The Fallacy of Treating the Ad Baculum as a Fallacy

Informal Logic 19 (2) (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The ad baculum is not a fallacy in an argument, but is offered instead of an argument to put an end to further argument. This claim is the basis for criticizing Michael Wreen's "neo-traditionalism," which yields misreadings of supposed cases of the ad baculum because of its rejection of any consideration of what the person using the ad baculum, or someone who refers to that use as an "argument," is doing. The paper concludes with reflections on the values that should inform talk of a fallacy in an argument such as the one that Wreen is giving

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
58 (#248,081)

6 months
3 (#445,838)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Don Levi
University of Oregon

References found in this work

Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument.Douglas Neil Walton - 1989 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
The Place of Emotion in Argument.Douglas N. Walton - 1992 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
The Place of Emotion in Argument.Douglas WALTON - 1992 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 29 (1):84-86.

View all 12 references / Add more references