Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666 (2000)
|Abstract||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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Audrey Yap (2013). Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony. Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
David Botting (2012). Fallacies of Accident. Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
Bert Gordijn Rob de Vries (2009). Empirical Ethics and its Alleged Meta-Ethical Fallacies. Bioethics 23 (4):193-201.
David Botting (2012). What is a Sophistical Refutation? Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Herman E. Stark (2000). Fallacies and Logical Errors. Inquiry 20 (1):23-32.
Bradley Dowden, Fallacies. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Christopher W. Tindale (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #65,455 of 739,404 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,288 of 739,404 )
How can I increase my downloads?