عنوان مقاله [English]
Problem statement: This article has been prepared according to the publication of the book “Review of the Comprehensive Plan of Tehran 2007”. Today, it has been about ten years since the Comprehensive Plan of Tehran (TCP) was approved. A review of the efforts of a number of university professors while preparing this plan, supported by a group of experts and led to hold workshops at the Iran Student News Agency (ISNA), is a good example for evaluating the position of expert opinions in the process of developing urban development projects in Iran. The present article focuses on the “Responsiveness” of the planners of the Tehran Comprehensive Plan (consultants and employers) answering the criticism to this plan. So, it has been tried to show how different types of false reasoning can be identified and explained in these answers. Exposing this false reasoning of the planners against critiques can probably more responsibility for future planners to improve their products or answer to criticisms.
Objective: The purpose of this article is to explain the types of false reasoning when providers of Tehran Comprehensive Plan answer to critics.
Method of Research: The research method in this study is the discourse analysis method. Accordingly, the discussions of nine ISNA workshops have been reviewed, and in particular the responses of the suppliers to the Tehran Comprehensive Plan have been analyzed. It has been tried to categorize the answers according to a framework derived from the Schopenhauer’s book, entitled The Art of Being Right.
Conclusion: The study findings show that there are three general categories of responses to criticisms. The first category of responses, while admitting some criticisms, points out that since these criticisms have already been addressed to previous projects, they cannot be modified in this plan (TCP can merely continue the current procedure of planning). The second category of responses, instead of responding to the critique, attempts to accuse critics with vague statements. The third category also offers criticism: a tempting proposition that silences the critic! The common point in all three ways is that there is no attempt to eliminate defects or respond to criticisms.