This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:History/traditions: Fallacies
43 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Jonathan E. Adler (2000). Three Fallacies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666.
    Three fallacies in the rationality debate obscure the possibility for reconciling the opposed camps. I focus on how these fallacies arise in the view that subjects interpret their task differently from the experimenters (owing to the influence of conversational expectations). The themes are: first, critical assessment must start from subjects' understanding; second, a modal fallacy; and third, fallacies of distribution.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Ignacio Angelelli (1985). Review: G. E. Hughes, John Buridan on Self-Reference. Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata, with a Translation, an Introduction, and a Philosophical Commentary. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (3):859-860.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Dan Ariely (2010). Perfectly Irrational: The Unexpected Ways We Defy Logic at Work and at Home. Harper.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Nandita Bandyopadhyay (1977). The Concept of Logical Fallacies: Problems of Hetvābhāsa in Navya-Nyāya in the Light of Gaṅgeśa and Raghunātha Śiromaṇi. Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Bell (1971). Fallacies in Predicate Logic? Mind 80 (317):145-147.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Nathaniel Bluedorn (2003). The Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Six Lessons on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. Christian Logic.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Susanne Bobzien (2006). The Stoics on Fallacies of Equivocation. In D. Frede & B. Inwood (eds.), Language and Learning, Proceedings of the 9th Symposium Hellenisticum. Cambridge University Press.
    ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the Stoic treatment of fallacies that are based on lexical ambiguities. It provides a detailed analysis of the relevant passages, lays bare textual and interpretative difficulties, explores what the Stoic view on the matter implies for their theory of language, and compares their view with Aristotle’s. In the paper I aim to show that, for the Stoics, fallacies of ambiguity are complexes of propositions and sentences and thus straddle the realms of meaning (which is the domain (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Montserrat Bordes Solanas (2011). Las Trampas de Circe: Falacias Lógicas y Argumentación Informal. Cátedra.
    Este libro estudia cuestiones pertenecientes al campo de la lógica aplicada, concretamente de teoría de la argumentación informal. Abarca el análisis de los principales tipos de errores por incom­petencia argumentativa a partir de un enfoque nor­mativo actualizado y con una propuesta de taxono­mía de falacias lógicas informales basada en los cri­terios básicos de buena argumentación. Se identifi­can, describen y ejemplifican, con textos de varios niveles de dificultad, las falacias más habituales (en­tre ellas, las falacias «ad hominem, ad populum, petitio principii», (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Jean Buridan (1982). John Buridan on Self-Reference: Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata. Cambridge University Press.
    This edition of that chapter is intended to make Buridan's ideas and arguments accessible to a wider range of readers.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Nicholas Capaldi (1971). The Art of Deception. New York,D. W. Brown.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. John M. Capps (2009). You've Got to Be Kidding!: How Jokes Can Help You Think. Wiley-Blackwell.
    Preface -- The importance of critical thinking -- Fallacies of relevance -- Fallacies of evidence -- Fallacies of assumption -- Thinking together.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Gustavo Cevolani, Vincenzo Crupi & Roberto Festa, A Verisimilitudinarian Analysis of the Linda Paradox. VII Conference of the Spanish Society for Logic, Methodology and Philosphy of Science.
    The Linda paradox is a key topic in current debates on the rationality of human reasoning and its limitations. We present a novel analysis of this paradox, based on the notion of verisimilitude as studied in the philosophy of science. The comparison with an alternative analysis based on probabilistic confirmation suggests how to overcome some problems of our account by introducing an adequately defined notion of verisimilitudinarian confirmation.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Guimiao Chen (2010). Ming Jia Yu Ming Xue: Xian Qin Gui Bian Xue Pai Yan Jiu. Taiwan Xue Sheng Shu Ju.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. T. Edward Damer (2009). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Wadsworth/Cengage Laerning.
    This text is designed to help students construct and evaluate arguments.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Bradley Dowden, Fallacies. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Sten Ebbesen (2010). A Catalogue of 13th-Century Sophismata. Vrin.
    pt. 1. Introduction and indices -- pt. 2. Catalogue.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Mikkel Gerken (2013). Epistemic Reasoning and the Mental. Palgrave Macmillan (Innovations in Philosophy).
    Epistemic Reasoning and the Mental integrates the epistemology of reasoning and philosophy of mind. The book contains introductions to basic concepts in the epistemology of inference and to important aspects of the philosophy of mind. By examining the fundamental competencies involved in reasoning, Gerken argues that reasoning's epistemic force depends on the external environment in ways that are both surprising and epistemologically important. -/- For example, Gerken argues that purportedly deductive reasoning that exhibits the fallacy of equivocation may nevertheless transmit (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Mikkel Gerken (2011). Conceptual Equivocation and Warrant by Reasoning. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):381-400.
    In this paper, I challenge a widely presupposed principle in the epistemology of inference. The principle, (Validity Requirement), is this: S’s (purportedly deductive) reasoning, R, from warranted premise-beliefs provides (conditional) warrant for S’s belief in its conclusion only if R is valid. I argue against (Validity Requirement) from two prominent assumptions in the philosophy of mind: that the cognitive competencies that constitute reasoning are fallible, and that the attitudes operative in reasoning are anti-individualistically individuated. Indeed, my discussion will amount to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Aleksandŭr Gŭngov (2004). Logika Na Izmamata. Izdatelstvo "Avangard Prima".
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. C. L. Hamblin (1970/1993). Fallacies. Vale Press.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Hector Hernandez Ortiz & Joseph S. Fulda (2012). Strengthening the Antecedent, Concessive Conditionals, Conditional Rhetorical Questions, and the Theory of Conditional Elements. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (3):328-331.
    Extends the theory of conditional elements in three ways. The critical way, primarily due to the senior author, is the solution to the fallacy of the strengthened antecedent within classical logic.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. David Hitchcock (2000). Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
    The taxonomy and analysis of fallacies in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations pre-date the formal logic of his Prior Analytics A4-6. Of the 64 fully described examples of ?sophistical refutations? which are fallacious because they are only apparently valid, 49 have the wrong number of premisses or the wrong form of premiss or conclusion for analysis by the Prior Analytics theory of the categorical syllogism. The rest Aristotle either frames so that they do not look like categorical syllogisms or analyses in a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Geert Keil (2003). Über den Homunkulus-Fehlschluß. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 57 (1):1 - 26.
    Ein Homunkulus im philosophischen Sprachgebrauch ist eine postulierte menschenähnliche Instanz, die ausdrücklich oder unausdrücklich zur Erklärung der Arbeitsweise des menschlichen Geistes herangezogen wird. Als Homunkulus-Fehlschluß wird die Praxis bezeichnet, Prädikate, die auf kognitive oder perzeptive Leistungen einer ganzen Person zutreffen, auch auf Teile von Personen oder auf subpersonale Vorgänge anzuwenden, was typischerweise zu einem Regreß führt. Der vorliegende Beitrag erörtert den Homunkulus-Fehlschluß zunächst in argumentationstheoretischer Hinsicht und stellt dabei ein Diagnoseschema auf. Dann werden zwei Anwendungsfelder erörtert: Instanzenmodelle der Psyche (Platon, (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Kevin C. Klement (2002). When Is Genetic Reasoning Not Fallacious? Argumentation 16 (4):383-400.
    Attempts to evaluate a belief or argument on the basis of its cause or origin are usually condemned as committing the genetic fallacy. However, I sketch a number of cases in which causal or historical factors are logically relevant to evaluating a belief, including an interesting abductive form that reasons from the best explanation for the existence of a belief to its likely truth. Such arguments are also susceptible to refutation by genetic reasoning that may come very close to the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Stephen Law (2011). Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked Into an Intellectual Black Hole. Prometheus Books.
    Playing the mystery card -- "But it fits!" -- Going nuclear -- Moving the semantic goalposts -- "But I just know!" -- Pseudo-profundity -- Piling up the anecdotes -- Pressing your buttons -- Conclusion -- The Tapescrew letters.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Lawrence Lengbeyer (2004). Rhetoric and Anti-Semitism. Academic Questions 17 (2):22-32.
    Given that charges of anti-Semitism, racism, and the like continue to be potent weapons of moral and intellectual critique in our culture, it is important that we work toward a clear understanding about just what sorts of conduct and circumstances constitute these moral offenses. In particular, can criticism of a state (such as Israel), or other social or political institution or organization (such as the NAACP), ever amount to anti-Semitism, racism, or other bigotry against the people represented by or associated (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. F. Macagno & D. Walton (2007). The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum . [REVIEW] Argumentation 28 (3):203-228.
    Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. F. Macagno & D. Walton (2005). Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes . Studies in Communication Sciences 5 (2):1-22.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Huberto Marraud (2007). Methodus Argumentandi. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
    Methodus Argumentandi Se trata de una introducción a la lógica informal que, además de tratar lo temas tradicionales como los esquemas argumentativos y las falacias, incluye otros provenientes de la lingüística, como los conectores argumentativos, o de la lógica forma, como la teoría de los sistemas de argumentación abstractos.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Moti Mizrahi (2010). Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority. Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
    In this paper, I argue that ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. More explicitly, in certain cases of practical reasoning, the circumstances of a person are relevant to whether or not the conclusion should be accepted. This occurs, I suggest, when a person gives advice to others or prescribes certain courses of action but fails to follow her own advice or act in accordance with her own prescriptions. This is not an instance of a fallacious tu quoque provided that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. María G. Navarro (2013). On Fuzziness and Ordinary Reasoning. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 216 (463):468.
    In 1685, in The Art of Discovery, Leibniz set down an extraordinary idea: "The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate [calculemus], without further ado, to see who is right." Calculemus.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. María G. Navarro (2011). Critical Notice of 'The Uses of Pessimism' by Roger Scruton. [REVIEW] Metapsychology. Online Reviews 15 (15).
