Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. John Locke on Inference and Fallacy, A Re-Appraisal.Mark Garrett Longaker - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (4):364-392.
    John Locke, long associated with the “standard” approach to fallacies and the “logical” approach to valid inference, had both logical and dialectical reasons for favoring certain proofs and denigrating others. While the logical approach to argumentation stands forth in Locke’s philosophical writings, a dialectical approach can be found in his contributions to public controversies regarding religion and toleration. Understanding Locke’s dialectical approach to argumentation not only makes his work more relevant to the contemporary discipline of informal logic, but this understanding (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority.Moti Mizrahi - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
    In this paper, I argue that ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. More explicitly, in certain cases of practical reasoning, the circumstances of a person are relevant to whether or not the conclusion should be accepted. This occurs, I suggest, when a person gives advice to others or prescribes certain courses of action but fails to follow her own advice or act in accordance with her own prescriptions. This is not an instance of a fallacious tu quoque provided that (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq.Ahmed Sahlane - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):459-488.
    The present study examined how the pre-war debate of the US decision to invade Iraq (in March 2003) was discursively constructed in the US/British mainstream newspaper opinion/editorial (op/ed) argumentation. Drawing on theoretical insights from critical discourse analysis and argumentation theory, I problematised the fallacious discussion used in the pro-war op/eds to build up a ‘moral/legal case’ for war on Iraq based on adversarial (rather than dialogical) argumentation. The proponents of war deployed ‘instrumental rationality’ (ends-justify-means reasoning), ‘ethical necessity’ (Bush’s ‘Preemption Doctrine’) (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation