David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 14 (4):405-423 (2000)
(1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and adequate argumentation. Such reductionism has several advantages compared to an unsystematic action, which is quite usual in current fallacy but which at least in part is due to the poor state of positive argumentation theory itself. (2) After defining 'fallacy' (3) some principle ideas and (4) the exact criteria for (argumentatively) valid and adequate arguments of the 'practical theory of argumentation' of the author are expounded. These criteria will be used as the positive basis for the following reduction. (5) In the main part of the paper a systematization, definition and explanation of the main types and many subforms of fallacies of argumentative validity and (6) adequacy is developed, following the list of positive conditions of validity and adequacy. In addition to many new types of fallacies, this systematization contains the most important of the traditionally known and named fallacies; these are explained and the criteria for some of them are corrected or put more precisely
|Keywords||definition of 'fallacy' fallacies petitio principii (begging the question) practical theory of argumentation reduction of fallacy theory systematization of fallacies valid and adequate arguments|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David Botting (2012). Fallacies of Accident. Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
Taeda Tomić (2013). False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition. Argumentation 27 (4):1-22.
Arthur Zucker (1984). Moral Monads and Ethical Reductionism. Journal of Religious Ethics 12 (1):116 - 122.
Douglas Walton (1999). The Fallacy of Many Questions: On the Notions of Complexity, Loadedness and Unfair Entrapment in Interrogative Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation 13 (4):379-383.
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (2013). The Ingredients of Aristotle's Theory of Fallacy. Argumentation 27 (1):31-47.
Douglas Walton (1999). Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Argumentation 13 (2):161-182.
M. V. Dougherty (2004). The Comparative Set Fallacy. Argumentation 18 (2):213-222.
Louise Cummings (2002). Hilary Putnam's Dialectical Thinking: An Application to Fallacy Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation 16 (2):197-229.
David Botting (2011). Can 'Big' Questions Be Begged? Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
Keith Graham (2001). Preconditions for Normative Argumentation in a Pluralist World. Argumentation 15 (4):471-487.
Louise Cummings (2004). Rejecting the Urge to Theorise in Fallacy Inquiry. Argumentation 18 (1):61-94.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (1998). Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech? Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.
Marco Rühl (1999). The Revelation Argument. A 'Communicational Fallacy'. Argumentation 13 (1):73-96.
Joel Marks (1988). When is a Fallacy Not a Fallacy? Metaphilosophy 19 (3‐4):307-312.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads18 ( #193,751 of 1,789,930 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #263,819 of 1,789,930 )
How can I increase my downloads?