Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument
Argumentation 18 (3):359-368 (2004)
| Abstract | There are two views of the ad hominem argument found in the textbooks and other traditional treatments of this argument, the Lockean or ex concessis view and the view of ad hominem as personal attack. This article addresses problems posed by this ambiguity. In particular, it discusses the problem of whether Aristotle's description of the ex concessis type of argument should count as evidence that he had identified the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Argumentation schemes are used as the basis for drawing a distinction between this latter form of argument and another called argument from commitment, corresponding to the ex concessis argument | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesD. N. Walton (2001). Searching for the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Argumentation 15 (2):207-221.
Graciela Marta Chichi (2002). The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument. Argumentation 16 (3):333-348.
Adam J. L. Harris, Anne S. Hsu & Jens K. Madsen (2012). Because Hitler Did It! Quantitative Tests of Bayesian Argumentation Using Ad Hominem. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):311 - 343.
J. Anthony Blair (2001). Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Douglas N. Walton (1987). The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1 (3):317-331.
Douglas N. Walton (2000). Case Study of the Use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem in Political Argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 33 (2):101-115.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas Walton (1999). Historical Origins of Argumentum Ad Consequentiam. Argumentation 13 (3):251-264.
Douglas Walton (2012). Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26 (3):369-391.
J. Katzav & C. A. Reed (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
Douglas Walton (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument From Waste. Argumentation 16 (4):473-503.
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.
Douglas Walton (2007). Evaluating Practical Reasoning. Synthese 157 (2):197 - 240.
Andrew Aberdein (2010). Argumentation Schemes and Communities of Argumentational Practice. In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. OSSA.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-24Total downloads7 ( #133,479 of 549,078 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,078 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
