Switch to: References

Citations of:

Sophistical refutations

In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press (1984)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Aristotle’s Treatment of Fallacious Reasoning in Sophistical Refutations and Prior Analytics.George Boger - unknown
    Aristotle studies syllogistic argumentation in Sophistical Refutations and Prior Analytics. In the latter he focuses on the formal and syntactic character of arguments and treats the sullogismoi and non-sullogismoi as argument patterns with valid or invalid instances. In the former Aristotle focuses on semantics and rhetoric to study apparent sullogismoi as object language arguments. Interpreters usually take Sophistical Refutations as considerably less mature than Prior Analytics. Our interpretation holds that the two works are more of a piece than previously believed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Textbook Treatments of Fallacies.David Hitchcock - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (2):233-245.
    In his Fallacies, Hamblin (1970) castigated what he called the “standard treatment” of fallacies in introductory textbooks of his day as debased, worn-out, dogmatic, and unconnected to anything else in modern logic. A bit more than 50 years later, I investigate the treatment of fallacies in six English-language introductory textbooks with a section on fallacies that have gone into 10 or more editions, to see whether their treatment of fallacies has taken account of the scholarship on fallacies that Hamblin’s book (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations.George Boger - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (1).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Third men: The logic of the sophisms at Arist. SE 22, 178b36–170a10.Ermelinda Valentina Di Lascio - 2004 - Topoi 23 (1):33-59.
    This article aims at elucidating the logic of Arist. SE 22, 178b36–179a10 and, in particular, of the sophism labelled "Third Man" discussed in it. I suggest that neither the sophistic Walking Man argument, proposed by ancient commentators, nor the Aristotelian Third Man of the , suggested by modern interpreters, can be identified with the fallacious argument Aristotle presents and solves in the passage. I propose an alternative reconstruction of the Third Man sophism and argue that an explanation of the lines (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation