What is a Sophistical Refutation?
Argumentation 26 (2):213-232 (2012)
| Abstract | From Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations the following classifications are put forward and defended through extensive excerpts from the text. (AR-PFC) All sophistical refutations are exclusively either ‘apparent refutations’ or ‘proofs of false conclusions’. (AR-F) ‘Apparent refutations’ and ‘fallacies’ name the same thing. (ID-ED) All fallacies are exclusively either fallacies in dictione or fallacies extra dictionem . (ID-nAMB) Not all fallacies in dictione are due to ambiguity. (AMB-nID) Not all fallacies due to ambiguity are fallacies in dictione . (AMB&ID-ME) The set of fallacies due to ambiguity and fallacies in dictione together comprise the set of arguments said to be “dependent on mere expression”. Being “dependent on mere expression” and “dependent on language” are not the same (instances of the latter form a proper subset of instances of the former). (nME-FACT) All arguments that are not against the expression are “against the fact.” (FACT-ED) All fallacious arguments against the fact are fallacies extra dictionem (it is unclear whether the converse is true). (MAN-ARG) The solutions of fallacious arguments are exclusively either “against the man” or “against the argument.” (10) (F-ARG) Each (type of) fallacy has a unique solution (namely, the opposite of whatever causes the fallacy), but each fallacious argument does not. However, each fallacious argument does have a unique solution against the argument, called the ‘true solution’ (in other words, what fallacy a fallacious argument commits is determined by how it is solved. However, if the solution is ‘against the man’ then this is not, properly speaking, the fallacy committed in the argument. It is only the ‘true solution’—the solution against the argument, of which there is always only one—that determines the fallacy actually committed) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid Botting (2012). Fallacies of Accident. Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
David Botting (2011). Can 'Big' Questions Be Begged? Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (2013). The Ingredients of Aristotle's Theory of Fallacy. Argumentation 27 (1):31-47.
Christopher W. Tindale (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
David Hitchcock (2000). Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
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.
Michael Veber (2012). “People Who Argue Ad Hominem Are Jerks” and Other Self-Fulfilling Fallacies. Argumentation 26 (2):201-212.
Scott G. Schreiber (2003). Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. State University of New York Press.
Leone Gazziero (2012). The Latin “Third Man”. A Survey and Edition of Texts From the XIIIth Century. Cahiers de L’Institut du Moyen Age Grec Et Latin 81:11-93.
Martin Montminy (2010). Two Contextualist Fallacies. Synthese 173 (3).
Jonathan E. Adler (2000). Three Fallacies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (1998). Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech? Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.
Annamaria Schiaparelli (2003). Aristotle on the Fallacies of Combination and Division in Sophistici Elenchi 4. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):111-129.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-09-07Total downloads12 ( #93,438 of 549,575 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,790 of 549,575 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
