Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: FALLACY

Sort By:

Limit search:

DEDUCTIVISM IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL LOGIC

100%

Jacquette D.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

2009

issue 16(29)

189-216

Deductivism is explained and defended. The thesis holds that logic generally, both formal and informal, is primarily concerned with the normative distinction between good and bad reasoning, and interprets good reasoning as minimally deductively valid inference. If deductivism is true, then it follows that all fallacies of reasoning, including the so-called informal or rhetorical fallacies, are deductively invalid. Deductivism as an ideology nevertheless cuts across the distinction between formal and informal logic. To defend deductivism against potential counterexamples, it is necessary to show that common fallacies are reconstructible as deductively invalid inferences. The present essay undertakes the groundwork of such a defense by arguing that even inductive argumentation, including inductive fallacies, along with circular reasoning, can be interpreted deductively. A large selection of other informal fallacies are also reconstructed as explicit deductive invalidities following a pattern that can be used to bring other fallacies under the deductivist umbrella.

STRATEGIC MANOEUVRING BETWEEN RHETORICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND DIALECTICAL REASONABLENESS

100%

Eemeren F. H. v.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

2009

issue 16(29)

69-91

This paper is aimed to provide an overview of the current state of affairs of argumentation research from a pragma-dialectical perspective. It is explained which are the difficulties in the study of argumentative discourse and what research components are to be included in an argumentation theory that seeks to be fully comprehensive. The development of the pragma-dialectical ideal model of critical discussion is explained and the pragma-dialectical conception of fallacies is elaborated on and compared with other approaches. It is argued that fallacious argumentative moves are essentially derailments of ‘strategic manoeuvring', which is the balancing act performed by a discussant between making argumentative moves that are at the same time rhetorically effective and dialectically reasonable. Finally, the argument from authority is discussed as an example. When is its usage sound and when can its strategic exploitation be said to derail, resulting in the fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam?

Refine search results

2 Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

2 2009

1 Eemeren F. H. v.

1 Jacquette D.

Search results

DEDUCTIVISM IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL LOGIC

STRATEGIC MANOEUVRING BETWEEN RHETORICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND DIALECTICAL REASONABLENESS