Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Logic.Wesley C. Salmon - 1977 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 42 (1):107-108.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  • (1 other version)Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. [REVIEW]David L. Hull - 1996 - Ethics 107 (1):170-174.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   78 citations  
  • Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.Frans H. Van 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. 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 that identifying and acknowledging (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   60 citations  
  • (1 other version)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman - 1974 - Science 185 (4157):1124-1131.
    This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1696 citations  
  • Fallacies and Argument Appraisal.Christopher W. Tindale - 2007 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Fallacies and Argument Appraisal presents an introduction to the nature, identification, and causes of fallacious reasoning, along with key questions for evaluation. Drawing from the latest work on fallacies as well as some of the standard ideas that have remained relevant since Aristotle, Christopher Tindale investigates central cases of major fallacies in order to understand what has gone wrong and how this has occurred. Dispensing with the approach that simply assigns labels and brief descriptions of fallacies, Tindale provides fuller treatments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   55 citations  
  • Can evolution get us off the hook? Evaluating the ecological defence of human rationality.Maarten Boudry, Michael Vlerick & Ryan McKay - 2015 - Consciousness and Cognition 33:524-535.
    This paper discusses the ecological case for epistemic innocence: does biased cognition have evolutionary benefits, and if so, does that exculpate human reasoners from irrationality? Proponents of ‘ecological rationality’ have challenged the bleak view of human reasoning emerging from research on biases and fallacies. If we approach the human mind as an adaptive toolbox, tailored to the structure of the environment, many alleged biases and fallacies turn out to be artefacts of narrow norms and artificial set-ups. However, we argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Trust, argumentation and technology.Fabio Paglieri - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):119-122.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Evolutionary debunking arguments against theism, reconsidered.Jonathan Jong & Aku Visala - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (3):243-258.
    Evolutionary debunking arguments against religious beliefs move from the claim that religious beliefs are caused by off-track processes to the conclusion that said religious beliefs are unjustified and/or false. Prima facie, EDAs commit the genetic fallacy, unduly conflating the context of discovery and the context of justification. In this paper, we first consider whether EDAs necessarily commit the genetic fallacy, and if not, whether modified EDAs provide successful arguments against theism. Then, we critically evaluate more recent attempts to argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They Are.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):159-184.
    This paper offers a solution to the problem of understanding how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by “seeming to be valid”, or (better) appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation of how fallacies are deceptive is based on heuristics and paraschemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem that sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   45 citations  
  • The Value of Genetic Fallacies.Andrew C. Ward - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (1):1-33.
    Since at least the 1938 publication of Hans Reichenbach’s Experience and Predication , there has been widespread agreement that, when discussing the beliefs that people have, it is important to distinguish contexts of discovery and contexts of justification. Traditionally, when one conflates the two contexts, the result is a “genetic fallacy”. This paper examines genealogical critiques and addresses the question of whether such critiques are fallacious and, if so, whether this vitiates their usefulness. The paper concludes that while there may (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reasoning Under Uncertainty: The Role of Two Informal Fallacies in an Emerging Scientific Inquiry.Louise Cummings - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (2).
    lt is now commonplace in fallacy inquiry for many of the traditional informal fallacies to be viewed as reasonable or nonfallacious modes of argument. Central to this evaluative shift has been the attempt to examine traditional fallacies within their wider contexts of use. However, this pragmatic turn in fallacy evaluation is still in its infancy. The true potential of a contextual approach in the evaluation of the fallacies is yet to be explored. I examine how, in the context of scientific (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • (1 other version)Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.David L. Hull - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):435-438.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   517 citations  
  • Prove it! The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs. Pseudoscience Disputes.Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (2):487-502.
    The concept of burden of proof is used in a wide range of discourses, from philosophy to law, science, skepticism, and even in everyday reasoning. This paper provides an analysis of the proper deployment of burden of proof, focusing in particular on skeptical discussions of pseudoscience and the paranormal, where burden of proof assignments are most poignant and relatively clear-cut. We argue that burden of proof is often misapplied or used as a mere rhetorical gambit, with little appreciation of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Strategies of Character Attack.Fabrizio Macagno - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (4):1-33.
    Why are personal attacks so powerful? In political debates, speeches, discussions and campaigns, negative character judgments, aggressive charges and charged epithets are used for different purposes. They can block the dialogue, trigger value judgments and influence decisions; they can force the interlocutor to withdraw a viewpoint or undermine his arguments. Personal attacks are not only multifaceted dialogical moves, but also complex argumentative strategies. They can be considered as premises for further arguments based on signs, generalizations or consequences. They involve tactics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition.Taeda Tomić - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (4):1-22.
    False dilemma is a specific form of reasoning : despite the fact that it is based on a deductively valid argument form, it is rightly depicted as fallacy. A systematic exposition of false dilemma is missing in theoretical approaches to fallacies. This article formulates six criteria for a well-grounded exposition of a fallacy, suggesting also a systematic exposition of false dilemma. These criteria can be used to both explain, and categorise, the various false dilemma fallacies. The article introduces distinction between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 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   36 citations  
  • Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty.Gerd Gigerenzer - 2008 - Oup Usa.
    This volume collects Gigerenzer's recent articles on the psychology of rationality. This volume should appeal, like the earlier volumes, to a broad mixture of cognitive psychologists, philosophers, economists, and others who study decision making.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   89 citations  
  • Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
    An ad hominem fallacy is committed when an individual employs an irrelevant personal attack against an opponent instead of addressing that opponent’s argument. Many discussions of such fallacies discuss judgments of relevance about such personal attacks, and consider how we might distinguish those that are relevant from those that are not. This paper will argue that the literature on bias and testimony can helpfully contribute to that analysis. This will highlight ways in which biases, particularly unconscious biases, can make ad (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
    Short abstract (98 words). Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given humans’ exceptional dependence on communication and vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   410 citations  
  • Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men.Scott F. Aikin & John Casey - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):87-105.
    Three forms of the straw man fallacy are posed: the straw, weak, and hollow man. Additionally, there can be non-fallacious cases of any of these species of straw man arguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms.Maarten Boudry & Johan Braeckman - 2011 - Philosophia 39 (1):145-161.
    An immunizing strategy is an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic defense mechanism is defined as a structural feature of a belief system which has the same effect of deflecting arguments and evidence. We discuss the remarkable recurrence of certain patterns of immunizing strategies and defense mechanisms in pseudoscience and other belief systems. Five different (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • (1 other version)A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive.John Stuart Mill - 1843 - New York and London,: University of Toronto Press. Edited by J. Robson.
    Ethics and jurisprudence are liable to the remark in common with logic. Almost every writer having taken a different view of some of the particulars which ...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   349 citations  
  • Evolutionary Debunking Arguments.Guy Kahane - 2010 - Noûs 45 (1):103-125.
    Evolutionary debunking arguments are arguments that appeal to the evolutionary origins of evaluative beliefs to undermine their justification. This paper aims to clarify the premises and presuppositions of EDAs—a form of argument that is increasingly put to use in normative ethics. I argue that such arguments face serious obstacles. It is often overlooked, for example, that they presuppose the truth of metaethical objectivism. More importantly, even if objectivism is assumed, the use of EDAs in normative ethics is incompatible with a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   195 citations  
  • (7 other versions)Introduction to Logic.Irving M. Copi - manuscript
    There are obvious benefits to be gained from the study of logic: heightened ability to express ideas clearly and concisely, increased skill in defining one's terms, enlarged capacity to formulate arguments rigorously and to analyze them critically. But the greatest benefit, in my judgment, is the recognition that reason can be applied in every aspect of human affairs.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   179 citations  
  • Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.) - 1982 - Cambridge University Press.
    The thirty-five chapters in this book describe various judgmental heuristics and the biases they produce, not only in laboratory experiments but in important...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1230 citations  
  • (7 other versions)Introduction to logic.Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen & Victor Rodych (eds.) - 1961 - New York: Routledge.
    For more than six decades, and for thousands of students, Introduction to Logic has been the gold standard in introductory logic texts. In this 15th Edition, Carl Cohen and Victor Rodych update Irving M. Copi's classic text, improving on its many strengths and introducing new and helpful material that will greatly assist both students and instructors.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies.John Woods & Douglas N. Walton - 1982 - Toronto, Canada: Mcgraw-Hill Ryerson.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   172 citations  
  • 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  
  • Becoming a Critical Thinker: A Guide for the New Millennium.Richard Todd Carroll - 2000 - Boston, MA, USA: Pearson.
    For one semester courses in Introduction to Logic and introductory courses in Critical Thinking. Becoming a Critical Thinker: A Guide for the New Millennium provides a clear and useful set of tools for evaluating the probability of claims presented to students in their daily lives. In this new millennium, as the power and influence of the mass media continues to grow, students need to develop both fundamental critical thinking skills as well as specific skills that focus on the issues and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (7 other versions)Introduction to Logic.Irving Marmer Copi, Carl Cohen & Kenneth McMahon - 1953 - New York, NY, USA: Macmillan. Edited by Carl Cohen & K. D. McMahon.
    Introduction to Logic is a proven textbook that has been honed through the collaborative efforts of many scholars over the last five decades. Its scrupulous attention to detail and precision in exposition and explanation is matched by the greatest accuracy in all associated detail. In addition, it continues to capture student interest through its personalized human setting and current examples. The 14th Edition of Introduction to Logic, written by Copi, Cohen & McMahon, is dedicated to the many thousands of students (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   70 citations  
  • (7 other versions)Introduction to Logic.Irving M. Copi - 1954 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 59 (3):344-345.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   129 citations  
  • (7 other versions)Introduction to Logic.Irving M. Copi - 1954 - Philosophy 29 (110):271-271.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   94 citations  
  • (7 other versions)Introduction to Logic.Irving M. Copi - 1956 - Philosophy of Science 23 (3):267-268.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   133 citations  
  • The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Psychological Review 114 (3):704-732.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   123 citations  
  • Darwin's Dangerous Idea.Daniel Dennett - 1994 - Behavior and Philosophy 24 (2):169-174.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   545 citations  
  • A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy.Douglas Walton - 2003 - University Alabama Press.
    Although fallacies have been common since Aristotle, until recently little attention has been devoted to identifying and defining them. Furthermore, the concept of fallacy itself has lacked a sufficiently clear meaning to make it a useful tool for evaluating arguments. Douglas Walton takes a new analytical look at the concept of fallacy and presents an up-to-date analysis of its usefulness for argumentation studies. Walton uses case studies illustrating familiar arguments and tricky deceptions in everyday conversation where the charge of fallaciousness (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   121 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Cogent Reasoning Model of Informal Fallacies Revisited.Daniel N. Boone - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (2).
    The author designed the Reasoning Analysis Test to provide empirical support for the CRM analysis of informal fallacies. While informal, the results provide presumptive evidence that those committing informal fallacies may tacitly reason as predicted by CRM. Davis has argued persuasively that Gricean theory has not lived up to expectations, In light of his critique, the CRM analyses of Begging the Question and Equivocation are amended. Johnson has provided standards for judging any theory of informal fallacies. It is argued that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation.Marcin Lewiński - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):469-497.
    In this article I address the following question: When are reformulations in argumentative criticisms reasonable and when do they become fallacious straw men? Following ideas developed in the integrated version of pragma-dialectics, I approach argumentation as an element of agonistic exchanges permeated by arguers’ strategic manoeuvring aimed at effectively defeating the opponent with reasonable means. I propose two basic context-sensitive criteria for deciding on the reasonableness of reformulations: precision of the rules for interpretation (precise vs. loose) and general expectation of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
    In this contribution, I will develop a comprehensive tool for the reconstruction and evaluation of argumentation from expert opinion. This is done by analyzing and then combining two dialectical accounts of this type of argumentation. Walton’s account of the ‘appeal to expert opinion’ provides a number of useful, but fairly unsystematic suggestions for critical questions pertaining to argumentation from expert opinion. The pragma-dialectical account of ‘argumentation from authority’ offers a clear and systematic, but fairly general framework for the reconstruction and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • Is Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory Pseudo-Scientific by Karl Popper's Criterion of Demarcation?Adolf Grünbaum - 1979 - American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (2):131 - 141.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   53 citations  
  • Fallacies and the Evaluation of Reasoning.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 1981 - American Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1):13 - 22.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   69 citations  
  • Nonfallacious Arguments from Ignorance.Douglas Walton - 1992 - American Philosophical Quarterly 29 (4):381 - 387.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • The Fallacy behind Fallacies.Gerald J. Massey - 1981 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6 (1):489-500.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   52 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.David Bentley Hart - 2013 - Yale University Press.
    Despite the recent ferocious public debate about belief, the concept most central to the discussion—God—frequently remains vaguely and obscurely described. Are those engaged in these arguments even talking about the same thing? In a wide-ranging response to this confusion, esteemed scholar David Bentley Hart pursues a clarification of how the word “God” functions in the world’s great theistic faiths. Ranging broadly across Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, Hart explores how these great intellectual traditions treat humanity’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982.John Hayden Woods & Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Foris.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   43 citations  
  • The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent Based Reasoning.John Hayden Woods - 2004 - Dordrecht and London: Springer.
    The present work is a fair record of work I've done on the fallacies and related matters in the fifteen years since 1986. The book may be seen as a sequel to Fallacies: Selected papers 1972-1982, which I wrote with Douglas Walton, and which appeared in 1989 with Foris. This time I am on my own. Douglas Walton has, long since, found his own voice, as the saying has it; and so have I. Both of us greatly value the time (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations  
  • (1 other version)From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation.Else Margarete Barth & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1982 - Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Edited by E. C. W. Krabbe.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   118 citations  
  • (1 other version)Commentary: Science at the Bar–Causes for Concern.Larry Laudan - 1982 - Science, Technology and Human Values 7 (4):16-19.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • (1 other version)Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky - 1985 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36 (3):331-340.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   523 citations