    The thesis put forward by the British philosopher, Roger Scruton (born 1944) in The Uses of Pessimism seems simple: false hope together with an optimism that is unfounded and unscrupulous are the cause of the most harmful conflicts of our times. Political conflicts, institutional and financial crises, unjustified pedagogic notions, non-consensual town planning, etc., are some of the issues that the author analyses with the help of specific historical examples. Before referring to some of these issues, I shall describe the (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Mary R. Newsome & P. N. Johnson-Laird (2006). How Falsity Dispels Fallacies. Thinking and Reasoning 12 (2):214 – 234.
    From certain sorts of premise, individuals reliably infer invalid conclusions. Two Experiments investigated a possible cause for these illusory inference: Reasoners fail to think about what is false. In Experiment 1, 24 undergraduates drew illusory and control inferences from premises based on exclusive disjunctions (“or else”). In one block, participants were instructed to falsify the premises of each illusory and control inference before making the inference. In the other block, participants did not receive these instructions. There were more correct answers (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Niki Pfeifer (2008). A Probability Logical Interpretation of Fallacies. In G. Kreuzbauer, N. Gratzl & E. Hiebl (eds.), Rhetorische Wissenschaft: Rede Und Argumentation in Theorie Und Praxis. Lit. 225--244.
    This chapter presents a probability logical approach to fallacies. A special interpretation of (subjective) probability is used, which is based on coherence. Coherence provides not only a foundation of probability theory, but also a normative standard of reference for distinguishing fallacious from non-fallacious arguments. The violation of coherence is sufficient for an argument to be fallacious. The inherent uncertainty of everyday life argumentation is captured by attaching degrees of belief to the premises. Probability logic analyzes the structure of the argument (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Madsen Pirie (1985). The Book of the Fallacy: A Training Manual for Intellectual Subversives. Routledge & K. Paul.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Brian Ribeiro (2008). How Often Do We (Philosophy Professors) Commit the Straw Man Fallacy? Teaching Philosophy 31 (1):27-38.
    In a recent paper (in Argumentation, 2006) Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin suggest that we ought to recognize two distinct forms of the straw man fallacy. In addition to misrepresenting the strength of an opponent’s specific argument (= the representation form), one can also misrepresent the strength of one’s opposition in general, or the overall state of a debate, by selecting a (relatively) weak opponent for critical consideration (= the selection form). Here I consider whether we as philosophy professors could (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Annamaria Schiaparelli (2003). Aristotle on the Fallacies of Combination and Division in Sophistici Elenchi 4. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):111-129.
    This paper discusses the fallacies of combination and division as they are presented by Aristotle in chapter 4 of his Sophistici Elenchi. Aristotle's examples are concise, their discussion is unclear, and it is difficult to distinguish the cases of combination from those of division. I analyse the Aristotelian examples and the interpretations offered so far. I show that these interpretations suffer from a major defect: they fail to identify a common characteristic whereby the Aristotelian examples can be classified as instances (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jonah N. Schupbach (2012). Is the Conjunction Fallacy Tied to Probabilistic Confirmation? Synthese 184 (1):13-27.
    Crupi et al. (2008) offer a confirmation-theoretic, Bayesian account of the conjunction fallacy—an error in reasoning that occurs when subjects judge that Pr( h 1 & h 2 | e ) > Pr( h 1 | e ). They introduce three formal conditions that are satisfied by classical conjunction fallacy cases, and they show that these same conditions imply that h 1 & h 2 is confirmed by e to a greater extent than is h 1 alone. Consequently, they suggest (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Michael J. Shaffer (2007). The Ad Verecundiam Fallacy and Appeals to Expert Testimony. In Proceedings of the 6th ISSA Conference on Argumentation.
    In this paper I argue that Tyler Burge's non-reductive view of testiomonial knowledge cannot adeqautrely discriminate between fallacious ad vericumdium appeals to expet testimony and legitimate appeals to authority.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Christopher W. Tindale (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
    Fallacies and Argument Appraisal presents an introduction to the nature, identification, and causes of fallacious reasoning, along with key questions for evaluation. Drawing from the latest work on fallacies as well as some of the standard ideas that have remained relevant since Aristotle, Christopher Tindale investigates central cases of major fallacies in order to understand what has gone wrong and how this has occurred. Dispensing with the approach that simply assigns labels and brief descriptions of fallacies, Tindale provides fuller treatments (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Douglas N. Walton (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford University Press.
    A "slippery slope argument" is a type of argument in which a first step is taken and a series of inextricable consequences follow, ultimately leading to a disastrous outcome. Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking treat the slippery slope argument as a fallacy. Walton argues that used correctly in some cases, they can be a reasonable type of argument to shift a burden of proof in a critical discussion, while in other cases they are used incorrectly. Walton identifies (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Douglas N. Walton (1987). Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. J. Benjamins Pub. Co..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Huitang Yu (2011). Ma Fei Ma: Gu Shi Li de Gui Bian Shu. Shang Wu Yin Shu Guan.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation