Argumento de autoridade é todo aquele que pretende estabelecer a plausibilidade de uma proposição na credibilidade de quem a proferiu. Neste caso, a pessoa, disciplina ou tradição, a que se apela na argumentação, precisa ser aceita como uma autoridade incontestável na área da proposição em questão. O uso falacioso da autoridade, bastante frequente, faz com que os argumentos de autoridade em geral sejam mal vistos, mesmo quando pertinentes. Neste trabalho, revisa-se o conceito de argumento de (...) class='Hi'>autoridade e os critérios convencionais para verificação de sua legitimidade. Além disso, coloca-se em questão a própria noção de autoridade e a aceitabilidade de seu uso em debates filosóficos, em que os critérios convencionais para sua avaliação não se aplicam de todo. Argumenta-se, por fim, que é razoável o uso de argumentos de autoridade no enfrentamento de questões filosóficas. (shrink)

In his influential work on critical argumentation, Douglas Walton explains how to judge whether an argumentum ad verecundiam is fallacious or legitimate. He provides six critical questions and a number of ancillary sub-questions to guide the identification of reasonable appeals to authority. While it is common for informal logicians to acknowledge the role of bias in sampling procedures and hypothesis confirmation , there is a conspicuous lack of discourse on the effect of identity prejudice on judgments of authority, (...) even though this is a well-documented factor in attributing credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, and professional competence to oppressed groups. This could result in faulty judgments of ad verecundiam fallacy. Focusing on gender bias, I review recent works in feminist epistemology—particularly those of Miranda Fricker and Helen Longino —to develop three gender-based critical questions to supplement Walton’s original list of six. This addition will help us to identify erroneous dismissals of appeals to authority based on epistemic injustice and epistemic irresponsibility on the part of the speaker or knowledge community. This project promotes the overlapping aims of feminist epistemology and informal logic. (shrink)

This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of arguments based on appeals to expertise. The intersection of two areas is explored: (i) the traditional argumentum ad verecundiam (literally, “appeal to modesty,” but characteristically the appeal to the authority of expert judgment) in informal logic, and (ii) the uses of expert systems in artificial intelligence. The article identifies a model of practical reasoning that underlies the logic of expert systems and the model of argument appropriate for the informal logic (...) of the argumentum ad verecundiam. (shrink)

Este libro estudia cuestiones pertenecientes al campo de la lógica aplicada, concretamente de teoría de la argumentación informal. Abarca el análisis de los principales tipos de errores por incom­petencia argumentativa a partir de un enfoque nor­mativo actualizado y con una propuesta de taxono­mía de falacias lógicas informales basada en los cri­terios básicos de buena argumentación. Se identifi­can, describen y ejemplifican, con textos de varios niveles de dificultad, las falacias más habituales (en­tre ellas, las falacias «ad hominem, ad populum, petitio (...) principii», por inducción precipitada, falsa analogía, falso dilema) presentes en diferentes interacciones lin­güísticas interpersonales (documentos políticos, pe­riodísticos, pseudocientíficos, filosóficos) formu­ladas en lenguajes naturales. A lo largo del libro, los principales epígrafes se ilustran con textos extraídos del «Quijote» y de obras de Lewis Carroll. En los capí­tulos iniciales se abordan asuntos previos recomen­dables para la buena comprensión de los capítulos de desarrollo de falacias específicas, a saber, la re­la­ción entre lógica y retórica, los distintos tipos de ar­gumentos, la relación entre razonar y argumentar, el lugar de las emociones en la argumentación falaz y las distintas teorías y definiciones de falacia, así como los errores conceptuales más comunes asociados con el término o el vínculo entre falacias y paradojas. Se re­servan dos capítulos finales, uno sobre falacias bioéticas contemporáneas, y otro con una propuesta de «Código de Buenas Prácticas Argumentativas», fun­damentado en los criterios a partir de los que se ela­bora la taxonomía de falacias del libro. (shrink)

¿Por qué está mal hacer una petición de principio, formular una pregunta compleja, desplazar la carga de la prueba, crear un hombre de paja o usar lenguaje cargado? ¿En qué consiste el error argumentativo de las "falacias informales"? ¿Es siempre incorrecto argumentar ad hominem, ad populum, ad verecundiam? La lógica formal ha dejado estas preguntas sin respuesta, pues nunca ha sido su cometido indagar los entresijos pragmáticos de la argumentación cotidiana, más allá de las relaciones de inferencia. En (...) cambio, a la teoría de la argumentación le interesa todo aquello que forma parte del buen argumentar, incluido lo que la lógica no alcanza. Este libro es una introducción a la teoría de la argumentación, con especial atención al estudio de las falacias informales. En él se exponen los modelos más influyentes para la distinción entre buena y mala argumentación, y se discute si alguna teoría de la falacia podría servir como modelo para evaluar argumentos. Se analiza también la función del catálogo tradicional de falacias, la distinción entre malos argumentos y argumentos falaces, la posibilidad de desarrollar una teoría de la falacia digna de ese nombre e, incluso, la coherencia del concepto mismo de falacia. (shrink)

Relevance is a triadic relation between an item, an outcome or goal, and a situation. Causal relevance consists in an item's ability to help produce an outcome in a situation. Epistemic relevance, a distinct concept, consists in the ability of a piece of information (or a speech act communicating or requesting a piece of information) to help achieve an epistemic goal in a situation. It has this ability when it can be ineliminably combined with other at least potentially accurate information (...) to achieve the goal. The relevance of a conversational contribution, premiss relevance and conclusion relevance are species of epistemic relevance thus defined. The conception of premiss relevance which results provides a basis for determining when the various ‘arguments ad’ called fallacies of relevance are indeed irrelevant. In particular, an ad verecundiam appeal is irrelevant if the authority cited lacks expertise in a cognitive domain to which the conclusion belongs, the authority does not exercise its expertise in coming to endorse the conclusion, or the conclusion does not belong to a cognitive domain; otherwise the ad verecundiam is relevant. (shrink)

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 (...) jump overlooks prerequisites of the defeasible argumentation scheme for the type of argument in question. Three informal fallacies, argumentum ad verecundiam , argumentum ad ignorantiam and fear appeal argument, are used to illustrate and explain the theory. (shrink)

In a paper published in this journal Martin Hinton aims to show that the struggle between Moti Mizrahi and me about whether arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments rests on misunderstandings (Hinton 2015). Let me emphasize that I generally appreciate Hinton’s intention to settle the dispute between Mizrahi and myself in this way. 1 Furthermore, I also agree with Hinton’s conclusion that if Mizrahi is interpreted in the way Hinton does, then Mizrahi’s “claim becomes far less controversial, but also (...) rather uninteresting” (Hinton 2015, 551)—to refer to the title of my former paper: just spilling out the water wouldn’t be worth a paper in Informal Logic. 2 Let me therefore focus in this reply on the points where Hinton directly attacks my treatment of Mizrahi and also what Hinton takes to be my account of expertise. I will discuss the following criticism of Hinton: (1) that, at points, my attack on Mizrahi is unfair due to my misunderstanding of his intentions, (2) that the notion of expertise I use is self-contradictory/inconsistent, (3) that the argument for my view is circular, (4) that one of my examples—the example from soccer—is mistaken. In rebutting this criticism, I aim to clarify the background of my former paper in this journal. (shrink)

In this paper we show how some reasoning, though fallacious, can appear to be attractive and useful for beings-like-us. Although they do not provide conclusive evidence to support or reject a certain claim the way scientific statements do, they tell us something interesting about how humans build up their arguments and reasons. First of all, we will consider and investigate three main types of fallacies: argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam, and argumentum ad populum. These three (...) fallacies are traditionally considered as examples of a broader category called ignoratio elenchi. Secondly, we show how people who commit these fallacies rely on information about other human beings in their reasoning. That is, they do not follow certain logical procedures that eventually lead them to correct conclusions. But they simply make use of others as social characters. For example, being an authority, being an expert, being part of a class, etc., become the substitutes for more direct evidence to support a certain claim or to make an argument more appealing. (shrink)

In this paper, it is shown how formal dialectic can be extended to model multi-agent argumentation in which each participant is an agent. An agent is viewed as a participant in a dialogue who not only has goals, and the capability for actions, but who also has stable characteristics of types that can be relevant to an assessment of some of her arguments used in that dialogue. When agents engage in argumentation in dialogues, each agent has a credibility function that (...) can be adjusted upwards or downwards by certain types of arguments brought forward by the other agent in the dialogue. One type is the argument against the person or argumentum ad hominem, in which personal attack on one party's character is used to attack his argument. Another is the appeal to expert opinion, traditionally associated with the informal fallacy called the argumentum ad verecundiam. In any particular case, an agent will begin a dialogue with a given degree of credibility, and what is here called the credibility function will affect the plausibility of the arguments put forward by that agent. In this paper, an agent is shown to have specific character traits that are vital to properly judging how this credibility function should affect the plausibility of her arguments, including veracity, prudence, sincerity and openness to opposed arguments. When one of these traits is a relevant basis for an adjustment in a credibility function, there is a shift to a subdialogue in which the argumentation in the case is re-evaluated. In such a case, it is shown how the outcome can legitimately be a reduction in the credibility rating of the arguer who was attacked. Then it is shown how the credibility function should be brought into an argument evaluation in the case, yielding the outcome that the argument is assigned a lower plausibility value. (shrink)

A dialogue-based analysis of informal fallacies does not provide a fully adequate explanation of our intuitions about what is wrong with ad baculum and of when it is admissible and when it is not. The dialogue-based analysis explains well why mild, benign threats can be legitimate in some situations, such as cooperative bargaining and negotiation, but does not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats to coerce and to intimidate. I propose an alternative deriving partly (...) from virtue theory in ethics and epistemology and partly from Kantian principles of respect for persons as ends-in-themselves. I examine some specific kinds of social relations, e.g., parent-child and partner relationships, and ask what kinds of threats are permissible in these relationships and especially what is wrong with the objectionable threats. My explanation is framed in terms of the good character and contributing virtues of the ideal parent or partner on the one hand, and the bad character and contributing vices of the abusive parent or violent partner on the other. This analysis puts the discussion of theats in the context of virtue theory, of human flourishing, and of the kind of social relations it is best to have. In general, what's wrong with argumentum ad baculum should be explained in terms of the intentions, purposes, and character of threateners, and the differences in intentions and purposes for which threats are made. The characters of those who make the threats will provide the criteria for distinguishing benign and malicious threats. (shrink)

Lógica viva de Vaz Ferreira (1910) es considerada una original contribución a la reflexión lógica ---por ejemplo, recientemente, Vega Reñón (2013 y 2019) ha resaltado su relevancia---. Lógica viva puede interpretarse como la fundamentación, exposición e implementación parcial de un programa de indagación lógica, que anima una relectura de los contenidos tradicionales y una ampliación del elenco tradicional de paralogismos (Seoane 2019b). Al hacerlo entrelaza invención lógica y pedagógica. Desde esta óptica, resulta clave el contraste (...) entre su estilo de ejemplificar y el estilo usual de los manuales de lógica. Este trabajo propone una interpretación de la política de ejemplificación de Lógica viva. (shrink)

Expertise, authority, and testimony refer to aspects of one of the most important elements of communication and cognition. Argumentation theory recognises various forms of what we call the argumentum ad alia pattern, in which speakers appeal to what others have said, including Position to Know scheme, Witness Testimony scheme, Expert Opinion scheme and the classical ad verecundiam. In this paper we show that ad alia involves more than merely an inferential step from what others (a person in position (...) to know, a witness, an expert) have said, and that studying this type of argumentation requires going beyond the argument structure of propositional contents to account for different speech activities. We also demonstrate that using the words of others, attacking what has been said, and reasoning from how others reason constitute a rich repertoire of communication strategies which we need to model in order to be able to analyse them manually and to process them computationally. (shrink)

What are the historical origins of the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from consequences, sometimes featured as an informal fallacy in logic textbooks? As shown in this paper, knowledge of the argument can be traced back to Aristotle. And this type of argument shows a spotty history of recognition in logic texts and manuals over the centuries. But how it got into the modern logic textbooks as a fallacy remains somewhat obscure. Its modern genesis is traced to the logic (...) text of James McCosh. (shrink)

"What Type of Argument is an Ad Verecundiam?".

La lógica de la conciencia es una extensión de la lógica epistémica que solventa el problema de la omnisciencia lógica incorporando un operador de conciencia para separar el conocimiento explícito del implícito. Este informe recopila los principales textos tanto de los orígenes de esta lógica, así como de sus desarrollos en las últimas tres décadas. En concreto analiza los enfoques desde la lógica epistémica dinámica, desde su combinación con otras lógicas y los enfoques de teoría (...) de juegos. (shrink)

This article outlines criteria for the evaluation of the argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person, or personal attack in argument) that is traditionally a part of the curriculum in informal logic. The argument is shown to be a kind of criticism which works by shifting the burden of proof in dialogue through citing a pragmatic inconsistency in an arguer's position. Several specific cases of ad hominem argumentation which pose interesting problems in analyzing this type of criticism are studied.

El objetivo de este artículo es ofrecer una explicación de la legitimidad de ciertos argumentos ad hominem acudiendo a la epistemología de las virtudes. La tesis central es que hay argumentos ad hominem que son aceptables si se conciben como argumentos inductivos cuya fuerza está determinada por una apelación justa a los vicios epistémicos del interlocutor. Se argumenta que algunos argumentos ad hominem abusivos son aceptables si descansan en un señalamiento justo de la carencia de virtudes epistémicas confiabilistas por parte (...) del interlocutor. Así mismo, algunos argumentos ad hominem circunstanciales serían aceptables si descansan en un señalamiento justo de la carencia de virtudes responabilistas por parte del interlocutor. El artículo también expone cómo otros intentos de reivindicación de los argumentos ad hominem adolecen de algunos problemas. (shrink)

Algunos desarrollos recientes de la lógica informal han señalado la crucial importancia de las falacias en el entendimiento del razonamiento la regulación del pensamiento. Teniendo esa importancia en mente, este artículo ofrece un esquema de la teoría aristotélica de las falacias y avanza con algunos comentarios sobre su influencia en toda la teoría lógica propuesta por Aristóteles.

En este texto, exploramos los vínculos entre los argumentos de autoridad y el testimonio como fuente de conocimiento. Después de una introducción, en la segunda parte del trabajo, clarificamos y ejemplificamos los conceptos de argumento de autoridad y de testimonio. Distinguimos entre argumentos teóricos y prácticos y damos sus respectivos esquemas formales. En la tercera parte nos detenemos en el uso de los argumentos de autoridad y del testimonio en el pensamiento de Aristóteles y de San Agustín. En la cuarta (...) parte intentamos mostrar que la desvalorización de los argumentos de autoridad, en algunos filósofos modernos, corrió paralela con una posición reduccionista en relación al testimonio. Pero reconocemos en la Lógica de Port Royal una posición más equilibrada. En la quinta parte nuestra perspectiva es más sistemática al comparar los criterios dados contemporáneamente para aceptar argumentos de autoridad y testimonios. En la sexta parte distinguidos diversos tipos de autoridad. La última parte de este trabajo está dedicada a las conclusiones. (shrink)

El objetivo del artículo es evaluar la solidez de la tesis defendida por Denis Coitinho de que la moral pública y la moral privada tienen naturalezas normativamente distintas. Recientemente, Coitinho (2021) ha argumentado que las teorías monistas son incapaces de explicar la complejidad de la moral porque no consideran la dualidad normativa de la ética. Al tratar el razonamien-to moral como un asunto de todo o nada, ignoran el hecho de que la autoridad normativa de la moralidad pública es intersubjetiva (...) y la autoridad normativa de la moralidad privada es subjetiva. Apesar de lo atractivo de la propuesta de Coitinho, discuto cuatro puntos que, creo, merecen una investigación más detallada. Primero, argumento que la autoridad normativa de la esfera privada parece excluir la posibilidad de dirigir una crítica racional del conjunto de deseos e intereses de un agente. Luego muestro que tomar el trabajo de Dworkin sobre la integridad como ejemplo puede ser problemático dados los fines del proyecto de Coitinho, y sostengo que la integridad se ve mejor como una virtud epistémica que como una virtud privada. Finalmente, exploro escenarios en los cuales la tesis de la superioridad de la normatividad pública sobre la privada parece conducir a consecuencias contrarias a la intuición. (shrink)

Stephen Hetherington é um dos mais proeminentes epistemólogos a defender que é possível ter conhecimento segundo as condições de crença verdadeira e justificada, apesar dos contraexemplos elaborados por Edmund Gettier. Ele fundamentou sua perspectiva no pressuposto de falibilidade do conhecimento e naquilo que ele chamou de "falácia de contrafactuais epistêmicos", segundo a qual não se deve assumir impossibilidade do conhecimento factual apenas em virtude da sua impossibilidade contrafactual - o que é reiterado por Anthony Booth. As críticas apresentadas por Brent (...) Madison, John Turri e Duncan Prtichard apontaram para a relevância das suas ideias, mas também para o fato de que Hetherington ignorou que há diferentes tipos de sorte que podem interferir no processo de aquisição de conhecimento. Palavras-chave: Falácia de contrafactuais epistêmicos. Falibilismo. Infalibilismo. Sorte epistêmica. Stephen Hetherington. (shrink)

In the article, referring to the method of rational reconstruction described by R. Rorty, an analysis of some works of J. Locke has been made in order to identify new prospects in John Locke's philosophy researches. As a result, it’s been demonstrated the presence of silence as an argument and a manifestation of respect J. Locke’s research of realms of cognition, political philosophy and philosophy of education. This is not covered in modern John Locke's philosophy researches. The authors emphasize that (...) J. Locke, although not directly exploring silence as an argument, however, describes the argument ad ignorantiam, the wording of which in the work «An Essay Concerning Human Understanding» and his understanding of tacit consent in the work «Two Treatises of Government» are related to silence as an argument and a manifestation of respect. The position that silence as an argument is present in all four arguments (argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad judicium) described by J. Locke is substantiated. Additionally, the argument ad ignorantiam can be considered both as an argument from silence (ex silentio argument) and as a kind of argument to silence. Considered arguments can serve as an argument to silence for the proponent and/or the third party, that is, anyone who is not directly involved in the dispute. Basing on J. Locke's explanation of the characteristic feature of tacit consent, that is, the absence of the expressed consent/disagreement, the possibility of distinguishing the indirect connection between tacit consent and the argument ad ignorantiam is demonstrated, since both tacit consent and the argument ad ignorantiam in J. Locke's works rely on the absence of expressed statements on the consent or disagreement of the opponent. It is established that the ideas of the education of children described by J. Locke also correlate with silence as an argument and a manifestation of respect. Applying the classification of the types of respect proposed by S. Hudson and complemented by R. Dillon to the use of the term «respect» to the various texts of J. Locke, it is substantiated that described by him respect covered almost all kinds of this classification. (shrink)

In this chapter I argue that intellectual humility is related to argumentation in several distinct but mutually supporting ways. I begin by drawing connections between humility and two topics of long-standing importance to the evaluation of informal arguments: the ad verecundiam fallacy and the principle of charity. I then explore the more explicit role that humility plays in recent work on critical thinking dispositions, deliberative virtues, and virtue theories of argumentation.

La rinascita negli ultimi decenni di un nutrito dibattito intorno alla nozione di analiticità dopo le critiche a suo tempo mosse da Quine alla batteria di nozioni utilizzate da Rudolf Carnap (ad esempio, postulati di significato, regole semantiche, definizioni implicite, convenzioni e stipulazioni esplicite) prende le mosse da una riflessione critica sulle argomentazioni di Quine e tenta, da un lato, di approfondire meglio il legame fra analiticità e conoscenza a priori, e, dall’altro, di capire meglio il ruolo che la definizione (...) può svolgere nella costituzione del significato e nella formulazione di verità concettuali. Questa nuova concezione è detta “epistemica” ed ha fra i suoi più autorevoli fautori Crispin Wright, Bob Hale e Paul Boghossian. Boghossian, al pari di molti filosofi critici della nuova concezione epistemica, come Timothy Williamson, conviene però con Quine nel sostenere che gli enunciati analitici hanno portata fattuale e vertono anch’essi sul mondo, oltre che sul linguaggio. Anche per questa ragione essi possono rendere possibile una genuina estensione delle nostre conoscenze. Tuttavia una seconda linea di obiezioni facenti capo dapprima a Paul Horwich, e in seguito agli stessi Wright e Hale, mette in evidenza rispettivamente due difficoltà corrispondenti alle questioni dell’arroganza e dell’accettazione. In questa discussione una parte importante è svolta dalla ripresa e della discussione del condizionale di Carnap, impiegato per rendere conto del ruolo che i termini teorici svolgono nel quadro dell’intera teoria cui appartengono, senza con ciò sposare le conseguenze dell’olismo quineano. La tesi centrale che questo lavoro cerca di rendere plausibile è che una lettura attenta degli ultimi scritti di Carnap mostri come il carattere aperto che egli attribuisce ai termini teorici in ragione, sia dello loro intrinseca indeterminatezza, sia delle revisioni imposte dalle scoperte scientifiche, è perfettamente compatibile con la fattorizzazione del contenuto di una teoria scientifica data in una parte linguistica, il condizionale di Carnap, riguardante la costituzione del significato di un certo termine teorico, e nella sua controparte empirica, che consente di registrare l’impatto dell’esperienza sulla teoria in questione. Se praticabile, questa concezione può a buon diritto entrare nel novero delle teorie epistemiche dell’analiticità, senza accampare alcuna pretesa di far rivivere i fasti della conoscenza a priori classica. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the current thesis on the modern origin of the ad hominem-argument, by analysing the Aristotelian conception of it. In view of the recent accounts which consider it a relative argument, i.e., acceptable only by the particular respondent, I maintain that there are two Aristotelian versions of the ad hominem, that have identifiable characteristics, and both correspond to the standard variants distinguished in the contemporary treatments of the famous informal fallacy: the abusive and the circumstancial or (...) tu quoque types. I propose to reconstruct the two Aristotelian versions (see sections 1 and 2), which have been recognized again in the ninteenth century (sec. 3). Finally, I examine whether or not it was considered as a fallacious dialogue device by Aristotle and by A. Schopenhauer (sec. 4). (shrink)

Incluido a modo de prólogo en el libro Epistemología crítica de la violencia del capital. Verdad y violencia epistémica, el trabajo “Verdad y violencia epistémica. Desafíos al conocimiento humanista sobre lo universal” busca analizar críticamente esa forma particular de violencia que, utilizando herramientas epistemológicas, se basa en el control monopólico de la verdad y en el secuestro de la universalidad humana por parte de aquellos que encarnan los intereses asociados a la lógica del capital y que, precisamente gracias a (...) ese control y a ese secuestro, hacen pasar por verdadera y universal su propia visión del mundo. Al mismo tiempo, se devela la complicidad que con tal posición posee en los hechos, sea o no consciente de ello, aquella postura teórica que, para supuestamente enfrentar tal usurpación de la verdad y la universalidad, asume como salida la negación en abstracto de la existencia misma de la una y la otra. En contraste crítico con esta postura, el trabajo se propone mostrar las condiciones de posibilidad real y concreta del conocimiento verdadero sobre lo universal. (shrink)

El presente artículo tiene el propósito de describir y analizar de manera sistemática la naturaleza de la lógica de la investigación científica que viene principalmente caracterizada por el método científico y el razonamiento o inferencia abductiva propuesta por el filósofo pragmatista Charles Sanders Peirce. El texto inicia con una crítica hacia la postura racionalista de Descartes y trascendentalista de Kant. Prosigue tanto con una explicación de las nociones de “duda” y “creencia” como con una descripción de los métodos para (...) fijar nuestras “creencias” (método de la tenacidad, método de la autoridad, método a priori y método científico). Y concluye con la dilucidación del método científico, cuya naturaleza se encuentra determinada por las tres formas de razonamiento o inferencia: abducción, deducción e inducción. (shrink)

In charging argumentum ad hominem, we accuse someone of attacking the source of a claim. In charging argumentum ad verecundiam, we attack the source of a claim. This is reason for attending to "attacking the source." It is important to distinguish probabilistic reasons for doubting a claim and evidentiary reasons. Evidence that the source of a claim is likely to be wrong is not evidence against the claim. The tendency to overlook this is the essential feature of (...) the ad hominem fallacy. This is relevant in assessing the view that someone who regards his thinking as made possible by Godless arrangements of matter largely determined by chance is, in taking this attitude, advancing a hypothesis which undermines his theorizing about the world or himself. (shrink)

A presente investigação questiona a essência teo-lógica dos futuros contingentes. Para o efeito, analisa-se, primeiramente, a argumentação segundo a qual, sob certas con­dições lógicas, teológicas, ontológicas e cosmológicas anti-necessitantes, detetadas por G. W. Leibniz (conciliando a posição de St. Agostinho com a de L. Molina e W. Ockham), a abertura contingente do futuro parece ser compatível com o regime das “verdades contingentes pré-determinadas”, regime enquadrado teologicamente pelo princípio do “futuro melhor” ou do “único futuro verdadeiro”. No entanto, os (...) futuros contingentes incitam, com e contra Aristóteles, ao desenvolvimento de uma lógica temporal e plurivalente, ao modo de J. Łukasiewicz ou A. Prior. Esta lógica garante a abertura do futuro sem o oneroso custo metafísico da adesão a uma teo-lógica omni-determinante. A crítica do determinismo lógico, daí resultante, afigura-se mais coadunável com as condições pós-metafísicas ine­rentes à episteme agnóstica contemporânea, mas, nesse caso, a abertura do futuro impli­caria uma profunda redefinição das próprias ideias e funções de “Deus”, “matéria”, “história” e “verdade”. (shrink)

En años recientes se han diseñado múltiples experimentos que muestran cómo el razonamiento humano tiende a quebrantar lo que usualmente se consideran los principios normativos de razonamiento, a saber, los principios de la teoría estándar de la probabilidad y de la lógica clásica. Estos supuestos quebrantos han sido interpretados como muestra de la irracionalidad humana. Una noción de norma del razonamiento diferente de la subyacente en dicha interpretación me permite afirmar que razonar correctamente implica razonar de acuerdo con reglas (...) diseñadas para resolver una clase limitada de problemas en el marco de un dominio especifico y que pueden no ser formulados en términos de principios generales. Esta idea me lleva a sostener que la estructura heurística de nuestro razonamiento apunta a la manera como somos racionales. /// Much research in the last decades has demonstrated that khuman reasoning tends to violate what have usually been regarded as the normative principles of reasoning -- e.g. the principles of standard theory of probability or classical logic. These supposed violations have been interpreted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. A notion of a reasoning norm different from that underlying such an interpretation allows me to assert that correct reasoning implies reasoning in accordance with rules designed to solve a limited class of problems in a specific domain of knowledge and which are not susceptible to being formulated in terms of general principies. This contention leads me to sustain that the heuristic structure of our reasoning signáis the way in which we are rational. (shrink)

En el curso de la segunda mitad del siglo XX diversos movimientos, dentro de ámbitos tanto disciplinarios (Filosofía, Derecho) como interdisciplinarios (análisis del discurso, ciencias de la comunicación, humanidades, etc.), han determinado el despegue y desarrollo de los estudios sobre la argumentación. Hoy este campo de estudio se presenta como un nuevo trivium de lógica, dialéctica y retórica, con nuevas posibilidades analíticas, en la línea de una lógica sutil de la pragmática discursiva, y con incitantes retos de constitución (...) teórica o de justificación crítica. Es, en todo caso, la lógica que debería saber una persona educada y, en particular, todo practicante de la Filosofía. Así pues, propongo introducir e implantar en los estudios de Filosofía esta lógica informal o «teoría» de la argumentación, no sólo por la implicación de la propia Filosofía en la práctica de la argumentación o por la necesidad de integrar y dar sentido a los estudios de Lógica y al análisis lógico en ese mismo marco filosófico, sino por la deseable proyección de la «teoría» de la argumentación en la línea de una lógica civil, pendiente de la índole y la calidad de los usos públicos del discurso común -proyección no tan novedosa si se recuerda una tradición guadiana de nuestra propia lógica informal, interesada en los usos de la razón, «así en lo que pertenece a las ciencias, como en lo que toca a los negocios»( P. Simón Abril, 1587). (shrink)

This is a systematic and concise introduction to more than forty fallacies, from anthropomorphism and argumentum ad baculum, to reductionism and the slippery slope argument. With helpful definitions, relevant examples, and thought-provoking exercises, the author guides the reader through the realms of fallacious reasoning and deceptive rhetoric.

[ES] La teoría de modelos parte generalmente de la definición de consecuencia lógica ofrecida por Tarski en 1936. John Etchemendy asevera que esta definición contiene una falacia si se le toma como definición genuina de este concepto. Esta aseveración ha desatado una polémica interesante. El presente ensayo resume los puntos principales en discusión y sugiere en su conclusión que el rechazo de la propuesta de Etchemendy se basa en un malentendido de la intención de su crítica, cuyo objeto no (...) es, propiamente dicho, la definición de Tarski, sino que ésta ofrece un fundamento insuficiente para la teoría de modelos. [EN] Model Theory generally assumes the definition of logical consequence proffered by Tarski in 1936. John Etchemendy suggests that Tarski’s definition contains a fallacy, from which an interesting controversy ensued about the definition and its meaning. The main points in discussion are summarized and it is suggested that the controversy is based on a misunderstanding of the intentions of Etchemendy’s criticism: the target is not so much Tarski’s definition, but that it offers an insufficient foundation for Model Theory. (shrink)

Scare Tactics, the first book on the subject, provides a theory of the structure of reasoning used in fear and threat appeal argumentation. Such arguments come under the heading of the argumentum ad baculum, the `argument to the stick/club', traditionally treated as a fallacy in the logic textbooks. The new dialectical theory is based on case studies of many interesting examples of the use of these arguments in advertising, public relations, politics, international negotiations, and everyday argumentation on all kinds (...) of subjects. Many of these arguments are amusing, once you see the clever tactic used; others are scary. Some of the arguments appear to be quite reasonable, while others are highly suspicious, or even outrageously fraudulent. In addition to the examples taken from logic textbooks, other cases treated come from a variety of sources, including political debates, legal arguments, and arguments from media sources, like magazine articles and television ads. The purpose of this book is to explain how such arguments work as devices of persuasion, and to develop a method for analyzing and evaluating their reasonable and fallacious uses in particular cases. The book shows how such arguments share a common structure, revealing several distinctive forms of argument nested within each other. Based on its account of this cognitive structure, the new dialectical theory presents methods for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating these arguments, as they are used in specific cases. The book is a scholarly contribution to argumentation theory. It is written in an accessible style, and uses many colorful and provocative examples of fear and threat appeal arguments that are suitable for classroom discussions. The matters treated will be of interest to professionals and students in law, critical thinking, advertising, speech communication, informal logic, cognitive science, rhetoric, and media studies. (shrink)

This paper presents an analysis of the concept of burden of proof in argument. Relationship of burden of proof to three traditional informal fallacies is considered: (i) argumentum ad hominem, (ii) petitio principii, and (iii) argumentum ad ignorantiam. Other topics discussed include persuasive dialoque, pragmatic reasoning, legal burden of proof, plausible reasoning in regulated disputes, rules of dialogue, and the value of reasoned dialogue.

Two brainless curs, Alan Brinton and Douglas Walton, have recently had the impudence to suggest that several of my views on argumentum ad baculum are mistaken. While hardship and toil await them in this life and eternal damnation in the next, punishment begins with this paper. In it, I clarify my position, defend my views, and critique their arguments. Last, I argue ad baculum against both of them, threatening both with the loss of reputation, employment, and respect unless they (...) repudiate every objection raised against me and publicly abase themselves. (shrink)

RESUMO O presente artigo apresenta uma semântica baseada nas atitudes cognitivas de aceitação e rejeição por uma sociedade de agentes para lógicas inspiradas no First Degree Entailment de Dunn e Belnap. Diferente das situações epistêmicas originalmente usadas em E, as atitudes cognitivas não coincidem com valores-de-verdade e parecem mais adequadas para as lógicas que pretendem considerar o conteúdo informacional de proposições “ditas verdadeiras” tanto quanto as proposições “ditas falsas” como determinantes da noção de validade das inferências. Após analisar algumas lógicas (...) associadas à semântica proposta, introduzimos a lógica E B cuja relação de consequência semântica subjacente - o B-entailment - é capaz de expressar diversos tipos de raciocínio em relação às atitudes cognitivas de aceitação e rejeição. Apresentamos também um cálculo de sequentes correto e completo para E B.ABSTRACT In the present work I introduce a semantics based on the cognitive attitudes of acceptation and rejection entertained by a given society of agents for logics inspired on Dunn and Belnap’s ‘First Degree Entailment’. Distinctly from the original epistemic situation of E, the cognitive attitudes do not coincide with truth-values and it seems more suitable for logics that intend to consider the informational content of propositions “said to be true” as well as propositions “said to be false” as determinants of the notion of logical validity. After analyzing some logics associated with the proposed semantics, we introduce the logic E B, whose underlying semantic entailment relation - the B-entailment - is able to express several kinds of reasoning towards the cognitive attitudes of acceptance and rejection. Acorrect and complete sequent calculus for E B is also presented. (shrink)

