Page 50 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 50
four critical essays on argumentation
Superabundance and redundance of fallacies
If we take a look at a situation 40 years after Hamblin, which is today, what
we see is an enormous interest in fallacies: there are many, even too many
writings on fallacies, and many, even too many definitions of what fallacies
are. But the reason for this inflation of writings on fallacies (and even pro-
duction of ever new ones) may be the same as the one Hamblin mentioned
for the shortage of accounts on fallacies: the impossibility to unequivocally
and unambiguously classify fallacies at all.
Here is a sample of definitions we can find online; I emphasized the
most ambiguous and vague parts of these definitions, and provided short
glosses between square brackets:
Vagueness and ambiguity of definitions
(1) A fallacy is, very generally, [not specific enough, no informative
value] an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error,
which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specif-
ic, a fallacy is an ‘argument’ in which the premises given for the
conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support [what kind
of support? to what degree? where are the limits of the ‘needed
support’ and how is it defined?] (Labossiere, The Nizkor Project
(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/))
(2) In logic and rhetoric [logic and rhetoric have very different prin-
ciples of functioning] a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argu-
mentation [unclear; what is ‘reasoning in argumentation’? isn’t
every reasoning based on arguments?] resulting in a misconcep-
tion [misconception of what?]. By accident or design, fallacies may
exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g., ap-
peal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between
people (e.g., argument from authority) [unclear and vague de-
scriptions, not even definitions; no clear criteria to recognize the
mentioned fallacies]. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fallacy)).
(3) A fallacy is a kind of error [unclear; what does ‘a kind of ...’ mean?]
in reasoning. ... Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they of-
ten are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be
created intentionally in order to deceive other people. (Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/))
50
Superabundance and redundance of fallacies
If we take a look at a situation 40 years after Hamblin, which is today, what
we see is an enormous interest in fallacies: there are many, even too many
writings on fallacies, and many, even too many definitions of what fallacies
are. But the reason for this inflation of writings on fallacies (and even pro-
duction of ever new ones) may be the same as the one Hamblin mentioned
for the shortage of accounts on fallacies: the impossibility to unequivocally
and unambiguously classify fallacies at all.
Here is a sample of definitions we can find online; I emphasized the
most ambiguous and vague parts of these definitions, and provided short
glosses between square brackets:
Vagueness and ambiguity of definitions
(1) A fallacy is, very generally, [not specific enough, no informative
value] an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error,
which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specif-
ic, a fallacy is an ‘argument’ in which the premises given for the
conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support [what kind
of support? to what degree? where are the limits of the ‘needed
support’ and how is it defined?] (Labossiere, The Nizkor Project
(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/))
(2) In logic and rhetoric [logic and rhetoric have very different prin-
ciples of functioning] a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argu-
mentation [unclear; what is ‘reasoning in argumentation’? isn’t
every reasoning based on arguments?] resulting in a misconcep-
tion [misconception of what?]. By accident or design, fallacies may
exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g., ap-
peal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between
people (e.g., argument from authority) [unclear and vague de-
scriptions, not even definitions; no clear criteria to recognize the
mentioned fallacies]. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fallacy)).
(3) A fallacy is a kind of error [unclear; what does ‘a kind of ...’ mean?]
in reasoning. ... Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they of-
ten are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be
created intentionally in order to deceive other people. (Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/))
50
