Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme
In this paper, several examples from the literature, and one central new one, are used as case studies of texts of discourse containing an argumentation scheme that has now been widely investigated in literature on argumentation. Argumentation schemes represent common patterns of reasoning used in everyday conversational discourse. The most typical ones represent defeasible arguments based on n...
متن کاملThe Structure of Ad Hominem Dialogues
The paper proposes a new perspective on modelling ad hominem (AH) techniques in a dialogue. The approach is built upon the following assumptions: (i) that ad hominem is not an inferential, but undercutting structure; (ii) that it can be a non-fallacious dialectical technique in some communicative contexts; and (iii) that critical questions in Walton’s AH scheme can be used to determine strategi...
متن کاملBefore Name-calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation
Arguing without committing a fallacy is one of the main requirements of an ideal debate. But even when debating rules are strictly enforced and fallacious arguments punished, arguers often lapse into attacking the opponent by an ad hominem argument. As existing research lacks solid empirical investigation of the typology of ad hominem arguments as well as their potential causes, this paper fill...
متن کاملBecause Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem
Bayesian probability has recently been proposed as a normative theory of argumentation. In this article, we provide a Bayesian formalisation of the ad Hitlerum argument, as a special case of the ad hominem argument. Across 3 experiments, we demonstrate that people's evaluation of the argument is sensitive to probabilistic factors deemed relevant on a Bayesian formalisation. Moreover, we provide...
متن کاملToward an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments
Argumentation is a crucial component of our lives. Although in the absence of rational debate our legal, political, and scientific systems would not be possible, there is still no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Furthermore, classical theories of argumentation are normative (i.e., the acceptability of an argument is determined by a set of norms or logical rules),...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Journal of Applied Logic
سال: 2010
ISSN: 1570-8683
DOI: 10.1016/j.jal.2008.07.002