Argumentation 26 (2):213-232 (2012)

Authors
David Botting
De La Salle University (PhD)
Abstract
From Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations the following classifications are put forward and defended through extensive excerpts from the text. (AR-PFC) All sophistical refutations are exclusively either ‘apparent refutations’ or ‘proofs of false conclusions’. (AR-F) ‘Apparent refutations’ and ‘fallacies’ name the same thing. (ID-ED) All fallacies are exclusively either fallacies in dictione or fallacies extra dictionem . (ID-nAMB) Not all fallacies in dictione are due to ambiguity. (AMB-nID) Not all fallacies due to ambiguity are fallacies in dictione . (AMB&ID-ME) The set of fallacies due to ambiguity and fallacies in dictione together comprise the set of arguments said to be “dependent on mere expression”. Being “dependent on mere expression” and “dependent on language” are not the same (instances of the latter form a proper subset of instances of the former). (nME-FACT) All arguments that are not against the expression are “against the fact.” (FACT-ED) All fallacious arguments against the fact are fallacies extra dictionem (it is unclear whether the converse is true). (MAN-ARG) The solutions of fallacious arguments are exclusively either “against the man” or “against the argument.” (10) (F-ARG) Each (type of) fallacy has a unique solution (namely, the opposite of whatever causes the fallacy), but each fallacious argument does not. However, each fallacious argument does have a unique solution against the argument, called the ‘true solution’ (in other words, what fallacy a fallacious argument commits is determined by how it is solved. However, if the solution is ‘against the man’ then this is not, properly speaking, the fallacy committed in the argument. It is only the ‘true solution’—the solution against the argument, of which there is always only one—that determines the fallacy actually committed)
Keywords Sophistical refutations  Aristotle  Fallacies
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9231-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,666
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Posterior Analytics. Aristotle - 1994 - Clarendon Press.
Metaphysics. Aristotle - 1960 - Univ of Michigan Pr.
The Fallacy of Fallacies.Jaakko Hintikka - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):211-238.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Fallacies of Accident.David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
Can 'Big' Questions Be Begged?David Botting - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle.David Hitchcock - 2000 - History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
The Latin “Third Man”. A Survey and Edition of Texts From the XIIIth Century.Leone Gazziero - 2012 - Cahiers de L’Institut du Moyen Age Grec Et Latin 81:11-93.
Two Contextualist Fallacies.Martin Montminy - 2010 - Synthese 173 (3):317 - 333.
Three Fallacies.Jonathan E. Adler - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666.
Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech?Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-09-07

Total views
52 ( #183,618 of 2,349,380 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #239,083 of 2,349,380 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes