The Fallacy of Treating the Ad Baculum as a Fallacy

Authors

  • Don S. Levi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v19i2.2324

Keywords:

ad baculum, fallacy, argument, premises, conclusion, rhetorical tactic, speech act, dialogical exchange, context, audience, issue

Abstract

The ad baculum is not a fallacy in an argument, but is offered instead of an argument to put an end to further argument. This claim is the basis for criticizing Michael Wreen's "neo-traditionalism," which yields misreadings of supposed cases of the ad baculum because of its rejection of any consideration of what the person using the ad baculum, or someone who refers to that use as an "argument," is doing. The paper concludes with reflections on the values that should inform talk of a fallacy in an argument such as the one that Wreen is giving.

Downloads

Published

1999-01-01

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 2 (1999)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .