Switch to: References

Citations of:

Can 'Big' Questions be Begged?

Argumentation 25 (1):23-36 (2011)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What is a Sophistical Refutation?David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.
    Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Interpretative dilemmas.David Botting - unknown
    In this paper I claim that the reason we are reluctant to call many informal fallacies fallacies of relevance is because we can interpret them as providing contextual information about how the argument is to be interpreted. This interpretative dilemma is that the logical form is determined in part by whether the analyst wishes to be charitable to the proponent or the opponent. The evaluation of the argument is nonetheless purely logical.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Irrelevance of Relevance.David Botting - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):1-21.
    The lack of a theory of relevance in the current state of the art of informal logic has often been considered regrettable, a gap that must be filled before the Relevance-Sufficiency-Acceptability model can be considered complete. I wish to challenge this view. A theory of relevance is neither desirable nor possible. Informal logic can get by perfectly well, and has been doing so far, with relevance judgments that are by nature unanalysable and intuitive. Criticism of theories of relevance, for example (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Johnson and the Soundness Doctrine.David Botting - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (4):501-525.
    Why informal logic? Informal logic is a group of proposals meant to contrast with, replace, and reject formal logic, at least for the analysis and evaluation of everyday arguments. Why reject formal logic? Formal logic is criticized and claimed to be inadequate because of its commitment to the soundness doctrine. In this paper I will examine and try to respond to some of these criticisms. It is not my aim to examine every argument ever given against formal logic; I am (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation?Marcin Lewinski & J. Anthony Blair - unknown
    “Reasonable hostility” is a norm of communicative conduct initially developed by studying public exchanges in education governance meetings in local U.S. communities. In this paper I consider the norm’s usefulness for and applicability to a U.S. state-level public hearing about a bill to legalize civil unions. Following an explication of reasonable hostility and grounded practical theory, the approach to inquiry that guides my work, I describe Hawaii’s 2009, 18-hour public hearing and analyze selected seg-ments of it. I show that this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Response to my commentator.Marcin Lewiński - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark