David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 23 (2):89 – 104 (2009)
This paper is a critical analysis of three theories of fallacy, those of Ralph Johnson, of Jaakko Hintikka, and of Robert Fogelin and Timothy Duggan. Although the theories are very different from one another, all oppose the traditional, non-dialectical view of a fallacy as a mistaken inference. The theories are exposed and explained in detail, and then subjected to critical examination. For a variety of reasons, all are found seriously wanting. The mistakes of each suggest that it is better to stay with the traditional view, at least if suitably refined and qualified
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian Lightbody & Berman Michael (2010). The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 30 (2):185-193.
H. Krips (1980). Some Problems for "Progress and its Problems". Philosophy of Science 47 (4):601-616.
M. Wreen (2007). Medical Futility and Physician Discretion. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1 (3):257-267.
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
William Goodwin (2010). The 'Passes-For' Fallacy and the Future of Critical Thinking. Argumentation 24 (3):363-374.
David Botting (2011). Can 'Big' Questions Be Begged? Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
Qingyin Liang & Yun Xie (2011). How Critical is the Dialectical Tier? Argumentation 25 (2):229-242.
Ronald M. Green (1989). The Leap of Faith. Philosophy and Theology 3 (4):385-411.
Added to index2010-05-07
Total downloads13 ( #98,930 of 1,008,729 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,702 of 1,008,729 )
How can I increase my downloads?