z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They Are
Author(s) -
Douglas Walton
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
informal logic
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.368
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 2293-734X
pISSN - 0824-2577
DOI - 10.22329/il.v30i2.2868
Subject(s) - argument (complex analysis) , argumentation theory , heuristics , appeal , epistemology , defeasible estate , philosophy , computer science , law , political science , biochemistry , chemistry , operating system
This paper explains how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation combines heuristics and argumentation schemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem. They are reasonable to use, but sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, such a 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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom