Abstract
(1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and adequate argumentation. Such reductionism has several advantages compared to an unsystematic action, which is quite usual in current fallacy but which at least in part is due to the poor state of positive argumentation theory itself. (2) After defining 'fallacy' (3) some principle ideas and (4) the exact criteria for (argumentatively) valid and adequate arguments of the 'practical theory of argumentation' of the author are expounded. These criteria will be used as the positive basis for the following reduction. (5) In the main part of the paper a systematization, definition and explanation of the main types and many subforms of fallacies of argumentative validity and (6) adequacy is developed, following the list of positive conditions of validity and adequacy. In addition to many new types of fallacies, this systematization contains the most important of the traditionally known and named fallacies; these are explained and the criteria for some of them are corrected or put more precisely.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Carnap, R: 1950, Logical Foundations of Probability, 2nd revised edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ/Hove/London.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1995, 'The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies', in H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies. Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 130–144 (= ch. 9).
Hamblin, Ch. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Jacquette, D.: 1993, 'Logical Dimensions of Question-begging Argument', American Philosophical Quarterly 30, 317–327.
Hempel, C. G.: 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation, The Free Press, New York.
Johnson, R. H.: 1995, 'The Blaze of her Splendors. Suggestions about Revitalizing Fallacy Theory', in H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies. Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 107–119 (= ch. 7).
Lumer, Ch.: 1988, 'The Disputation. A Special Type of Cooperative Argumentative Dialogue', Argumentation 2, 441–464.
Lumer, Ch.: 1990a, Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theoretische Grundlagen, praktische Begründung und Regeln wichtiger Argumentationsarten, Vieweg, Braunschweig.
Lumer, Ch.: 1990b, 'Argumentation, Argumentationstheorie', in H. J. Sandkühler (ed.), Europäische Enzyklopädie zu Philosophie und Wissenschaften, Vol. 1, Meiner, Hamburg, 246–255.
Lumer, Ch.: 1991, 'Structure and Function of Argumentations. An Epistemological Approach to Determining Criteria for the Validity and Adequacy of Argumentations', in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990, Sicsat, Amsterdam, 98–107.
Lumer, Ch.: 1992, 'Handlungstheoretisch erklärende Interpretationen als Mittel der semantischen Bedeutungsanalyse', in L. Danneberg and F. Vollhardt (eds.), Vom Umgang mit Literatur und Literaturgeschichte. Positionen und Perspektiven nach der 'Theoriedebatte', Metzler, Stuttgart, 75–113.
Lumer, Ch.: 1995, 'Practical Arguments for Theoretical Theses', in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994),Vol. II, Sicsat, Amsterdam, 91–101. – Revised reprint: 1997, Argumentation 11, 329–340.
McGrath, P. J.: 1995, 'When Do Deductive Arguments Beg the Question?', in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 345–352.
Siegel, H. and J. Biro: 1995, 'Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies', in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 286–299.
Tindale, Ch. W.: 1995, 'Walton and the Standard Treatment', in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 274–285.
Walton, D.: 1985, 'Are Circular Arguments Necessary Vicious?', American Philosophical Quarterly 22, 263–274.
Walton, D.: 1991, Begging the question. Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation, Greenwood Press, New York.
Walton, D.: 1994, 'Begging the Question as a Pragmatic Fallacy', Synthese 100, 95–131.
Walton, D.: 1995, 'The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question', in H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies. Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 229–239(= ch. 16).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lumer, C. Reductionism in Fallacy Theory. Argumentation 14, 405–423 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007809709996
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007809709996