The polysemy of ‘fallacy’—or ‘bias’, for that matter

In Patrick Bondy & Laura Benaquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity and Bias. pp. 2371-8323 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Starting with a brief overview of current usages, this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of ‘fallacy’, listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly, been discussed in the literature. Our thesis is that at least three related conceptions of ‘fallacy’ can be identified. The 16 conditions thus serve to “carve out” a semantic core and to distinguish three core-specifications. As our discussion suggests, these specifications can be related to three normative positions in the philosophy of human reasoning: the meliorist, the apologist, and the panglossian. Seeking to make these conditions available for scholarly discussion, this analysis-sketch should not be viewed as final or exhaustive.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Poisoning the Well.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (3):273-307.
Fallacies of Accident.David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-01-13

Downloads
8 (#1,133,268)

6 months
3 (#439,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Frank Zenker
Nankai University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references