Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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   1 citation  
  • Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men.Scott F. Aikin & John Casey - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):87-105.
    Three forms of the straw man fallacy are posed: the straw, weak, and hollow man. Additionally, there can be non-fallacious cases of any of these species of straw man arguments.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Logical Fallacies and Invasion Biology.Radu Cornel Guiaşu & Christopher W. Tindale - 2018 - Biology and Philosophy 33 (5-6):34.
    Leading invasion biologists sometimes dismiss critics and criticisms of their field by invoking “the straw man” fallacy. Critics of invasion biology are also labelled as a small group of “naysayers” or “contrarians”, who are sometimes engaging in “science denialism”. Such unfortunate labels can be seen as a way to possibly suppress legitimate debates and dismiss or minimize reasonable concerns about some aspects of invasion biology, including the uncertainties about the geographic origins and complex environmental impacts of species, and the control (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Response to My Commentator.Marcin Lewiński - unknown
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Poe's Law, Group Polarization, and the Epistemology of Online Religious Discourse.Scott F. Aikin - 2012 - Social Semiotics 22 (4).
    Poe's Law is roughly that online parodies of religious extremism are indistinguishable from instances of sincere extremism. Poe's Law may be expressed in a variety of ways, each highlighting either a facet of indirect discourse generally, attitudes of online audiences, or the quality of online religious material. As a consequence of the polarization of online discussions, invocations of Poe's Law have relevance in wider circles than religion. Further, regular invocations of Poe's Law in critical discussions have the threat of further (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “I Suppose You Meant to Say...”: Licit and Illicit Manoeuvring in Argumentative Confrontations.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    When interlocutors start to talk at cross purposes it becomes less likely that they will be able to resolve their differences of opinion. Still, a critic, in the confrontation stage of a discussion, should be given some room of manoeuvre for rephrasing and even for revising the arguer’s position. I will distinguish between licit and illicit applications of this form of strategic manoeuvring by stating three soundness conditions.
    Direct download (3 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   1 citation  
  • The Ethics of Argumentation.Vasco Correia - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):222-241.
    Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is systematically (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Biases and Fallacies.Vasco Correia - 2011 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3 (1):107-126.
    This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in everyday life. Unlike heuristics and cognitive biases, motivational biases are typically caused by the influence of a desire or an emotion on the cognitive processes involved in judgmental and inferential reasoning. In line with the ‘motivational’ account of irrationality, I argue that these biases are the cause of a number of fallacies that ordinary arguers commit unintentionally, particularly when the commitment to a given (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of Hypocrisy.Scott F. Aikin - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):155-169.
    Though textbook tu quoque arguments are fallacies of relevance, many versions of arguments from hypocrisy are indirectly relevant to the issue. Some arguments from hypocrisy are challenges to the authority of a speaker on the basis of either her sincerity or competency regarding the issue. Other arguments from hypocrisy purport to be evidence of the impracticability of the opponent’s proposals. Further, some versions of hypocrisy charges from impracticability are open to a counter that I will term tu quoque judo.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Abortion Activism and Civil Discourse: Reply to Shields.Robert Talisse & Steven Maloney - 2008 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 20 (1-2):167-179.
    Jon Shields's finding—that certain evangelical pro‐life activist groups are more interested in deliberative discussions about abortion than are pro‐choice activists—is wrong on methodological, normative, and philosophical grounds. He generalizes about pro‐life civility from a small, trained sample group, and ignores possibly important variables that would explain pro‐choicers' incivility. Further, politeness is not necessarily a requirement of democratic deliberation—which entails not forcing one's own beliefs on the public, as pro‐lifers manifestly are trying to do, despite their calm demeanor. Conversely, some pro‐choicers' (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation.Marcin Lewiński - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):469-497.
    In this article I address the following question: When are reformulations in argumentative criticisms reasonable and when do they become fallacious straw men? Following ideas developed in the integrated version of pragma-dialectics, I approach argumentation as an element of agonistic exchanges permeated by arguers’ strategic manoeuvring aimed at effectively defeating the opponent with reasonable means. I propose two basic context-sensitive criteria for deciding on the reasonableness of reformulations: precision of the rules for interpretation (precise vs. loose) and general expectation of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Digitally Deconstructing ‘Straw Man’ and ‘Wicker Man’ Arguments: A Software-Aided Pedagogy.Kieran O’Halloran - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (3):193-222.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation