Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Arguing with Children: Exploring Problems of Charity and Strawmanning.Swagatanjali Bauri - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):415-438.
    This paper will highlight how the existing approaches to the Strawman Fallacy and the Principle of Charity are unable to fully accommodate the problems of interpreting children’s arguments. A lack of charity is as problematic as an excess of charity when arguing with children, and can contribute to misinterpretation of arguments. An application of moderate charity avoids the pitfalls of misrepresenting children. However, interpreting children’s arguments with the appropriate amount of charity is a challenging task. The argumentative context is relevant (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Fooling the Victim: Of Straw Men and Those Who Fall for Them.Katharina Stevens - 2021 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 54 (2):109-127.
    ABSTRACT This paper contributes to the debate about the strawman fallacy. It is the received view that strawmen are employed to fool not the arguer whose argument they distort, but instead a third party, an audience. I argue that strawmen that fool their victims exist and are an important variation of the strawman fallacy because of their special perniciousness. I show that those who are subject to hermeneutical lacunae or who have since forgotten parts of justifications they have provided earlier (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives.Jennifer Schumann, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (3):361-388.
    While the role of discourse connectives has long been acknowledged in argumentative frameworks, these approaches often take a coarse-grained approach to connectives, treating them as a unified group having similar effects on argumentation. Based on an empirical study of the straw man fallacy, we argue that a more fine-grained approach is needed to explain the role of each connective and illustrate their specificities. We first present an original corpus study detailing the main features of four causal connectives in French that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Farewell to Fallacies.Eugen Popa - 2021 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 54 (4):397-420.
    ABSTRACT Fallacies are traditionally defined as potentially deceptive failures of rationality or reasonableness. Fallacy theories seek to model this failure by formulating standards of rationality or reasonableness that arguers must observe when engaging in argumentative interaction. Yet it remains relatively easy to reject or avoid fallacy judgments even in the most clear-cut cases. In this article, I argue for a pluralist approach to criticism in which the fallacy accusation is only the starting point for a more complex form of criticism. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Paradox of Charity.Marcin Lewiński - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (4):403-439.
    The principle of charity is used in philosophy of language and argumentation theory as an important principle of interpretation which credits speakers with “the best” plausible interpretation of their discourse. I contend that the argumentation account, while broadly advocated, misses the basic point of a dialectical conception which approaches argumentation as discussion between two parties who disagree over the issue discussed. Therefore, paradoxically, an analyst who is charitable to one discussion party easily becomes uncharitable to the other. To overcome this (...)
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.
    Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis.Paula Castro, Marcin Lewiński, Dima Mohammed & Mehmet Ali Uzelgun - 2015 - Discourse Studies 17 (4):467-484.
    The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but… constructions. Based on interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding arguments speakers re-present others’ discourse, what types of criticism they exercise through particular sequential patterns and which (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue.Scott F. Aikin & John P. Casey - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):431-440.
    The straw man fallacy consists in inappropriately constructing or selecting weak versions of the opposition’s arguments. We will survey the three forms of straw men recognized in the literature, the straw, weak, and hollow man. We will then make the case that there are examples of inappropriately reconstructing stronger versions of the opposition’s arguments. Such cases we will call iron man fallacies. The difference between appropriate and inappropriate iron manning clarifies the limits of the virtue of open-mindedness.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Just Following the Rules: Collapse / Incoherence Problems in Ethics, Epistemology, and Argumentation Theory.Patrick Bondy - 2020 - In J. Anthony Blair & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor, ON, Canada: pp. 172-202.
    This essay addresses the collapse/incoherence problem for normative frameworks that contain both fundamental values and rules for promoting those values. The problem is that in some cases, we would bring about more of the fundamental value by violating the framework’s rules than by following them. In such cases, if the framework requires us to follow the rules anyway, then it appears to be incoherent; but if it allows us to make exceptions to the rules, then the framework “collapses” into one (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Response to my commentator.Marcin Lewiński - unknown
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Don't feed the trolls: Straw men and iron men.Scott Aikin & John Casey - unknown
    The straw man fallacy consists in inappropriately constructing or selecting weak versions of the opposition's arguments. We will survey the three forms of straw men recognized in the literature, the straw, weak, and hollow man. We will then make the case that there are examples of inappropriately reconstructing stronger versions of the opposition's arguments. Such cases we will call iron man fallacies.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations