David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 27 (1):31-47 (2013)
In chapter 8 of the Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle claims that his theory of fallacy is complete in the sense that there cannot be more fallacies than the ones he lists. In this article I try to explain how Aristotle could have justified this completeness claim by analysing how he conceptualizes fallacies (dialectical mistakes which do not appear so) and what conceptual ingredients play a role in his discussion of fallacies. If we take the format of dialectical discussions into account, we will see that there are only so many mistakes one can make which still do not appear to be mistakes. Aristotle’s actual list is almost identical to these apparent mistakes
|Keywords||Aristotle Fallacies Completeness claim Dialectical discussion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (2006). Aristotle's Diagnosis of Atomism. Apeiron 39 (2):121 - 155.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Annamaria Schiaparelli (2003). Aristotle on the Fallacies of Combination and Division in Sophistici Elenchi 4. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):111-129.
David Botting (2012). Fallacies of Accident. Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
Christopher W. Tindale (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
David Botting (2012). What is a Sophistical Refutation? Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
David Hitchcock (2000). Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
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.
Louise Cummings (2003). Formal Dialectic in Fallacy Inquiry: An Unintelligible Circumscription of Argumentative Rationality? [REVIEW] Argumentation 17 (2):161-183.
Douglas Walton (1999). Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Argumentation 13 (2):161-182.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (1998). Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech? Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic. Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
Lynne Spellman (1995). Substance and Separation in Aristotle. Cambridge University Press.
Scott G. Schreiber (2003). Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. State University of New York Press.
Added to index2012-10-01
Total downloads17 ( #94,089 of 1,096,840 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #40,273 of 1,096,840 )
How can I increase my downloads?