The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation

Informal Logic 30 (3):279-308 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Popular textbook treatments of the fallacies approach to argument evaluation employ the Adversary Method identified by Janice Moulton (1983) that takes the goal of argumentation to be the defeat of other arguments and that narrows the terms of discourse in order to facilitate such defeat. My analysis of the textbooks shows that the Adversary Method operates as a Kuhnian paradigm in philosophy, and demonstrates that the popular fallacies pedagogy is authoritarian in being unresponsive to the scholarly developments in informal logic and argumentation theory. A progressive evolution for the fallacies approach is offered as an authoritative alternative

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.22329/il.v30i3.3035

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Critique of an epistemic account of fallacies.Jonathan E. Adler - 1993 - Argumentation 7 (3):263-272.
Reasoning Under Uncertainty: The Role of Two Informal Fallacies in an Emerging Scientific Inquiry.Louise Cummings - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (2).
Fallacies.Robert J. Fogelin & Timothy J. Duggan - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):255-262.
Classification of Fallacies of Relevance.Douglas Walton - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (1):71-103.
There is no Fallacy of Arguing from Authority.Edwin Coleman - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (3).
What is a Sophistical Refutation?David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):283-301.
The Revelation Argument. A 'Communicational Fallacy'.Marco Rühl - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (1):73-96.
Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They Are.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):159-184.
A probability logical interpretation of fallacies.Niki Pfeifer - 2008 - In G. Kreuzbauer, N. Gratzl & E. Hiebl (eds.), Rhetorische Wissenschaft: Rede Und Argumentation in Theorie Und Praxis. Lit. pp. 225--244.
The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus; Revisiting The Argument from Silence.Michael Gary Duncan - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):83-97.
In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation.John Biro & Harvey Siegel - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (1):91-101.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
95 (#181,339)

6 months
20 (#130,571)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Catherine Elisabeth Hundleby
University of Windsor

Citations of this work

(What) Is Feminist Logic? (What) Do We Want It to Be?Catharine Saint-Croix & Roy T. Cook - 2024 - History and Philosophy of Logic 45 (1):20-45.
Argumentation, Metaphor, and Analogy: It's Like Something Else.Chris A. Kramer - 2024 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 33 (2).

View all 25 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

A defense of abortion.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 1971 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1):47-66.
A practical study of argument.Trudy Govier - 1991 - Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Logical Self-Defense.Ralph Henry Johnson & J. Anthony Blair - 1977 - Toronto, Canada: Mcgraw-Hill.

View all 37 references / Add more references