Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
The 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 کاملFormalization 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 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 کاملUse of fallacious arguments, Ad Hominem attacks, and biased 'expert opinions' can make CBP research 'appear flawed'.
Introduction In a recent editorial, Cooperstein et al.1 made numerous claims, supported only by their Level 5 evidence (opinion), concerning an article which we authored in the December 2005 issue of this journal.2 Our original article was a review of publications of structural rehabilitation methods utilized in CBP® technique.2 The criticisms of Cooperstein et al.1 can be categorized into 8 po...
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 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: Informal Logic
سال: 2015
ISSN: 0824-2577,0824-2577
DOI: 10.22329/il.v35i4.4330