Related categories
Siblings:History/traditions: Fallacies
102 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 102
  1. Andrew Aberdein (forthcoming). Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. Argumentation:1-7.
  2. Andrew Aberdein (forthcoming). The Vices of Argument. Topoi.
    What should a virtue theory of argumentation say about fallacious reasoning? If good arguments are virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of bad argumentation to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through analysis of several fallacies, with particular emphasis (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Dan Ariely (2010). Perfectly Irrational: The Unexpected Ways We Defy Logic at Work and at Home. Harper.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Emanuele Bardone & Lorenzo Magnani (2010). The Appeal of Gossiping Fallacies and its Eco-Logial Roots. Pragmatics and Cognition 18 (2):365-396.
    In this paper we show how some reasoning, though fallacious, can appear to be attractive and useful for beings-like-us. Although they do not provide conclusive evidence to support or reject a certain claim the way scientific statements do, they tell us something interesting about how humans build up their arguments and reasons. First of all, we will consider and investigate three main types of fallacies: argumentum ad hominem , argumentum ad verecundiam , and argumentum ad populum . These three fallacies (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8. David Bell (1971). Fallacies in Predicate Logic? Mind 80 (317):145-147.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Nathaniel Bluedorn (2003). The Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Six Lessons on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning. Christian Logic.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. 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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. George Boger (2004). Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. Informal Logic 23 (1).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Patrick Bondy (2015). Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments. Informal Logic 35 (4):450-466.
    Argumentation theorists are beginning to think of ad hominem arguments as generally legitimate. Virtue argumentation theorists argue that a character trait approach to argument appraisal can explain why ad hominems would are legitimate, when they are legitimate. But I argue that we do not need to appeal to virtue argumentation theory to explain the legitimacy of ad hominem arguments; a more straightforward evidentialist approach to argument appraisal is also committed to their legitimacy. I also argue that virtue argumentation theory faces (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Daniel Bonevac (2003). Pragma-Dialectics and Beyond. Argumentation 17 (4):451-459.
    Pragma-dialectics is dynamic, context-sensitive, and multi-agent; it promises theories of fallacy and argumentative structure. But pragma-dialectic theory and practice are not yet fully in harmony. Key definitions of the theory fall short of explicating the analyses that pragma-dialecticians actually do. Many discussions involve more than two participants with different and mutually incompatible standpoints. Success in such a discussion may be more than success against each opponent. Pragma-dialectics does well at analyzing arguments advanced by one party, directed at another party; it (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  14. Daniel N. Boone (2002). The Cogent Reasoning Model of Informal Fallacies Revisited. Informal Logic 22 (2).
    The author designed the Reasoning Analysis Test to provide empirical support for the CRM analysis of informal fallacies. While informal, the results provide presumptive evidence that those committing informal fallacies may tacitly reason as predicted by CRM. Davis has argued persuasively that Gricean theory has not lived up to expectations, In light of his critique, the CRM analyses of Begging the Question and Equivocation are amended. Johnson has provided standards for judging any theory of informal fallacies. It is argued that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15. 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
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. David Botting (2012). The Two One Fallacy Theory Theoryik. In Piotr Stalmaszcyzk (ed.), Philosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Ontos Verlag 37.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Alan Brinton (1992). The Ad Baculum Re-Clothed. Informal Logic 14 (2).
    In several recent articles, Michael Wreen has given a plausible account of the structure of ad baculum argument and argued that it is neither inherently fallacious nor even commonly so. He has also, arguing mainly in terms of examples, attempted to show that a number of common assumptions about the ad baculum are incorrect. Most controversially, he argues that the ad baculum is not essentially dialectical and that it does not essentially involve threatening. I argue that the genuineness of his (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  18. Alan Brinton (1988). Appeal to the Angry Emotions. Informal Logic 10 (2).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  19. Alan Brinton (1985). A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1):50 – 63.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  20. Katarzyna Budzynska & Maciej Witek (2014). Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation 28 (3):301-315.
    The aim of the paper is to explore the interrelation between persuasion tactics and properties of speech acts. We investigate two types of arguments ad: ad hominem and ad baculum. We show that with both of these tactics, the structures that play a key role are not inferential, but rather ethotic, i.e., related to the speaker’s character and trust. We use the concepts of illocutionary force and constitutive conditions related to the character or status of the speaker in order to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  21. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Jean Buridan (1982). John Buridan on Self-Reference: Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata, with a Translation, an Introduction, and a Philosophical Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Michael B. Burke (1994). Denying the Antecedent: A Common Fallacy? Informal Logic 16 (1).
    An argumentative passage that might appear to be an instance of denying the antecedent will generally admit of an alternative interpretation, one on which the conditional contained by the passage is a preface to the argument rather than a premise of it. On this interpretation. which generally is a more charitable one, the conditional plays a certain dialectical role and, in some cases, a rhetorical role as well. Assuming only a very weak principle of exigetical charity, I consider what it (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Chris Campolo, Fallacies and the Preconditions of Argumentation.
    If we think of fallacies as violations of the preconditions governing the products, processes, and procedures of argumentation, we see that fallacies do not merely weaken arguments, but rather undermine the possibility of argument itself. This approac h recommends itself on several counts. First, it accounts for diversity in fallacy analysis. Second, it makes possible investigations into new kinds of fallacies. Third, it provides new applications for ongoing developments in fallacy theory.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Nicholas Capaldi (1971). The Art of Deception. New York,D. W. Brown.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  27. 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
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Stuart Chase (1959). Guides to Straight Thinking with Thirteen Common Fallacies. Phoenix House.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. 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
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Michael Clark (1971). Fallacies. Philosophical Books 12 (1):11-13.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Michael Clark (1971). Review of C.L. Hamblin, Fallacies. [REVIEW] Philosophical Books 12.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Zachary Coke & John Streater (1657). The Art of Logick; or, the Entire Body of Logick in English. Unfolding to the Meanest Capacity the Way to Dispute Well, and to Refute All Fallacies Whatsoever. Printed for John Streater, and Are to Be Sold by the Book-Sellers of London.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Richard Cole (1965). A Note on Informal Fallacies. Mind 74 (295):432-433.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  34. Edwin Coleman (1995). There is No Fallacy of Arguing From Authority. Informal Logic 17 (3).
    I argue that there is no fallacy of argument from authority. I first show the weakness of the case for there being such a fallacy: text-book presentations are confused, alleged examples are not genuinely exemplary, reasons given for its alleged fallaciousness are not convincing. Then I analyse arguing from authority as a complex speech act. Rejecting the popular but unjustified category of the "part-time fallacy", I show that bad arguments which appeal to authority are defective through breach of some felicity (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Gary Colwell (1989). God, The Bible and Circularity. Informal Logic 11 (2).
  36. Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn (2010). Message Framing, Normative Advocacy and Persuasive Success. Argumentation 24 (2):153-163.
    In a recent article in Argumentation, O’Keefe (Argumentation 21:151–163, 2007) observed that the well-known ‘framing effects’ in the social psychological literature on persuasion are akin to traditional fallacies of argumentation and reasoning and could be exploited for persuasive success in a way that conflicts with principles of responsible advocacy. Positively framed messages (“if you take aspirin, your heart will be more healthy”) differ in persuasive effect from negative frames (“if you do not take aspirin, your heart will be less healthy”), (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37. Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn (2007). Evaluating the Meta-Slope: Is There a Slippery Slope Argument Against Slippery Slope Arguments? [REVIEW] Argumentation 21 (4):349-359.
    Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) have often been viewed as inherently weak arguments, to be classified together with traditional fallacies of reasoning and argumentation such as circular arguments and arguments from ignorance. Over the last two decades several philosophers have taken a kinder view, often providing historical examples of the kind of gradual change on which slippery slope arguments rely. Against this background, Enoch (2001, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21(4), 629–647) presented a novel argument against SSA use that itself invokes (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Vasco Correia (2011). Biases and Fallacies. Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3 (1):107-126.
    This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in everyday life. Unlike heuristics and cognitive biases, motivational biases are typically caused by the influence of a desire or an emotion on the cognitive processes involved in judgmental and inferential reasoning. In line with the ‘motivational’ account of irrationality, I argue that these biases are the cause of a number of fallacies that ordinary arguers commit unintentionally, particularly when the commitment to a given (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. David Crossley (1998). Fallacies. Dialogue 37 (2):387-388.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. James Crosswhite (1995). Is There an Audience for This Argument? Fallacies, Theories, and Relativisms. Philosophy and Rhetoric 28 (2):134 - 145.
  41. James Crosswhite (1993). Being Unreasonable: Perelman and the Problem of Fallacies. [REVIEW] Argumentation 7 (4):385-402.
    Most work on fallacies continues to conceptualize fallacious reasoning as involving a breach of a formal or quasi-formal rule. Chaim Perelman's theory of argumentation provides a way to conceptualize fallacies in a completely different way. His approach depends on an understanding of standards of rationality as essentially connected with conceptions of universality. Such an approach allows one to get beyond some of the basic problems of fallacy theory, and turns informal logic toward substantive philosophical questions. I show this by reinterpreting (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42. Louise Cummings (2015). The Use of 'No Evidence' Statements in Public Health. Informal Logic 35 (1):32-64.
    Public health communication makes extensive use of a linguistic formulation that will be called the “no evidence” statement. This is a written or spoken statement of the form “There is no evidence that P” where P stands for a proposition that typically describes a human health risk. Danger lurks in these expressions for the hearer or reader who is not logically perspicacious, as arguments that use them are only warranted under certain conditions. The extent to which members of the public (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Louise Cummings (2014). Informal Fallacies as Cognitive Heuristics in Public Health Reasoning. Informal Logic 34 (1):1-37.
    The public must make assessments of a range of health-related issues. However, these assessments require scientific know-ledge which is often lacking or ineffectively utilized by the public. Lay people must use whatever cognitive resources are at their disposal to come to judgement on these issues. It will be contended that a group of arguments—so-called informal fallacies—are a valuable cognitive resource in this regard. These arguments serve as cognitive heuristics which facilitate reasoning when knowledge is limited or beyond the grasp of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  44. Louise Cummings (2002). Reasoning Under Uncertainty: The Role of Two Informal Fallacies in an Emerging Scientific Inquiry. Informal Logic 22 (2).
    lt is now commonplace in fallacy inquiry for many of the traditional informal fallacies to be viewed as reasonable or nonfallacious modes of argument. Central to this evaluative shift has been the attempt to examine traditional fallacies within their wider contexts of use. However, this pragmatic turn in fallacy evaluation is still in its infancy. The true potential of a contextual approach in the evaluation of the fallacies is yet to be explored. I examine how, in the context of scientific (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  45. Louise Cummings (2000). Mind and Body, Form and Content: How Not to Do Petitio Principii Analysis. Philosophical Papers 29 (2):73-105.
    Abstract Few theoretical insights have emerged from the extensive literature discussions of petitio principii argument. In particular, the pattern of petitio analysis has largely been one of movement between the two sides of a dichotomy, that of form and content. In this paper, I trace the basis of this dichotomy to a dualist conception of mind and world. I argue for the rejection of the form/content dichotomy on the ground that its dualist presuppositions generate a reductionist analysis of certain concepts (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Carolyn Cusick & Mark Peter (2015). The Last Straw Fallacy: Another Causal Fallacy and Its Harmful Effects. Argumentation 29 (4):457-474.
    We have noticed a pattern of arguments that exhibit a type of irrationality or a particular informal logical fallacy that is not fully captured by any existing fallacy. This fallacy can be explored through three examples where one misattributes a cause by focusing on a smaller portion of a larger set—specifically, the last or least known—and claiming that that cause holds a unique priority over other contributing factors for the occurrence of an event. We propose to call this fallacy the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Robert D'Amico (1994). Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse. Review of Metaphysics 47 (4):814-815.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49. Stephen de Wijze (2003). Complexity, Relevance and Character: Problems with Teaching the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 35 (1):31–56.
  50. Bradley Dowden, Fallacies. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 102