Interpretar un texto filosófico supone procurar descifrar su significado, identificar sus tesis y aislar sus argumentos. Desarrollar un texto filosófico, en cambio, consiste en seleccionar ciertas ideas fundamentales, valiosas aunque necesitadas de afinamiento, y lograr su mejor formulación. Lógica Viva, la obra filosófica más importante de Vaz Ferreira, ha merecido diversas interpretaciones y desarrollos. En particular, esto ha ocurrido con su capítulo dedicado a la falsa oposición. El objetivo principal de esta nota es reconocer cinco enigmas en tal capítulo, (...) relevantes para una interpretación y decisivos para ciertos desarrollos. Expresados sucintamente en forma de interrogantes los mismos podrían exponerse así: ¿cómo entender, en este contexto, oposición?, ¿cuál es el papel que, en la caracterización del paralogismo, juega la ejemplificación?, ¿cuán relevantes son, en tal labor, las dimensiones literal y no-literal?, ¿en qué consiste el “mal argumento” que se considera falsa oposición?, ¿cómo equivoca y cómo persuade el mismo? Se recurre además a un modelo de análisis argumental (denominado M), inspirado en las ideas de Vaz Ferreira, a los efectos de mostrar cómo su uso auspicia, por una parte, un tratamiento explícito de estos enigmas y, por otra, desafiado por estos, cómo su aplicación pueda quizá sugerir líneas prometedoras de interpretación y/o desarrollo. Estas páginas pretenden asimismo ilustrar ciertas relaciones entre ambas actividades. (shrink)

In this paper, I will try to answer the question: How are we supposed to assess the expert’s opinion in an argument from the position of an outsider to the specialized field? by placing it in the larger context of the political status of epistemic authority. In order to do this I will first sketch the actual debate around the problem of expertise in a democracy and relate this to the issue of the status of science in society. Secondly, I (...) will review how Douglas Walton’s pragma-dialectical approach offers a practical procedure to assess the expert bias from a nonprofessional’s perspective. Thirdly, I will introduce the problem of group bias using insights from Bohman and Fischer and show how Walton’s solution does not address this specific type of bias. Lastly, I will try proposing a revision of Walton’s solution in order to address this problem. In order to make the explanation more easy to follow I will use a case study concerning the medical expertise in the public debate on second-hand smoke. (shrink)

Methodus Argumentandi Se trata de una introducción a la lógica informal que, además de tratar lo temas tradicionales como los esquemas argumentativos y las falacias, incluye otros provenientes de la lingüística, como los conectores argumentativos, o de la lógica forma, como la teoría de los sistemas de argumentación abstractos.

Neste artigo farei uma breve exposição dos modelos de redução teórica de Hempel e Nagel e de dois exemplos históricos propostos por Feyerabend para sugerir a insuficiência de tais modelos para advogar um progresso científico. Argumentarei que Feyerabend não consegue refutar totalmente a lógica da redução pelos exemplos dados, contribuindo, no entanto para enfraquecê-la. Concluirei que uma possível contribuição da crítica feyerabendiana se traduz no campo da virtude epistêmica de evitar o dogmatismo.

In this paper, we consider the way that web documents seeking to persuade readers of certain science claims provide information about the sources of the arguments. Our quantitative analysis reveals that web documents in our sample include hundreds of examples in which the reader is provided information regarding the trustworthiness of sources. The web documents also contain a large number of examples in which the reader is provided with information about how many individuals hold a particular belief. We discuss ad (...) hominem, ad verecundiam, and ad populum arguments, and the way that the examples found in our sample of documents are related to these argumentation schemes. (shrink)

Il linguaggio rappresenta uno degli aspetti più caratterizzanti di Processo e realtà e al contempo uno degli scogli più ardui per chi si accinge alla lettura. Per comprendere le ragioni di questa scelta, il presente articolo ripercorre le riflessioni di Whitehead sul linguaggio, sia ordinario che filosofico, per poi approdare ad un’analisi critica del linguaggio di Processo e realtà, tesa a mostrare il nesso profondo che sussiste tra la filosofia dell’evento e le decisioni che l’autore prende a livello lessicale e (...) sintattico. (shrink)