Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Argumentative “Logic” of Humor.Fabrizio Macagno & Michael Cundall - 2022 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 55 (3):223-251.
    ABSTRACT The logic of humor has been acknowledged as an essential dimension of every joke. However, what is the logic of jokes, exactly? The modern theories of humor maintain that jokes are characterized by their own logic, dubbed “pseudo,” “playful,” or “local,” which has been the object of frequent criticisms. This article intends to address the limitations of the current perspectives on the logic of jokes by proposing a rhetorical approach to humorous texts. Building on the traditional development of Aristotle’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Questions, Presuppositions and Fallacies.Andrei Moldovan - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):287-303.
    In this paper I focus on the fallacy known as Complex Question or Many Questions. After a brief introduction, in Sect. 2 I highlight its pragmatic dimension, and in Sect. 3 its dialectical dimension. In Sect. 4 I present two accounts of this fallacy developed in argumentation theory, Douglas Walton’s and the Pragma-Dialectics’, which have resources to capture both its pragmatic and its dialectical nature. However, these accounts are unsatisfactory for various reasons. In Sect. 5 I focus on the pragmatic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Introduction to the Special Issue.Fabrizio Macagno & Alice Toniolo - 2022 - Informal Logic 43 (3):1-23.
    Douglas Walton’s work is extremely vast, multifaceted, and interdisciplinary. He developed theoretical proposals that have been used in disciplines that are not traditionally related to philosophy, such as law, education, discourse analysis, artificial intelligence, or medical communication. Through his papers and books, Walton redefined the boundaries not only of argumentation theory, but also logic and philosophy. He was a philosopher in the sense that his interest was developing theoretical models that can help explain reality, and more importantly interact with it. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Journal of Pragmatics 191:67-82.
    The detection of hate speech and fake news in political discourse is at the same time a crucial necessity for democratic societies and a challenge for several areas of study. However, most of the studies have focused on what is explicitly stated: false article information, language that expresses hatred, derogatory expressions. This paper argues that the explicit dimension of manipulation is only one – and the least problematic – of the risks of political discourse. The language of the unsaid is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Analizzare l’argomentazione sui social media. Il caso dei tweet di Salvini.Fabrizio Macagno - 2019 - Sistemi Intelligenti 3 (31):601-632.
    Twitter is an instrument used not only for sharing public or personal information, but also for persuading the audience. While specific platforms and software have been developed for analyzing macro-analytical data, and specific studies have focused on the linguistic dimension of the tweets, the argumentative dimension of the latter is unexplored to this date. This paper intends to propose a method grounded on the tools advanced in argumentation theory for capturing, coding, and assessing the different argumentative dimensions of the messages (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Scoping the ethical principles of cybersecurity fear appeals.Marc Dupuis & Karen Renaud - 2020 - Ethics and Information Technology 23 (3):265-284.
    Fear appeals are used in many domains. Cybersecurity researchers are also starting to experiment with fear appeals, many reporting positive outcomes. Yet there are ethical concerns related to the use of fear to motivate action. In this paper, we explore this aspect from the perspectives of cybersecurity fear appealdeployersandrecipients. We commenced our investigation by considering fear appeals from three foundational ethical perspectives. We then consulted the two stakeholder groups to gain insights into the ethical concerns they consider to be pertinent. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment.Fabrizio Macagno & Chrysi Rapanta - 2019 - Studia Paedagogica 24 (4):11-44.
    The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Epistemic Coverage and Argument Closure.Catherine E. Hundleby - 2020 - Topoi 40 (5):1051-1062.
    Sanford Goldberg’s account of epistemic coverage constitutes a special case of Douglas Walton’s view that epistemic closure arises from dialectical argument. Walton’s pragmatic version of epistemic closure depends on dialectical norms for closing an argument, and epistemic coverage operates at the limits of argument closure because it minimizes dialectical exchange. Such closure works together with a shared hypothetical consideration to justify dismissal of surprising claims.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument.Federico Puppo (ed.) - 2019 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    The informal logic movement began as an attempt to develop – and teach – an alternative logic which can account for the real life arguing that surrounds us in our daily lives – in newspapers and the popular media, political and social commentary, advertising, and interpersonal exchange. The movement was rooted in research and discussion in Canada and especially at the University of Windsor, and has become a branch of argumentation theory which intersects with related traditions and approaches (notably formal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Fallacies in the Historiography of Generative Linguistics.András Kertész - 2019 - Foundations of Science 24 (4):775-801.
    The paper relates two different fields of research: the historiography of generative linguistics and argumentation theory, a central topic of which is the investigation of fallacies. Relating the two fields is a challenge: Since fallacies seem to be at the heart of the historiography of generative linguistics, any thorough evaluation of its present state of the art also involves accounting for fallacies. The paper applies Kertész and Rákosi’s p-model of plausible argumentation to a case study on heated discussions in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation.Moira Howes & Catherine Hundleby - 2018 - Symposion. Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 5 (2):229-254.
    Moira Howes and Catherine Hundleby ABSTRACT: While anger can derail argumentation, it can also help arguers and audiences to reason together in argumentation. Anger can provide information about premises, biases, goals, discussants, and depth of disagreement that people might otherwise fail to recognize or prematurely dismiss. Anger can also enhance the salience of certain premises...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy of Appeal to Sex.I. Anger Beverley & Hundleby Catherine - unknown
    Arguments sometimes appeal to sex by invoking the sexuality of a model or a person or the promise of sexual gratification. When sexual gratification is not a relevant consideration, the appeal seems to be fallacious. We will address when this may be an appropriate line of reasoning -- there is such a thing as “sex appeal”--and when it may be biased to assume the relevance of sexuality. Advertising, which provides infinite examples of appeal to sex, may be questionable as a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the difference between fallacy and sophism.Dufour Michel - unknown
    The translation into French of the English word “fallacy” opens a discussion on the difference between fallacy and sophism in English. The two words are sometimes synonyms, but a difference is sometimes made on the ground that a sophism is deliberate and a fallacy is non-deliberate. In a second part of the paper this distinctive criterion is taken seriously to discuss the relative frequency of sophisms and of fallacies for a typical kind of fallacious argument. I claim that this aspect (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Causal Argument.Ulrike Hahn, Frank Zenker & Roland Bluhm - 2017 - In Michael Waldmann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 475-494.
    In this chapter, we outline the range of argument forms involving causation that can be found in everyday discourse. We also survey empirical work concerned with the generation and evaluation of such arguments. This survey makes clear that there is presently no unified body of research concerned with causal argument. We highlight the benefits of a unified treatment both for those interested in causal cognition and those interested in argumentation, and identify the key challenges that must be met for a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning.Michael Waldmann (ed.) - 2017 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
    Causal reasoning is one of our most central cognitive competencies, enabling us to adapt to our world. Causal knowledge allows us to predict future events, or diagnose the causes of observed facts. We plan actions and solve problems using knowledge about cause-effect relations. Without our ability to discover and empirically test causal theories, we would not have made progress in various empirical sciences. In the past decades, the important role of causal knowledge has been discovered in many areas of cognitive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Fallacious Analogical Reasoning and the Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference (MFDI).Claudio Ternullo & Giuseppe Sergioli - 2014 - Isonomia (Epistemologica) 5:159-178.
    In this article, we address fallacious analogical reasoning and the Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference (MFDI), recently discussed by B. Lightbody and M. Berman (2010). We claim that the authors’ proposal to introduce a new fallacy is only partly justified. We also argue that, in some relevant cases, fallacious analogical reasoning involving metaphors is only affected by the use of quaternio terminorum.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Critical thinking and cognitive biases.Mark Battersby & Sharon Bailin - unknown
    We argue that psychological research can enhance the identification of reasoning errors and the development of an appropriate pedagogy to instruct people in how to avoid these errors. In this paper we identify some of the findings of psychologists that help explain some common fallacies, give examples of fallacies identified in the research that have not been typically identified in philosophy, and explore ways in which this research can enhance critical thinking instruction.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Scaring the Public: Fear Appeal Arguments in Public Health Reasoning.Louise Cummings - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):25-50.
    The study of threat and fear appeal arguments has given rise to a sizeable literature. Even within a public health context, much is now known about how these arguments work to gain the public’s compliance with health recommendations. Notwithstanding this level of interest in, and examination of, these arguments, there is one aspect of these arguments that still remains unexplored. That aspect concerns the heuristic function of these arguments within our thinking about public health problems. Specifically, it is argued that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Reason of Rhetoric.Emmanuelle Danblon - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):493-507.
    Paying more attention to the rhetorical side of argumentation raises epistemological questions. In this article I argue that rhetoric has to be an integral part of argumentative models if such models are to be considered rational. In other words, I claim that rhetoric is a necessary condition for argumentation studies. I am aware that this view may appear provocative. I hope to show that it is not the case, if we consider rationality to be a concept that encompasses more than (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A Priori Abduction.David Botting - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):167-181.
    While “All events have a cause” is a synthetic statement making a factual claim about the world, “All effects have a cause” is analytic. When we take an event as an effect, no inference is required to deduce that it has a cause since this is what it means to be an effect. Some examples often given in the literature as examples of abduction work in the same way through semantic facts that follow from the way our beliefs represent those (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Bilimsel Konularla İlgili Haberlere İlişkin Argümantasyon Düzeyleri ve Kullanmaya Yatkın Oldukları Safsatalar.Akkanat Cigdem - 2022 - In Eğitim Araştırmaları. pp. 7-34.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation.Francesca Ervas - 2021 - Frontiers in Psychology 12:628460.
    In argumentation, metaphors are often considered as ambiguous or deceptive uses of language leading to fallacies of reasoning. However, they can also provide useful insights into creative argumentation, leading to genuinely new knowledge. Metaphors entail a framing effect that implicitly provides a specific perspective to interpret the world, guiding reasoning and evaluation of arguments. In the same vein, emotions could be in sharp contrast with proper reasoning, but they can also be cognitive processes of affective framing, influencing our reasoning and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Inquiry: A New Paradigm for Critical Thinking.Mark Battersby (ed.) - 2018 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    This volume reflects the development and theoretical foundation of a new paradigm for critical thinking based on inquiry. The field of critical thinking, as manifested in the Informal Logic movement, developed primarily as a response to the inadequacies of formalism to represent actual argumentative practice and to provide useful argumentative skills to students. Because of this, the primary focus of the field has been on informal arguments rather than formal reasoning. Yet the formalist history of the field is still evident (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • (1 other version)Lasst uns den Weg einer neuen Ontologie einschlagen! (Teil 1).Gianluigi Segalerba - 2017 - Analele Universitatii Din Craiova, Seria Filosofie 40 (2):91-183.
    The present essay is the first part of an analysis regarding aspects of Aristotle’s ontology. Aristotle’s ontology is, in my opinion, a formal ontology that examines the fundamental structures of reality and that investigates the features belonging to entities such as substance, quantity, quality, universals. Aristotle’s ontology investigates, moreover, the reciprocal relations existing between these entities. Aristotle’s interpretation of universals is not, in my opinion, a nominalist interpretation of universals: I do not think Aristotle regards universals as being only mental (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Aggression, Politeness, and Abstract Adversaries.Catherine Hundleby - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):238-262.
    Trudy Govier argues in The Philosophy of Argument that adversariality in argumentation can be kept to a necessary minimum. On her ac-count, politeness can limit the ancillary adversariality of hostile culture but a degree of logical opposition will remain part of argumentation, and perhaps all reasoning. Argumentation cannot be purified by politeness in the way she hopes, nor does reasoning even in the discursive context of argumentation demand opposition. Such hopes assume an idealized politeness free from gender, and reasoners with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • Fallacies and biases.Ermioni Seremeta, Monique Flecken & Corina Andone - 2024 - Pragmatics and Cognition 31 (1):244-285.
    When processing political arguments, people are strongly affected by their prior ideological beliefs. Political cognition often relies on two types of ideological biases. Firstly, confirmation bias leads addressees of political communication to accept arguments that affirm their preferred ideological positions. Secondly, disconfirmation bias probes reasoners to reject arguments that provide attitudinally incongruent evidence. Here, we report the findings of an experiment aimed at investigating the role of biased reasoning on perceptions of argument soundness. We focused on the processing of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Creative Argumentation: When and Why People Commit the Metaphoric Fallacy.Francesca Ervas, Antonio Ledda, Amitash Ojha, Giuseppe Antonio Pierro & Bipin Indurkhya - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Fallacy Identification in a Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking.Mark Battersby, Sharon Bailin & Jan Albert van Laar - 2015 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 30 (1):9-16.
    The dialectical approach to teaching critical thinking is centred on a comparative evaluation of contending arguments, so that generally the strength of an argument for a position can only be assessed in the context of this dialectic. The identification of fallacies, though important, plays only a preliminary role in the evaluation to individual arguments. Our approach to fallacy identification and analysis sees fallacies as argument patterns whose persuasive power is disproportionate to their probative value.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Are Fallacies Vices?Andrew Ball - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):423-429.
    Why are some arguments fallacious? Since argumentation is an intellectual activity that can be performed better or worse, do we evaluate arguments simply in terms of their content, or does it also make sense to evaluate the arguer in light of the content put forward? From a ‘virtue’ approach, I propose understanding fallacies as having some link with intellectual vice. Drawing from recent work by Paul Grice, Linda Zagzebski, Andrew Aberdein, and Douglas Walton, this essay argues that if there is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Modern‐Day Cicero: An Alternative Interpretation of the Work of Ronald Dworkin.Arthur Dyevre & Wessel Wijtvliet - 2021 - Ratio Juris 34 (4):356-385.
    Ronald Dworkin is one of the most frequently cited legal philosophers. His work, notably his attack on H. L. A. Hart's positivist theory of law, has received considerable attention, earning him praise as well as trenchant criticism. Instead of discussing the analytical validity of Dworkin's claims, though, we propose an alternative reading of his jurisprudential writings that emphasises their rhetorical nature. After delineating the rhetorical context of his work, we provide several illustrations of his use of rhetorical strategies and, with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights from the Wild.Frank Zenker - 2018 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 27 (4):421-451.
    This article provides a brief selective overview and discussion of recent research into natural language argumentation that may inform the study of human reasoning on the assumption that an episode of argumentation issues an invitation to accept a corresponding inference. As this research shows, arguers typically seek to establish new consequences based on prior information. And they typically do so vis-à-vis a real or an imagined opponent, or an opponent-position, in ways that remain sensitive to considerations of context, audiences, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Committing Fallacies and the Appearance Condition.Hans V. Hansen - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (2):253-267.
    This appearance condition of fallacies refers to the phenomenon of weak arguments, or moves in argumentation, appearing to be okay when really they aren’t. Not all theorists agree that the appearance condition should be part of the conception of fallacies but this essay explores some of the consequences of including it. In particular, the differences between committing a fallacy, causing a fallacy and observing a fallacy are identified. The remainder of the paper is given over to discussing possible causes of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Informal Fallacies as Cognitive Heuristics in Public Health Reasoning.Louise Cummings - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (1):1-37.
    The public must make assessments of a range of health-related issues. However, these assessments require scientific know-ledge which is often lacking or ineffectively utilized by the public. Lay people must use whatever cognitive resources are at their disposal to come to judgement on these issues. It will be contended that a group of arguments—so-called informal fallacies—are a valuable cognitive resource in this regard. These arguments serve as cognitive heuristics which facilitate reasoning when knowledge is limited or beyond the grasp of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Debts, Oligarchies, and Holisms: Deconstructing the Fallacy of Composition.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (2):143-174.
    This is a critical appreciation of Govier’s 2006 ISSA keynote address on the fallacy of composition, and of economists’ writings on this fallacy in economics. I argue that the “fallacy of composition” is a problematical concept, because it does not denote a distinctive kind of argument but rather a plurality, and does not constitute a distinctive kind of error, but rather reduces to oversimplification in arguing from micro to macro. Finally, I propose further testing of this claim based on examples (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Baseballs and arguments from fairness.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):423-449.
    This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge (along with other schemes of lesser prominence) to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Commentary on “Eliminating Gender-, Racial- and Age-Biases in Medical Diagnostic Reasoning”.Steve Oswald - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark