Three fallacies

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666 (2000)

Abstract
Three fallacies in the rationality debate obscure the possibility for reconciling the opposed camps. I focus on how these fallacies arise in the view that subjects interpret their task differently from the experimenters (owing to the influence of conversational expectations). The themes are: first, critical assessment must start from subjects' understanding; second, a modal fallacy; and third, fallacies of distribution.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x00223431
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,669
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Perspectivism, Deontologism and Epistemic Poverty.Robert Lockie - 2016 - Social Epistemology 30 (2):133-149.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
Fallacies of Accident.David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
What is a Sophistical Refutation?David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Fallacies and Logical Errors.Herman E. Stark - 2000 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 20 (1):23-32.
Fallacies.Bradley Dowden - 2003 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
88 ( #82,748 of 2,326,092 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #716,750 of 2,326,092 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature