Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Six types of fallaciousness: Toward a realistic theory of logical criticism. [REVIEW]Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):263-282.
    I begin by formulating the problem of the nature of fallacy in terms of the logic of the negative evaluation of argument, that is, in terms of a theory of logical criticism; here I discuss several features of my approach and several advantages vis-à-vis other approaches; a main feature of my approach is the concern to avoid both formalist and empiricist excesses. I then define six types of fallaciousness, labeled formal, explanatory, presuppositional, positive, semantical, and persuasive; they all involve arguments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Dialogue theory for critical thinking.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (2):169-184.
    A general outline of a theory of reasoned dialogue is presented as an underlying basis of critical analysis of a text of argument discourse. This theory is applied to the analysis of informal fallacies by showing how textual evidence can be brought to bear in argument reconstruction. Several basic types of dialogue are identified and described, but the persuasive type of dialogue is emphasized as being of key importance to critical thinking theory.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  • The Very Idea of Epistemology.Donald McCloskey - 1989 - Economics and Philosophy 5 (1):1.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Presupposition Triggers and Presumptive Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno - 2019 - In Alessandro Capone, Marco Carapezza & Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications. Springer Verlag. pp. 155-179.
    Pragmatic presuppositions are analyzed considering their relation with the notion of commitment, namely the dialogical acceptance of a proposition by an interlocutor. The attribution of commitments carried out by means of pragmatic presupposition is shown to depend on the reasonableness of the underlying presumptive reasoning, ultimately grounded on hierarchies of presumptions. On this perspective, the ordinary interpretation of pragmatic presuppositions as the “taking for granted” of propositions signaled by semantic or syntactic triggers becomes only the presumptive, prototypical interpretation of a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric. [REVIEW]Manfred Kraus - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):3-19.
    In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Ad hominem arguments in practical argumentation.Eerik Lagerspetz - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (2):363-370.
    This paper is ultimately about the nature of argumentation in general and about the nature of practical argumentation in particular. (Practical argumentation is the form of argumentation which aims at answering the question: ‘What is to be done?’) The approach adopted here is an indirect one. I analyze one traditional form of argumentive fallacyargumentum ad hominem and try to show that in some argumentative situations it is an intuitively legitimate move. These intuitions can be explained if we accept that practical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • (1 other version)Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):283-301.
    In the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies are considered incorrect moves in a discussion for which the goal is successful resolution of a dispute. Ten rules are given for effective conduct at the various stages of such a critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding). Fallacies are discussed as violations of these rules, taking into account all speech acts which are traditionally recognized as fallacies. Special attention is paid to the role played by implicitness in fallacies in everyday language use. It is stressed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  • The normative structure of case study argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1993 - Metaphilosophy 24 (3):207-226.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren - 2009 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations  
  • The Greenhouse: A Welfare Assessment and Some Morals.Christoph Lumer - 2002 - Lanham, MD; New York; Oxford: University Press of America.
    In this book some options concerning the greenhouse effect are assessed from a welfarist point of view: business as usual, stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and reduction by 25% and by 60%. Up to today only economic analyses of such options are available, which monetize welfare losses. Because this is found to be wanting from a moral point of view, the present study welfarizes (among others) monetary losses on the basis of a hedonistic utilitarianism and other, justice incorporating, welfare ethics. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • (1 other version)Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.R. Grootendorst, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag. pp. 283-301.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.Bart Garssen, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Reasoned use of expertise in argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (1):59-73.
    This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of arguments based on appeals to expertise. The intersection of two areas is explored: (i) the traditional argumentum ad verecundiam (literally, “appeal to modesty,” but characteristically the appeal to the authority of expert judgment) in informal logic, and (ii) the uses of expert systems in artificial intelligence. The article identifies a model of practical reasoning that underlies the logic of expert systems and the model of argument appropriate for the informal logic of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • (1 other version)New directions in the logic of dialogue.Douglas N. Walton - 1984 - Synthese 58 (2):259 - 274.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton - 1993 - Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The ad Hominem argument as an informal fallacy.Douglas N. Walton - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):317-331.
    This article outlines criteria for the evaluation of the argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person, or personal attack in argument) that is traditionally a part of the curriculum in informal logic. The argument is shown to be a kind of criticism which works by shifting the burden of proof in dialogue through citing a pragmatic inconsistency in an arguer's position. Several specific cases of ad hominem argumentation which pose interesting problems in analyzing this type of criticism are studied.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Burden of proof.DouglasN Walton - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):233-254.
    This paper presents an analysis of the concept of burden of proof in argument. Relationship of burden of proof to three traditional informal fallacies is considered: (i) argumentum ad hominem, (ii) petitio principii, and (iii) argumentum ad ignorantiam. Other topics discussed include persuasive dialoque, pragmatic reasoning, legal burden of proof, plausible reasoning in regulated disputes, rules of dialogue, and the value of reasoned dialogue.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • (1 other version)New directions in the logic of dialogue.Douglas N. Walton - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):259 - 274.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Commentary on Blair.Maurice Finocchiaro - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark