Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407 (2011)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible argument is fallacious or not. It is shown that three leading violations of proper dialog standards for defeasible reasoning necessary to see how fallacies work are: (a) improper failure to retract a commitment, (b) failure of openness to defeat, and (c) illicit reversal of burden of proof
|
Keywords | Fallacy theory Argumentation Argumentation schemes Formal dialog systems Burden of proof Evidence Profiles of dialog Artificial intelligence |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11229-009-9657-y |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - State University of New York Press.
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
View all 30 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity.Benjamin Eva & Stephan Hartmann - 2018 - Psychological Review 125 (5):806-821.
Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2018 - Law and Philosophy 37 (1):69-115.
Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
View all 9 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Defeasible Reasoning and Logic Programming.Timothy R. Colburn - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):417-436.
Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Abstract Argumentation.Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning.Robert L. Causey - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
Faulty Reasoning About Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2004 - Faith and Philosophy 21 (2):242-249.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-10-03
Total views
83 ( #120,276 of 2,410,447 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #244,706 of 2,410,447 )
2009-10-03
Total views
83 ( #120,276 of 2,410,447 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #244,706 of 2,410,447 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads