
\nEn r\u00e9f\u00e9rence au statut interactionnel de l’argumentation (\u00a75) les \u00a76 et \u00a77 proposent une vision de l’argumentation agnostique du point de vue des orientations vers l’accord ou le d\u00e9saccord. On appellera fallacie du consensus la tendance \u00e0 \u00e9riger en absolu l’exigence de consensus. A la suite de Hamblin, on retirera au \u00ab logicien \u00bb l’arbitrage des disputes, pour le remettre l\u00e0 o\u00f9 il a toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 de fait, entre les mains des disputants. Cette perspective \u00e9mique sur les r\u00e8gles de la controverse conduit \u00e0 s’int\u00e9resser en priorit\u00e9 aux r\u00e8gles qui fonctionnent effectivement sur les sites argumentatifs les plus vari\u00e9s (\u00a78). La conclusion (\u00a79) porte sur la banalit\u00e9 du d\u00e9saccord radical.<\/h5>\n
Mots cl\u00e9s<\/strong> :\u00a0\u00a0Argumentation, interactions, d\u00e9saccord, \u00e9valuation, r\u00e8gles du d\u00e9bat<\/h5>\n
Abstract<\/strong>\u00a0:\u00a0Eliminating, maintaining, strengthening differences of opinion
\n<\/strong><\/em>Mainstream argumentation theories are oriented towards the elimination of disagreement. \u00a71 sums up three principles building up consensus in conversation: cooperation principle, preference for agreement in second turns in conversation, linguistic politeness. Rhetorical approaches to argument aims at eliminating dissensus (doubt of the audience and counter-discourse of the other orator) through persuading the audience (\u00a72). Dialectical approaches aims at the same result through the elimination one of the two conflicting point of views (\u00a73). As a result, maintaining dissensus and controversies is dubbed as irrational; dissensus is stigmatized as fallacious or irrational, sinful in the language of the medieval theory of the \u201csins of the tongue\u201d (\u00a74 and 5).
\nStarting from the an interactional, and more generally dialogical approach to argument, paragraphs 6 and 7 outline some reasons to remain agnostic about the question of consensus and dissensus. The (argumentative) question if a difference of opinion should be eliminated or promoted is entirely open; the will to eliminate dissensus as an aberration on a priori grounds, will be dubbed \u201cthe fallacy of consensus\u201d. Following Hamblin for whom the logician is, \u201cat best a trained advocate\u201d (1970, p. 244-245) \u2014 and not the \u201cterminator\u201d of all and any argument, we argue first that evaluation is one of the participants’ task, and second that argumentation scholars should devote more attention to specific systems or rules as they are defined and implemented on specific settings. \u201cDeep\u201d and persisting disagreement is not an existential tragedy for the arguers but a basic characteristic of their condition.<\/h5>\n
Key words\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Argumentation, interaction, disagreement, evaluation, rules of debate<\/h5>\n

eliminer-maintenir-renforcer-les-desaccords<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

R\u00e9sum\u00e9 :\u00a0Le traitement ad\u00e9quat de la diff\u00e9rence d’opinion est une question disput\u00e9e en th\u00e9orie de l’argumentation, o\u00f9 la tendance dominante est orient\u00e9e vers la r\u00e9duction du d\u00e9saccord. Les \u00a7 1 \u00e0 3 r\u00e9capitulent les \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui fondent cette vision : … Continuer la lecture →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-argumentation","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/97"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}